Juno News - Fighting Trudeau’s travel mandate in court Part. 2

00:00:00.720 Because the second you start limiting an individual's ability to move,

00:00:04.400 whether it's for a pandemic or war or whatever the case might be, it's effectively the government

00:00:08.320 telling you we know better than you where you should be going. And I don't think that's an

00:00:12.640 outcome from a political philosophy perspective that should ever be tolerated because I don't

00:00:16.960 think that can ever be true. You know, certain measures need to be taken for people's protection

00:00:22.480 and safety. And, you know, there's many instances where the state does know and is acting on great

00:00:27.360 information and acting, you know, for the collective welfare of people. And you have to make some

00:00:31.440 compromises day to day that are practical. But asking people to make an irreversible decision

00:00:38.640 as a precondition to enjoying one of the most fundamental human rights I think we have on

00:00:44.560 this planet, certainly in a Western democracy, you know, that gives me a lot of pause for concern.

00:00:57.360 Yeah, that's very well said. You know, I wanted to say something about what Carl was saying earlier,

00:01:17.280 about I think you pointed to how so many people weren't even aware of the existence of the mandates.

00:01:24.080 I have I have a story to share shortly after the truckers protest, or in the midst of the truckers

00:01:30.480 protest, I think, or towards the end of it, several provinces started dismantling the vaccine passport

00:01:35.840 system, if you if you remember. And, and I remember, after the protests, the protests continued, people

00:01:44.320 would show up on Parliament Hill, or they would, you know, congregate around the War Memorial. And,

00:01:52.160 you know, every weekend, a few people would protest, but 100 people would show up or so. And

00:01:58.080 the average Ottawa person would say, Well, why are you still protesting? The mandates are all gone.

00:02:03.040 And I would tell them, No, the the travel mandate is still in place. Five, six million Canadians can't

00:02:08.720 even get on a train to go across the country. They can't even leave the country if they wanted to. And

00:02:15.120 then the mandates that apply to the civil service, there are there are people in the civil service who

00:02:19.760 have been on leave without pay for six months. And they would just look at me stunned, or they would

00:02:27.280 think that I was making it up. And this was very similar to responses I would get online as well. I

00:02:33.280 mean, why are you still writing about mandates when they've all been removed by the provinces?

00:02:38.480 So it's amazing how the federal government mandates just didn't get the attention it deserved. It's

00:02:44.720 almost like it didn't exist. The biggest criminals in this have been is the Canadian legacy media.

00:02:51.920 Because the government will get away with whatever they can get away with. Right. But the fact that the

00:02:57.680 media who are supposed to be there reporting the news chose to not only not report what was really

00:03:03.920 happening, they chose to promote a false narrative. And we know that now to be a false narrative. We

00:03:11.600 know that, and I'll say it out loud, they lied. And the media, I think, have been the biggest

00:03:18.160 contributor over the last two years to a lot of these things that have happened.

00:03:24.800 One of the things that the government did, this is very, I mean, it's devious, actually, I thought you

00:03:28.400 may have noticed this or not. But when they lifted, and they did this throughout 2022, a bit ahead of

00:03:36.400 suspending and, you know, we need there's a different term, I mean, suspending is an ending way. But when

00:03:42.880 they suspended these vaccines as a precondition to travel the mandates around that, that was one thing,

00:03:51.760 but ahead of that, what they were doing was very, very devious. And when they were removing restrictions,

00:03:57.040 they dropped the distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated. And they just started using

00:04:02.000 language such as, we're removing the requirement for, you know, testing or whatever for travellers,

00:04:08.720 for travel. And the same's happened in New Zealand recently, where it's, the media will report it as

00:04:15.840 New Zealand drops all mandates or conditions for travel. But that's not true. You still need to be,

00:04:23.280 for example, you still need to be proof of vaccination to go into New Zealand, and it happened

00:04:27.600 here. So people were just talking about travellers, the distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated

00:04:33.040 travellers was dropped. And that almost sort of made people who were chosen not to have the

00:04:39.280 injections as if they didn't exist. When in reality, we all know that now people coming back into Canada,

00:04:45.200 who have chosen not to have the injections, you know, accosted at the airport by Public Health

00:04:52.400 Agency of Canada agents who, you know, will try to make them stay at home for 14 days and bombard them

00:05:00.720 with telephone calls and emails, even though these people don't have COVID, at no greater risk of

00:05:06.800 having COVID or transmitting it or infecting anybody else as somebody who has had the vaccinations,

00:05:12.720 which we now know to be true. And that's still not out there. Most Canadians probably still don't know

00:05:18.880 that that's being imposed upon the so-called unvaccinated Canadians. I think the government's

00:05:24.000 played very fast and loose with the law, it's been very devious with its use of language. And some days,

00:05:29.920 I think I'm in the middle of somebody's strategic flowchart, you know, some day.

00:05:35.200 Sorry, I would also question the logic of people who are asking why someone is reporting or talking

00:05:41.920 about a measure that's no longer in place, right? I mean, to me, that's the equivalent of saying,

00:05:46.960 why are we talking about a war that's no longer active? Or why do we talk about history at all,

00:05:51.360 right? The fact that something has come and gone doesn't mean that it should escape our consideration.

00:05:57.040 It doesn't mean that we shouldn't still be critical about the decisions that were made at that point in

00:06:00.560 time. And because that's the only way we're going to learn about how we're going to handle the next

00:06:04.560 type of crisis and what should and should not be acceptable public health measures.

00:06:08.080 Yeah, exactly. Absolutely. And, you know, speaking of which, I mean, do you think

00:06:13.040 there's going to be some kind of accountability down the road from the government? You know,

00:06:19.600 you know, it's happy we're trying to do it through, you're trying to do it through the courts,

00:06:23.600 but you think we'll see some change maybe at the ballot box? Do you think there's going to be any

00:06:28.320 kind of accountability? Well, I guess ultimate accountability is at the ballot box. We are

00:06:35.280 optimistic that we will see some accountability in court. As you know, obviously, the process is

00:06:40.800 still unfolding. So we're all, you know, just going through that process and being patient and we'll

00:06:44.960 see where that takes us. But I'm optimistic that this in conjunction with several other things,

00:06:50.880 you know, hopefully might get people a different result. Yeah. Sean, Carl?

00:06:56.080 I mean, there's a real opportunity here for the Canadian courts to, again, you know,

00:07:08.560 to step up and take and deal with this issue and not simply take a deferential bow to the federal

00:07:18.080 government. It's such a it's a complicated issue. But that's not a reason to just rely on what the

00:07:28.400 government says is being true, because the government says there's an emergency because

00:07:32.320 the government says it has to do this. This is an opportunity for real scrutiny. And it's an opportunity

00:07:38.720 to test more thoroughly our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And particularly with regard to Section

00:07:45.120 1 of that, you know, it's a young constitution. Canada's constitution has been in existence since

00:07:51.680 1982. We're not talking about the US Constitution or the type of constitutional law that might

00:07:58.480 be in the UK and old democracies like that. There's a real, real moment here for, on the widest level,

00:08:08.240 for the Canadian judiciary to look at this and to reassure Canadians that this kind of casual

00:08:16.800 health-based discrimination isn't something that can take root in Canada. I hope they take that very,

00:08:24.480 very seriously and not show deference. I mean, certainly there are, we've seen some examples

00:08:31.760 recently. I've been sitting in the Supreme Court of BC, listening to the Chief Justice there, who's

00:08:37.920 due to make a hand down a decision in relation to proof of vaccination more widely in British Columbia.

00:08:46.400 And certainly some of the language that Chief Justice Hinkson was using in British Columbia

00:08:51.600 was encouraging insofar as it was clear that he understood the issues and wasn't just going to take,

00:08:56.880 wasn't just going to defer to government. He wasn't just going to, you know, accept what they were

00:09:01.840 saying. And he asked some difficult questions and made some interesting, interesting statements there.

00:09:08.960 And hopefully there's something, something good comes out of that. And with, I think we'd like to see

00:09:16.080 our case be heard. We'd like the, the, the judge who hears the, if there is, you know, there's going

00:09:22.080 to be an argument around whether this issue is moot or not. We'd like the judge who hears that case to

00:09:27.840 exercise his or her discretion, that this is of such public importance that they want to hear the,

00:09:34.080 the case and, and the, and the actual, the, the core issues and the merits and go ahead with the

00:09:38.400 hearing. And that will give Canadians an opportunity to hear it. It'll give the government an opportunity

00:09:43.440 to explain its thinking rather than try to push it under the.

00:09:48.480 And justify it too. Right. Yeah.

00:09:53.200 I mean, that, that's, sorry, Sean, I want to echo something Carl, uh, just said, I think it's,

00:09:58.960 it is, it is a very critical opportunity. And quite frankly, I think that difficult moments in our

00:10:03.920 political history like this, uh, are the best opportunities to decide very complicated and

00:10:11.520 difficult cases, because it's the point in time where people need the most guidance.

00:10:16.000 And it's likely the point in time where the government needs the most, um, scrutiny,

00:10:23.440 quite frankly, because it's moments of crisis breed a lot of uncertainty

00:10:28.320 and they breed a lot of panic. And those are frankly, the conditions in which we see a lot

00:10:32.160 of sweeping measures come into place. And, and I couldn't imagine a more appropriate time and place

00:10:38.080 to consider the constitutionality of these types of public health rationales. And right now,

00:10:41.840 Sean, you were going to say something, I was just going to say that, that I was going to echo kind

00:10:48.080 of what Carl said too, and, and what Sam said, but, uh, and again, you may have viewers. I don't,

00:10:52.720 some of your viewers may not be aware of the, the mootness motion, but that that's my biggest concern

00:10:57.440 right now is that the government, um, the, the attorney general of Canada and their, their council

00:11:06.400 have filed a motion, um, of mootness, uh, against these four cases. And now we have to go and sort of

00:11:13.520 fight a separate hearing on September 19th, which was originally our final hearing date,

00:11:18.960 which will now be in October. However, we have to get over that hurdle. It's quite a big hurdle.

00:11:24.400 And the fact that they're, they, they seem convinced, and I'll let Sam talk about this

00:11:28.640 more in legal terms, but that really concerns me. The fact that we may not even make it to a hearing

00:11:36.240 if they decide this case to be moot, how they can, how that he can even, it's mind boggling to me,

00:11:41.360 how they can even, how they can even contemplate that this is moot in the fact that these measures

00:11:49.040 have only been suspended. They haven't been revoked and they've made it very clear they can bring them

00:11:54.240 back anytime, but I'll, I'll hand it over to Sam to explain the mootness motion to, to everybody a bit

00:11:59.360 better. Yeah. I mean, so there, there are certain, there are situations where, uh, the original controversy

00:12:06.880 no longer exists. Um, and the, there's an infinite number of reasons why, uh, you know, the, the, the

00:12:12.000 classical example might be that your challenge of constitutionality of something, there's a previous

00:12:16.240 challenge, it's been struck, it's of no longer any consequence. So the, the general idea here is

00:12:21.440 that the courts are not going to use the limited times and resources that they have, you know, to

00:12:25.680 decide disputes between parties that practically don't have any effect on their legal rights, right?

00:12:31.760 So they're not here for, you know, they're not here to have an Oxford debate with you, uh, or kind

00:12:35.760 of a theoretical discussion. And you can have that elsewhere if there's not going to be a concrete,

00:12:40.400 tangible benefit that's going to flow from that. And, uh, there's a lot of cases that even in the

00:12:45.520 context of, of COVID that do get dismissed because as you know, uh, these public health policies get,

00:12:51.520 you know, activated and deactivated over time and you're playing a timing game, quite frankly. Uh,

00:12:57.360 I was in a situation where I started an appeal with respect to the constitutionality of, of

00:13:01.760 restrictions and outdoor gatherings in Ontario. At the time I finished my appeal materials, it was,

00:13:06.320 there was a limit, which we, we argued was unconstitutional. By the time I got the responding

00:13:10.720 submissions from the government, the limit had been revoked. A couple of months later, it was back on

00:13:15.280 and then a couple of weeks before the hearing, it was revoked again. And it just so happens that

00:13:19.680 in this game of kind of musical chairs, you it's what chair you're sitting in last. And if, if, if

00:13:25.440 the public health policies are no longer in place at the specific point in time, you're speaking to the

00:13:31.360 court, uh, there seems to be a trend that they're not going to hear it. Um, so could that be one

00:13:38.640 explanation for why, um, we've not had much success, uh, with, uh, with people challenging

00:13:45.280 mandates, uh, through the courts or, or, or lockdowns and other restrictions over the course

00:13:51.520 of the pandemic? It's a formidable challenge. Uh, getting, getting around the mootness argument is

00:13:57.360 very tough. Uh, I, you know, I, it's the, the bench has made it very clear that, uh, they will not spend

00:14:04.240 time, um, absent very special circumstances, uh, dealing with issues that have been deactivated.

00:14:10.080 Uh, and, and, you know, sometimes they're deactivated permanently. It's it's in sometimes

00:14:14.480 for a very long time. I mean, obviously now in Ontario, we're, we're not seeing a return to

00:14:18.240 a lot of the public health measures, but that's not to say that they can't come back. And it's also not

00:14:22.960 to say that those decisions wouldn't be instructive for future scenarios that might not necessarily be

00:14:27.760 identical, but could be parallel to what we've observed with COVID. Um, but at the end of the day,

00:14:32.320 it's a challenge for, for this case as it is for, you know, a lot of cases, whether it's in the

00:14:36.800 constitutional context or not, and it's something you have to be aware of as a lawyer, uh, and it's

00:14:40.800 a risk you take, and we're going to be putting our best foot forward and we hope the court agrees with

00:14:44.800 us. Yeah. Okay. Well, I wish you guys all the best. Wanted to ask, uh, the three of you, what's next

00:14:50.480 for the three of you? Um, uh, I know you've told me what's next for you in terms of the case, uh, going

00:14:56.800 forward, you have a hearing in September and, and the final hearing in October. Uh, but, uh, but you

00:15:03.760 know, what, what else is next for the three of you? Are you, um, the two of you, uh, Sean and Carl, are

00:15:08.960 you going to be traveling anytime soon? Um, are you going to be getting on a plane, going overseas to

00:15:14.000 see your, um, to see your, um, uh, parents? I, I can't, I, I run my own business, small business,

00:15:23.040 contracting business. And I just, um, I mean, there's a possibility if I came back and I followed

00:15:30.320 some of those instructions that you see people posting videos about right now, but I just can't

00:15:36.320 risk being locked in my house for two weeks. Um, I would love to go and see my family and my father

00:15:42.400 right now, but realistically, as far as I'm concerned, this was kind of a bait and switch

00:15:48.160 game. They did, they, they suspended the mandates and then kind of up the ante on the arrive can app

00:15:54.480 and the quarantine, right. Um, and they really sort of going hard off to people that they are able to

00:16:01.840 get into quarantine. So I, I just, I just can't risk not being able to visit job sites and my guys

00:16:08.160 work in, if I went to England, it would be for like five or six days. Um, but I can't take two weeks

00:16:14.240 when I returned from that trip on top. And, um, I can't speak for Carl obviously, but

00:16:21.200 yeah, I mean, I, I, I haven't, um, no, ordinarily I was back and forward to Europe every five or six weeks.

00:16:29.280 Um, uh, for my, uh, business interests, um, there, and I haven't done that for, you know,

00:16:38.160 quite some time now with all the restrictions that have been in place of varying kinds.

00:16:42.560 Um, and to some extent it's the same, you know, I, I do want to go back. I do want to see my family.

00:16:47.120 I have an elderly mother. I've got my family and friends back there. I'd like to see them and I'm

00:16:52.000 used to doing that because I'm used to going backwards and forwards. And so there's been a

00:16:55.120 commercial disadvantage for CERNA, a lot of, uh, personal disadvantage and, you know, personal pain and

00:17:02.480 always the risk that you might during this period weren't able to travel, that you might lose a

00:17:06.320 relative and not be able to, to travel. And that was one of the, I mean, one of the very stark things

00:17:12.160 that came out in the case in the cross-examination and, you know, hopefully it gets considered more, but

00:17:19.040 was almost the, the, the, the relish that was taken by the people who put these mandates in place in

00:17:28.160 ensuring that compassionate exemptions for Canadians were not made.

00:17:32.240 And that to me, I, I don't understand that. It seems it's un-Canadian. It's inhuman. It's highly 1.00

00:17:40.560 discriminatory. It's ethically wrong. I don't understand why a government of a Western democracy

00:17:47.440 would take such a view. Um, and that's, I think another issue that as Canadians come back together,

00:17:55.200 which is one of the things we all need to do. We all need to work as Canadians to come back together.

00:18:00.960 Yeah, we have a divisive government that seems to relish the opportunity it sees in that. I can't

00:18:07.680 see any viable opportunity in that, but they seem to be able to. Canadians have to come back together

00:18:12.800 and we have to think about this. And I think just that the government may have misread that, you know,

00:18:20.400 it, it, it, it may have overplayed its hand, perhaps in their rush to get reelected in 2021,

00:18:29.120 they had felt that Canadians fell into one of two camps. And that's not true. You know, there's a lot

00:18:36.240 of people who would qualify as fully vaccinated in that period of time, but would be reluctant.

00:18:42.000 Were they going to lose their job, lose the ability to provide for their family? Or were they going to

00:18:46.800 go ahead? And they're not going to be long-term supporters of the same thing happening again

00:18:52.800 to them. It's more nuanced. It's much more nuanced than the government maybe have worked out. And you

00:18:59.440 can see by watching the government, you know, the current polls coming in that perhaps,

00:19:04.800 perhaps they might've misread.

00:19:08.480 I, I, I, I think there was overwhelming support for the mandates. I think 70% of Canadians who were

00:19:15.360 polled, I believe around September supported mandates. And, and then there was a recent poll that came out

00:19:24.000 a few weeks ago. That number is down to 20%. Ideally you want zero, but it's still, it's still a sharp

00:19:31.120 decline and that's pretty encouraging. I think, I think people are starting to ask questions,

00:19:36.400 right? Did these mandates make a difference in the end? And I think a lot of people have,

00:19:42.240 are starting to have some doubts here and that's certainly reflected in some of these polls.

00:19:47.200 Yeah. I mean, certainly we'd be good to challenge. I mean, going forward, I mean, we're not in this place

00:19:54.720 yet, but looking at the, um, use of the alleged use of the quarantine act to continue to persecute

00:20:02.560 the people that didn't do what the prime minister said. Yeah. Um, it's something that needs to be

00:20:08.160 challenged and maybe we'll with others consider how we might try to, to, to play a role in that going

00:20:15.680 forward as, as well. There's, there's lots to think about, but that's another challenge that

00:20:21.440 hopefully is taken on and corrected. Yeah. It's something we've always talked about, right, Carl,

00:20:27.840 is, is, is to get this to the end, is to get it heard. So that a goal of our, never to have it

00:20:35.840 happen again. Yeah. Um, it can't happen again. To have it heard. I mean, Sam, you, you know, I think,

00:20:41.760 I think the, Sam will know more about it. I think it's an in-person here. If we get as far as a hearing,

00:20:46.480 it's an in-person hearing, Sam, isn't it? It probably will be. I mean, our mootness hearing is going to be in-person

00:20:51.280 in Ottawa. Uh, so I, I would, I would imagine, you know, unless there is a, a very significant

00:20:57.120 change in the, in the, in the circumstances, epidemiological circumstances, uh, I would

00:21:01.520 imagine that, you know, the actual application hearing is going to be in-person and it should

00:21:04.960 be in-person. It's a, it deserves that level of respect and, and that, and that sort of, you know,

00:21:09.440 solemn attention and, and, and I trust we'll get it. Everything is in-person these days. So what,

00:21:15.040 what is their excuse? We've been Zoom, we've been in Zoom hearings and, and cross-examination

00:21:20.960 since the get-go. The, if we, if we have an in-person hearing in September, that'll be the first

00:21:26.320 in-person hearing we've had in. Well, I think, I, I think the considerations are a little bit different

00:21:32.240 in, in, in the federal sense than they would be within a province. If it was, if this matter was

00:21:36.320 exclusively within a specific province, um, the, the, the factors would be a lot different. But when

00:21:41.600 we're dealing with counsel in different provinces, some witnesses in different provinces and judge in

00:21:46.640 Ottawa, there, there are certainly some practical benefits that are achieved by having a Zoom.

00:21:52.000 But obviously, you know, when you get to the finale, uh, it's, it's preferable. I would imagine

00:21:57.200 it's preferable to, to, to have that, uh, in-person because, uh, the, the interaction,

00:22:02.240 the dynamics of the interaction between the lawyer and the judge, I think, um, it's very tough to

00:22:07.360 replicate that, uh, that dynamic over, uh, video, you know, conferencing. That's September 19th, eh? And

00:22:13.920 so it'll be interesting to see if, see how many people show up for that, but, uh, nice to see

00:22:19.040 probably have police with batons there and everything. Well, yeah, I mean, I, I don't know if

00:22:25.440 you've read some of the reactions to my story, but, uh, the three of you are seen as national heroes

00:22:31.280 and, um, and there are a lot, you know, some, some of the comments are, well, there are a lot of,

00:22:36.480 you know, there's been an outpouring of, um, emotion, uh, over the last couple of days, you know,

00:22:42.560 because you've unleashed something here. You know, a lot of people have been suffering and, uh,

00:22:47.200 suffering in silence sometimes and at what they feel is very unjust. And here you are, you know,

00:22:52.960 the three of you just, um, uh, fighting this out. And, uh, it's just extraordinary. I think

00:22:58.240 it's an extraordinary story and I'm sure there's more to say here as, as, as the case proceeds. Um,

00:23:04.800 but, you know, I'm so glad to have been part of this, uh, at least a small part of this journey,

00:23:09.920 a small part of this important effort on your part to get to the bottom of the government's

00:23:15.040 policies as they relate to the mandates. And I really, really hope that there's some

00:23:19.600 accountability, accountability at the end of the day. And I really want to thank the three of you

00:23:24.320 for coming on the show. And, um, um, you know, it's, it's, it's truly an honor and, uh, and hopefully,

00:23:30.560 you know, we'll, we'll, we'll have you back again.

00:23:33.040 One additional point, if I can cut you off there for a second is, uh, filing an application,

00:23:39.440 um, with an injunction to, against the, uh, Rive Canada to hopefully, um, get that at least

00:23:46.800 put on hold for now until we can get to a hearing. So we're working on filing an application for that

00:23:53.360 too. So. Okay. Well, I will keep, uh, you know, keep us posted and, uh, and, you know, I wish you all

00:24:01.440 the best and it was, uh, truly an honor to have the three of you here and, uh, I'm sure we'll catch

00:24:06.720 up sometime soon again. Yep. Thanks for having us on. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thanks everyone.

00:24:11.440 Take care. Bye.

Juno News - August 09, 2022

Fighting Trudeau’s travel mandate in court Part. 2

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript