Juno News - Trudeau told NATO Canada would never meet its defence spending commitment

00:00:00.000 Welcome to Canada's Most Irreverent Talk Show.

00:00:05.140 This is the Andrew Lawton Show, brought to you by True North.

00:00:13.440 I'm sorry, I just had like a cough at the worst possible moment there,

00:00:18.820 but I thank you for your indulgence and apologize for the startling noise

00:00:22.380 if that made it into the show, which I fear it did.

00:00:25.580 But nevertheless, this is the great thing about live radio.

00:00:28.480 So it is good to talk to you all. This is The Andrew Lawton Show, Canada's most irreverent talk show here on True North.

00:00:36.100 And I want to just begin by saying we are just going to go around the world in all sorts of different ways on this show today

00:00:43.980 because I have three very distinct topics to get to, but they are all important.

00:00:48.180 And I wanted to make sure that we gave each one at least a little bit of time.

00:00:51.620 I'm told the cough did not go into the live show, by the way.

00:00:54.320 So I've just like outed myself as being an unprofessional hack.

00:00:58.060 Better a hacker than a hack, I guess.

00:00:59.800 So thanks very much to my colleague for telling me that.

00:01:04.260 Let me first off mention something here.

00:01:07.320 Oh, now he's saying it did.

00:01:09.000 The cough was heard.

00:01:09.960 It was the cough heard around the world.

00:01:11.880 All right.

00:01:12.240 Well, after the last three years, if you aren't used to hearing coughing,

00:01:15.640 I think you are sorely, sorely missing out on what the world has been like.

00:01:20.060 Although now you don't got like the pariah-like looks.

00:01:22.420 because I'm actually very weird about coughing, where if someone says the word cough, as I have

00:01:28.020 like nine times now, I have the urge to cough. So it was like in the time when everyone just

00:01:33.200 looked around and saw everyone as disease vectors. If anyone like said, do you have a cough? I'd be

00:01:37.440 like, no, no, I don't. And people were very suspect, even more than they usually are of me,

00:01:44.560 by the way. Let's start off with the big news out of the Washington Post today, which is actually

00:01:51.120 coming by way of leaked Pentagon documents, Justin Trudeau told NATO officials that Canada

00:01:58.240 was never going to meet its spending goal. Now, this requires a little bit of context here. So

00:02:03.780 countries that are members of NATO have to make a commitment to spend a certain amount of money.

00:02:09.520 It's not a dollar value because it doesn't make sense to expect the same from the United States

00:02:14.120 as we expect from, I don't know, Latvia, but it is based on your GDP. So every country must spend

00:02:21.320 2% of its GDP on defense. Now you could drive a Mack truck through the holes in this commitment

00:02:31.260 because it doesn't actually say how you spend your money. It doesn't say that you have to spend it in

00:02:37.900 a particularly responsible way. It says you have to spend 2% on GDP. So you could actually just

00:02:43.680 spend, you know, 1% of your GDP on diversity training for members of your military. And

00:02:49.460 theoretically, you've satisfied the 2% requirement. And if you look at NATO's website, which is very

00:02:56.720 transparent about this, it shows a lot of countries just do not pay their fair share.

00:03:04.240 And Canada is one of those countries. Canada for years has been lagging, has been paying less than

00:03:10.300 this 2% commitment, which is not just a pledge. It's not just a target. It's not just a goal.

00:03:15.780 This is actually the amount that we are committing, committing to spending. There was a time,

00:03:21.640 I think it was in like 2018 or 2019, when we were one of the lowest in NATO for what share of our

00:03:28.980 GDP we're spending. I think the last numbers I had were putting us at like 1.4. So it's actually

00:03:35.360 backslid a little bit in some ways. But the reason this is important is because now we find out that

00:03:40.940 despite Justin Trudeau's proclamations that we're investing in military, we're going to do it,

00:03:45.700 we're committed to NATO, we're a global partner and all that, he was telling NATO officials behind

00:03:50.740 closed doors, yeah, we're never going to get there. That 2% is just a pipe dream. That's been the

00:03:55.380 basis of the stories that were now released via the Washington Post, drawing from this leak of

00:04:01.960 Pentagon Papers to Discord. Now, if you want a masterclass in saying nothing with as many words

00:04:08.160 as possible, this is the Katie Telford School of Speaking. This is Justin Trudeau being asked

00:04:14.060 about these stories just today in the foyer of the House of Commons. Did you tell NATO officials

00:04:19.740 Canada will never meet its 2% military defense spending target? I continue to say and will always

00:04:25.900 say that Canada is a reliable partner to NATO, a reliable partner around the world, and with our

00:04:31.500 military investments with the support we give to canadians we will uh continue to be doing that

00:04:35.900 but did you but about the two percent target what did you communicate to me we will continue to be

00:04:40.860 uh working on investing in uh in giving the support necessary to uh to the men and women

00:04:47.260 of the canadian forces to deliver whether it's in latvia whether it's uh in nato operations

00:04:52.460 around the world or u.n operations canada continues to be a partner that is much sought after and

00:04:58.220 And that's why we're so pleased that we've invested increases in about 70% through our strong, secure, engaged in defense spending.

00:05:06.580 We've moved forward on modernization of NORAD.

00:05:08.960 We're going to continue to be there to make sure that the women and men of the forces have the tools they need.

00:05:13.660 Merci beaucoup.

00:05:15.920 And then he just, you know, scurries away there.

00:05:19.860 No more questions.

00:05:20.840 Can't have any further inquisition on that.

00:05:24.100 So it's a yes or no question.

00:05:26.100 Did you tell NATO officials that Canada was not going to get to 2% of defense spending?

00:05:31.800 We've been telling them that we are a committed partner for peace and glory and, you know,

00:05:37.920 kumbaya.

00:05:38.720 And I'm like, that was like not where, that was nowhere near the question.

00:05:42.320 You know, the Great Wall of China, you could put the question on one end and his answer

00:05:47.300 on the other.

00:05:48.540 And you know what?

00:05:49.440 I actually think there still might be a little breathing room on either side of it.

00:05:52.840 They were just so far away from each other there.

00:05:55.700 And I would also point out that this is not a new phenomenon.

00:06:00.360 And Donald Trump put Trudeau on the hot seat about this.

00:06:03.640 My colleague Harrison Faulkner reminded me and everyone else of this by tweeting this out earlier.

00:06:09.580 This is when Trudeau, well, I'll tell you afterwards, but it's kind of funny.

00:06:13.840 This is Justin Trudeau getting the question, not from, it might have been Stephanie Taylor of the Canadian press, I'm not sure,

00:06:20.080 but from Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

00:06:23.000 where would you put canada in that as they're not even like what they say canada but they'll be okay

00:06:27.880 i have confidence just slightly delinquent canada does not meet the two percent standard should it

00:06:34.160 have a plan to meet the two percent standard well we'll put them on a payment plan you know

00:06:38.840 we'll put canada on a payment plan right i'm sure the prime minister would love that

00:06:42.520 what are you at what what is your number uh the number we talked about is 70 increase uh over

00:06:49.220 these past years uh including and for the coming years including uh re significant investments in

00:06:56.100 our fighter jets significant investments in our naval fleets uh we are increasing significantly

00:07:02.020 our defense spending from previous governments that cut okay where are you now uh in terms of

00:07:08.340 your number one fourth and and continuing to move they're getting there they they they know it's

00:07:14.900 important to do that. And their economy is doing well. They'll get there quickly, I think.

00:07:23.880 I love that there has to be the voice of the staffer off camera telling Justin Trudeau what

00:07:30.320 we're at because he doesn't even know. Because again, as we've learned, he likes to deal in

00:07:34.700 abstractions and not reality, especially when it comes to targets he's not living up to. Now,

00:07:39.340 let me just say that there are a couple of different dimensions here number one is that

00:07:45.740 as I said you could spend the money very easily and not actually spend it on anything of substance

00:07:52.020 you could blow a ton of cash and have it not go towards frontline soldiers you could have it not

00:07:58.500 go towards weapons and equipment you could just spend money like I said on diversity training

00:08:03.360 and consultants and report after report you could just fly around planes and do training exercises

00:08:09.240 you know four times a day like you could do this all very easily without actually getting anything

00:08:17.220 for it and and oddly this is like the one thing that Justin Trudeau doesn't want to spend money

00:08:23.080 on this is the one thing that Justin Trudeau doesn't actually want to and isn't comfortable

00:08:28.400 running up a deficit to buy which is baffling and you know years and years ago my first ever

00:08:34.600 interview with Stephen Harper was about this idea. It was about defense. It was about Canada's place

00:08:41.440 in the world. Very different time in Canada and in the world. We had the mission in Afghanistan

00:08:46.180 ongoing. And I had interviewed a couple of weeks earlier, Justin Trudeau. And he basically was

00:08:53.100 doing the whole, actually, he was doing the kumbaya thing and saying that, no, we shouldn't

00:08:57.740 be in Afghanistan and ISIS isn't our problem and all of that. And he basically made a comment there

00:09:03.240 that this was not a situation that we should go there

00:09:07.060 because there's not a reasonable chance of success.

00:09:09.840 And that was the line that ended up making headlines,

00:09:12.560 not just in Canada, but I think in other countries as well,

00:09:16.180 of Trudeau saying there's no chance of success

00:09:18.220 for the Canadian Armed Forces.

00:09:19.860 Now, Stephen Harper latched onto that.

00:09:22.220 When I was interviewing him,

00:09:23.440 he had said that Trudeau has a deep dislike

00:09:25.560 and distrust of the Canadian Armed Forces.

00:09:28.800 And, you know, I actually don't think that is entirely untrue.

00:09:31.680 I think Justin Trudeau likes this old mythology of the Canadian peacekeepers, of which there are like 20.

00:09:39.820 I mean, the Canadian soldiers and police officers and peacekeeping missions now literally double digits.

00:09:45.380 This is not like the 90s where we had thousands and thousands of Canadian soldiers standing between warring factions around the world.

00:09:53.560 peacekeeping has fallen out of favor at the United Nations largely, and it is

00:09:57.480 an inconsequential part of Canada's military operations. But Trudeau likes this idealized

00:10:04.260 version of what the military is. He doesn't like the actual military and the actual military mandate

00:10:11.080 and the things that need the Canadian Armed Forces. And it's the same with NATO. He wants to

00:10:16.140 give more and more money to Ukraine. He wants to stand up and being like, Canada, we're supporting

00:10:19.900 Ukraine. We're supporting Ukraine. But he doesn't actually want to do for NATO what Canada has

00:10:25.580 across different governments pledged to do. Now, this isn't just a Canadian problem.

00:10:32.300 And I don't want you to think this is only a Canadian problem because defense ministers

00:10:36.980 have all committed to the 2%. This was in 2006. So it's not a new commitment. And only in 2017,

00:10:44.960 four countries were there. So lots of countries have been freeloaders. The reason Donald Trump

00:10:49.840 was so frustrated about this is because the United States is the one that is left holding

00:10:55.180 the bag when all of these other countries don't fulfill their end of the bargain. And if you look

00:11:00.960 at the NATO countries with defense expenditures and they published the charts, Canada is like so

00:11:06.360 low, you don't even see it on the top 10 or the top 15 of contributing countries to NATO. So if

00:11:13.380 the alliance is important, why are we not spending the money on it? If it's not important, then why

00:11:19.240 are we going through this charade? Why are we going through the pretense of saying that we are

00:11:23.620 committed to this? And the whole point of this segment here is to say that, yeah, we can have a

00:11:29.820 debate about defense spending, but Justin Trudeau has been telling Canadians one thing, which is

00:11:35.460 that, yes, it's difficult. We want to get to 2%. That's the goal. Well, behind the scenes, telling

00:11:40.760 NATO officials, not only that he has no plan of getting Canada there, but he doesn't think Canada

00:11:47.640 will ever go there. So he thinks Canada basically signed a check. It has no intention of ever

00:11:53.720 letting anyone cash. And we wonder why Trudeau expended such political capital and spent such

00:12:01.000 money campaigning around the world, sucking up to tin pot African dictators, trying to get enough 0.99

00:12:07.140 votes to put Canada on the United Nations Security Council. And at the end, all of the United Nations 0.95

00:12:13.060 voting member states are like,

00:12:15.020 ah, yeah, it's Canada.

00:12:17.920 And we end up once again being rejected for this

00:12:20.800 because he likes to think that he has put Canada on the map.

00:12:24.920 And the only way he's done it is as a punchline,

00:12:28.240 as a country that no one is particularly taking seriously,

00:12:30.880 as a country that is not making good on its word.

00:12:33.520 And more importantly, as a country who views foreign policy

00:12:38.020 as being an exercise in virtue signaling

00:12:41.660 more than in actual actions.

00:12:45.520 Actual actions is a weird thing to say.

00:12:47.940 So all of this is, I think, a fascinating exercise

00:12:51.980 in this double standard between the liberal mythology

00:12:56.160 of what Canada is and of what Canadian identity is,

00:13:00.540 this liberal mythology of this, of Canadian foreign policy,

00:13:04.260 and getting down to brass tacks,

00:13:07.780 what is it in real life?

00:13:09.580 What is it in reality?

00:13:11.660 And Canada should be embarrassed by this.

00:13:13.620 This is not the way that you put your country on the map.

00:13:16.620 And again, if you've got frustrations with NATO, I am all for you having those discussions. 0.98

00:13:21.760 But right now he is trying to, I hate the expression, but he's trying to suck and blow at the same time. 0.88

00:13:27.440 And we are all just supposed to be like, oh, well, he must have a good reason for it. 0.97

00:13:31.120 There must be a purpose for it.

00:13:32.940 My goodness.

00:13:33.360 And, you know, one interesting aside I'll add to this is that as we discuss NATO, and I know there's been a lot of discussion more broadly outside of the show, bigger than the show, about NATO expansion and, you know, the Russia-Ukraine thing.

00:13:51.000 And I don't want to just, you know, take this very significant concept and conflict and bring it down into like a two-minute observation here.

00:13:58.980 But I think generally speaking, foreign policy doesn't move the needle in elections. And this is the challenge for people like Michael Chong, where it's actually one of his strongest issues. I think he's tremendously weak on a lot of other things like, you know, he's the only conservative leadership candidate in 2017 that was campaigning on a carbon tax, but he's good on foreign policy. He wants to be foreign minister. That's kind of what he's gearing towards.

00:14:22.960 Aaron O'Toole I mean you could tell when he ran that he wanted to be a foreign affairs minister

00:14:28.420 and I don't know if he ever really wanted to be prime minister as much as he wanted to be foreign

00:14:32.820 minister he wants to be the guy that talks tough to China and he wants to be the guy that wears

00:14:37.000 the bomber jacket and gets into the Sea King helicopters he wants to do all that and and

00:14:41.660 that's fine there's a place for that but time and time again we see that voters do not care

00:14:47.100 that voters do not care about these things.

00:14:51.740 And it's not to say they shouldn't care,

00:14:53.500 it's that they don't.

00:14:54.140 And it's very difficult to get a lot of Canadians

00:14:55.900 to care about things that are happening a world away

00:14:59.100 when life is so difficult right in front of them.

00:15:02.560 And I think that's,

00:15:03.580 and again, I'm probably contributing

00:15:05.180 to some of the alienation

00:15:06.180 because I'm just doing 15 minutes on NATO funding.

00:15:09.740 But I think there is an integrity aspect of this.

00:15:12.460 And the reason I bring this up

00:15:14.480 and that little coda that I added to it

00:15:16.800 is that even if you don't care about NATO funding

00:15:19.640 or it's an abstract issue to you,

00:15:21.600 the political integrity dimension of this

00:15:23.880 is quite important.

00:15:25.400 The way that Justin Trudeau presents Canada

00:15:27.580 and what he's doing to Canadians

00:15:30.080 and the way he's presenting it

00:15:31.900 when he thinks no one's paying attention.

00:15:34.180 And that divide has become abundantly clear

00:15:36.740 with this report in the Washington Post.

00:15:40.260 And I'm glad it is American media

00:15:41.720 that is doing the work.

00:15:42.960 In this case, Canadian media was not able to do.

00:15:45.600 I want to pivot to another story here that is taking place, and this is a tricky one to cover because there is a lot of information that cannot be discussed about it because it involves children, and in family law, cases are subject to publication bans and publication restrictions on identifiable details, including names.

00:16:08.100 But we can talk about what the issue at hand is.

00:16:12.600 And this is one in the last several years of the COVID era has become particularly acute

00:16:19.140 with governments trying to coercively induce people to get vaccinated against their will,

00:16:25.580 to take away their job.

00:16:26.740 And we've seen this rear its ugly head in family disputes.

00:16:30.560 Oftentimes when there is a custody battle, maybe one parent wants the child to get vaccinated,

00:16:35.720 another doesn't.

00:16:36.500 And we've seen courts land in some ways on a good side in these things and in other cases on a bad side.

00:16:43.140 I want to talk about one case, which is that of J.N., who is hoping to get the Supreme Court to affirm her right as a parent to stand up for what she thinks is in the best interest of the family.

00:16:57.500 the lawyer for this case which has details on helpamom.ca is from the Acacia group and that

00:17:06.720 is Leah Malousis. Leah thank you for coming on today good to speak to you. Thanks for having me

00:17:13.540 Andrew. So I've tried to give a bit of a primer there and obviously I know you can't identify

00:17:19.120 your your client by name here but but explain to me what led us here what's actually at hand.

00:17:25.900 yeah so maybe just stepping back the there was a breakdown of the marriage there are three children

00:17:33.100 involved um and at the time so this litigation has gone on for eight years i've not been involved in

00:17:39.940 that um neither has my colleague who is helping me with this case so there there's been this messy

00:17:44.920 litigation and ultimately the father and the mother came to minutes of settlement and they

00:17:49.940 were able to resolve every issue except the question of vaccinating the children. And not

00:17:56.000 all three of the children, just the younger two. The eldest child was 14 years old at the time of

00:18:01.400 the minutes of settlement, and they concluded that he was old enough to be able to decide on his own

00:18:06.820 whether he would like the vaccine or not. He ultimately chose to get the vaccine. Both parents

00:18:11.580 were supportive of that decision. But with the younger two children who are now, now their ages

00:18:17.720 are about 13 and 11, if I'm correct there. And so now the issue was, well, what about the younger

00:18:24.440 children? And there was this fight over whether they should be vaccinated. Now, it's important

00:18:28.860 to understand that these children didn't want to be vaccinated. And so even though they are younger

00:18:33.980 than their older brother, they indicated their preferences and their views. And the father's

00:18:38.800 position is that that's essentially, you know, their views are the results of the mother and

00:18:43.400 and shouldn't be respected and that they should receive this vaccine regardless and the mother's

00:18:48.120 position isn't that uh she's against the vaccine per se she would just like some additional

00:18:53.000 information some additional time um and she in particular is wanting to respect the views of the

00:18:58.840 children who are now very close to the age of their older brother when he was old enough in

00:19:04.360 the view of both parents to make this decision so that's kind of what led us here um and as you'll

00:19:10.200 be aware, Andrew, there was a lower court decision that, you know, resulted in the mother being

00:19:15.100 awarded what's called decision making. And so she was given decision making over the question of

00:19:20.480 COVID vaccines. Just, you know, to be clear, the children reside with her primarily. She'll, you

00:19:25.840 know, have decision making for most matters. And so now she was awarded by the motion judge

00:19:32.380 the ability to make decision regarding COVID vaccines. And then this was appealed to the

00:19:38.160 Ontario Court of Appeal and they overturned the decision and not only did they overturn the

00:19:43.240 decision and typically you know it would get sent back to trial for another decision from a motion

00:19:48.860 judge but they actually implemented their own order and they awarded decision making to the

00:19:54.280 father. There were a number of reasons of that which for that which I'm happy to go into but

00:19:59.520 that's kind of that that's what where we're at and that's a little bit of the background of the case.

00:20:05.020 so let's just i mean talk about the vaccination aspect here because the mechanics of of getting

00:20:12.280 vaccinated is that you can't as i'm under as i understand it be de-vaccinated so once it's been

00:20:17.880 done it's done which means i i think the stakes are higher if you side in this case with the

00:20:22.540 father than than with the mother but but i am sympathetic to the argument that younger kids

00:20:29.020 are probably getting a lot of their influence on this from their mother i mean i think kids are

00:20:34.420 smart and kids can make up their own minds but kids are also products of their surrounding and

00:20:38.740 kids will be products of their their mothers I'll characterize it as as vaccine hesitancy so how does

00:20:43.920 she answer to that how does the mother articulate uh where the children got their aversion to the 0.99

00:20:49.000 vaccine from yeah so so there are a few things I would say to answer that question Andrew first of

00:20:54.840 all there was what's called a view of the child report or two views of the child reports that were

00:21:00.700 done for all three children um and and that wasn't done specifically regarding the question of the

00:21:05.420 vaccine but one of the issues touched on in the second views of the child report was about the

00:21:11.260 question of vaccines and it was in that case um sorry in that report that the social worker who

00:21:16.860 did the you know the different interviews concluded you know these children these are the views that

00:21:21.100 they have they seem consistent um the social worker didn't flag any any type of um influence

00:21:28.380 Now, I think, you know, obviously, children are going to hear both sides. And so I think it's

00:21:35.180 interesting that, you know, with the with the elder child, there wasn't concern that, you know,

00:21:40.200 he was just going along with what his father wanted. Both parents respected the child's

00:21:44.320 decision. And in that case, it was the decision to get the vaccine. But then in the younger,

00:21:48.240 you know, with the younger two, they're, despite the fact that they're being exposed to the same

00:21:54.100 kind of voices on both sides. Both parents have, the record says that both parents have spoken to

00:22:00.080 the children about this issue. The children are very clear about the positions of the parents

00:22:05.440 and the younger two children have decided that they don't want the vaccine at this point in time.

00:22:11.000 Now, I mean, the trial judge concluded that there wasn't evidence that the views of the children

00:22:16.040 were only a product of the mother. There was, so that was a factual finding, but it's also

00:22:22.000 important to understand um and then there is case law and we we reference to this case law in our

00:22:27.840 um in our motion to stay because we put forward a motion to stay the order of the onca the ontario

00:22:33.120 court of appeal um and one of the things that that has been demonstrated in some of the case law is

00:22:38.000 that even if even if the views of the children are are misguided are you know are only the results of

00:22:44.800 a parent if they're sincerely held you know if these children really are this opposed then moving

00:22:51.440 forward with, in this case, a medical treatment that cannot be reversed, is going to have a pretty

00:22:56.620 severe impact on them, particularly when the person kind of moving that forward is going to

00:23:01.600 be their father, there are going to be some serious ramifications there. And it's important

00:23:06.540 that people understand, obviously, when it's the COVID vaccine issue, you know, there are a lot of

00:23:11.000 a lot of emotions and perspectives that come to play. But really, this is not a question about

00:23:15.940 the vaccine, whether it's good or bad, whether children should get it or not. In a case like

00:23:21.100 this a family law case, the only question that the court is supposed to look at with regard to

00:23:26.440 access or parenting decision-making order is the question of what is in the best interest of these

00:23:33.780 specific children, not children generally, not people generally, these children. And so you have

00:23:39.620 to think not just about, you know, who gave these children these views, which according to the trial

00:23:45.380 court it wasn't um it wasn't clear on the record that it was just the result of the mother

00:23:50.980 but even if it was you need to think about how how moving forward with a forced vaccine for

00:23:56.820 these children will impact them um and impact their relationship with both of their parents

00:24:01.620 and and i think that's something that the ontario court of appeal didn't consider properly let me

00:24:06.260 drill down further into that best interest of the child bit because one question you've raised in

00:24:10.900 your commentary on this case is about uh accepting or should a judge be able to accept a government

00:24:16.580 statement on an irreversible medical intervention as fact so how does the the government's position

00:24:22.180 factor into this case yeah so the the you know this this from a in terms of how we speak about

00:24:28.980 it in layman's terms obviously we're thinking about the the children the parents the vaccine

00:24:33.140 that's what this is about but from a legal perspective this case rests on something

00:24:36.820 called judicial notice and to kind of fast track and explain this evidentiary concept the idea is

00:24:42.100 that in a case um the judge has the option it's a discretionary option um to to take what's called

00:24:49.300 judicial notice of a fact and that's done in cases where the fact is so evident so obvious

00:24:54.980 that you know reasonable people couldn't couldn't wouldn't disagree about this so for example

00:25:00.340 applying that here um you know a judge could take judicial notice and many judges have of the the

00:25:05.940 fact that the covid pandemic happened you know that covid exists um you know there'll be some

00:25:11.620 people i imagine who dispute whether you want to call it covet or whatever but the reality is that

00:25:15.860 we know there's been a pandemic we know people have been affected that is a fact now judicial

00:25:20.900 notice cannot be taken of what's called expert opinion so once you start getting into the question

00:25:25.700 of um not just facts but what ought to happen or maybe what what the ideal treatment would be for

00:25:32.020 a child like that's where you start getting close much much further into the realm of expert opinion

00:25:37.540 so that's the important thing to understand about judicial notice and again it's just

00:25:41.060 discretionary so in this case so there have been cases across the country regarding vaccines and

00:25:47.460 children and what's best for the children so um in this specific case the trial judge decided

00:25:52.820 not to take judicial notice of the government statements that have been put forward by the

00:25:57.300 father both parents brought uh different evidence they both brought what's called you know internet

00:26:02.580 downloads they kind of downloaded stuff off the internet and put it before the court um and the

00:26:07.940 the trial judge concluded that he wasn't going to take judicial notice of the government statements

00:26:12.980 because the the approval of the vaccine by health canada um he said you know didn't translate to it

00:26:21.460 automatically being in the best interest of these children um so so yeah i mean government you know

00:26:26.660 the government approved the vaccine and you know that is a fact but the question of whether it's

00:26:31.380 now by default safe and effective and not just safe and effective but in the best interest of

00:26:36.500 these children is a separate one now the courts have been taking very different views on this and

00:26:41.300 this is one of the reasons we've appealed it to the supreme court because we really think we need

00:26:45.620 some uh some insight into how to sort through this very messy area of law because basically

00:26:50.420 um some courts have said you know covet exists vaccines are generally good and that's as far

00:26:55.540 as they go some have gone a step further and saying you know what the government has said

00:27:00.180 that this is a safe procedure they've approved it so we're going to conclude without getting

00:27:04.900 any evidence before us that you know that this vaccine is safe and effective and then others

00:27:09.940 have gone even a further step and said not only is the vaccine safe and effective but it is in

00:27:14.420 the best interest of children generally and and the the real issue with that uh andrew is that

00:27:20.500 is that the the best interest of the child analysis is not about what's in the best interest

00:27:24.580 for children generally, but about these specific children. And so while I don't think the courts

00:27:29.680 are trying to kind of undermine what's best for children, and while I don't think the government

00:27:34.580 intended for their statements to be used this way, what's kind of happened with the clash of

00:27:39.440 judicial notice and the issue of the vaccines is we've now had kind of government statements

00:27:44.300 almost substituting in a decision when you think about whether a child should get a vaccine or not.

00:27:50.020 And basically what the Ontario Court of Appeal said is that when a question like this arises and one parent would like the children to get a procedure that has, like a vaccine, that has been approved by the government, it's basically now the onus, the burden of proof is on the parent who doesn't want that procedure to go forward to prove why it's not fair.

00:28:13.840 And that's just, that's a huge evidentiary burden for, in this case, a self-represented litigant to bear.

00:28:21.380 And it's also, it really undermines the best interest of the child analysis, which again is a hyper-individualized, laser-focused analysis about what's good for these children, not what might generally be safe and effective.

00:28:34.420 Well, I think that's an important point here because, you know, obviously we accept that adults have the right in some ways to do things that may not be in their own best interest. We accept that adults are human beings. They can make mistakes. Maybe it will have a risk to it. And adults can calculate that risk.

00:28:52.280 And we also accept that adults are the primary caregivers and decision makers for children who don't legally have the ability to make that decision.

00:28:59.820 And I think the gap between those two things is a little bit perplexing to people because on one hand, we don't want to say that adults have the right to harm children.

00:29:09.660 But on the other hand, we don't want or shouldn't want, certainly don't want, and people that do and watch and listen to this show don't want, government stepping in to make these decisions for children.

00:29:19.840 And I think that what I'm struggling with here is that you have two parents that are equally passionate about something.

00:29:29.040 And I'm assuming probably in good faith, each of them believes that what they are oriented towards is in the best interest of the children.

00:29:36.760 So assuming this goes on, you know, even further to the Supreme Court, are we starting from scratch every time a case like this comes up?

00:29:45.980 Or is this, in your view, a precedent setting case?

00:29:48.520 this could be a precedent-setting case i mean the process is that you know we don't by default get

00:29:57.080 to go to the supreme court we have to ask permission we have to ask for leave to appeal

00:30:00.740 so that's what we've done so we'll be waiting for that decision that's where things are at right now

00:30:04.920 um but i do think it could be precedent setting and i think it's important because um they're

00:30:09.900 they're like i said there have been conflicting decisions across the country not just at the

00:30:14.040 trial level but even with courts of appeal where there's this big dispute over what you know like

00:30:19.620 how far do we take a government statement and and how does it factor into this decision um and and

00:30:27.100 i think yeah again like this isn't about the vaccine this isn't about saying the government

00:30:31.640 does you know wrong and health canada is lying or anything like that but it's just it cannot be the

00:30:36.420 case that we defer or we kind of default to whatever the government thinks is in the best

00:30:44.460 interest of the children. You know, the government might think that a medical treatment is ideal for

00:30:49.680 a child, but it really is up to that family to decide. And that's why the role of the court

00:30:55.280 isn't to, the court doesn't decide, you know, is it best for the child to be vaccinated or not

00:31:01.080 necessarily. They're often just looking at who is thinking about the best interest of the child

00:31:05.300 and therefore who should have the decision-making to kind of move forward with that line of thinking.

00:31:10.760 It's also important to note, and this is a whole other can of worms, so we probably can't get into it in detail,

00:31:16.080 but there is case law that says it's what's called the mature minor doctrine.

00:31:21.160 And there is case law that says that, and this came up in the context of Jehovah's Witness children

00:31:26.740 who were refusing blood transfusions, and the doctors wanted to interject and force the children to get blood transfusions.

00:31:35.100 And the Supreme Court wrestled this question and ultimately concluded that a mature minor, a minor, so obviously someone under the age of 18, was able to understand the medical condition they had, understand, you know, the treatment, what it would mean to get it, what it would mean to not get it.

00:31:52.340 That it could be, depending on, you know, what the doctors conclude, maybe the courts conclude, if it gets litigated, it could be up to the child to conclude, you know, what is in his or her best interest in terms of that specific medical procedure.

00:32:07.780 And so, yeah, I certainly agree with you, Andrew.

00:32:10.780 We have two individuals, parents who love their children.

00:32:13.600 And I mean, the evidence on record is that they're both good parents.

00:32:16.900 They both love their children.

00:32:17.940 So that's not what this, you know, feud is about.

00:32:19.780 And you said they've agreed on everything else about their arrangement but this, yeah.

00:32:24.040 Yeah, exactly.

00:32:25.060 So it really is, for us, it's not a matter of, you know, these children absolutely shouldn't have the vaccine or not.

00:32:31.840 It's just, we're really concerned that, you know, a government statement is going to now kind of subvert the ability of a parent to have a shot at kind of making their case to a court about what's in the best interest of their children.

00:32:47.620 And I don't think anyone intended for government statements from Health Canada about a vaccine being approved to kind of subvert the ability of a parent to act in the best interest of their child.

00:32:59.320 So that's what I would say this case is ultimately about.

00:33:02.360 And I think if this gets appealed to the Supreme Court, if we get leave to appeal, I think it would be precedent setting for sure.

00:33:08.840 You've got a website set up. Explain why that is.

00:33:11.360 yeah so so um i mentioned i think at one point that we're kind of we jumped in at the later

00:33:18.360 stage so this the mother has been self-represented for um for you know at the trial level and at the

00:33:24.320 ontario court of appeal um and that's kind of a separate concern we're worried that um you know

00:33:29.380 in light of her having six kids and and her resources having been depleted over eight years

00:33:34.240 of messy litigation that there was just no way for her to make the strongest case she could um not

00:33:40.060 just for her interest, but also for the preferences and views of her two children. And so we jumped

00:33:46.660 in and we're helping with this latter stage of litigation, but her resources are still depleted.

00:33:54.120 And so we have a fundraising page set up for her to kind of get some support. This case has

00:34:02.920 national ramifications if it goes to the Supreme Court. So it really is not just about her,

00:34:07.600 but it's about kind of families across the country and their ability to to act in the

00:34:11.760 best interest of their children and so you can go to helpamom.ca that's all one word helpamom.ca

00:34:18.500 and make a donation there you can also get some additional information for those who are really

00:34:23.000 interested and and we didn't have time to cover all the details so if you're curious you can go

00:34:28.360 there for more information and to help out a mom. Leah Melosis from the Acacia group that website

00:34:33.820 it again helpamom.ca we did talk about this case in its earlier iteration so i'm glad that she has

00:34:39.700 an advocate in this as to those children thank you very much leah thanks so much andrew all right

00:34:45.540 thank you uh we will certainly follow that and i hope the supreme court does pick it up now i just

00:34:50.560 i think it was last week or two weeks ago the supreme court uh opted not to hear a case that

00:34:55.280 i think pretty much everyone i had spoken to thought was a slam dunk to get a hearing at the

00:34:59.240 Supreme Court, which was the Camby case on private health care delivery. And the Supreme Court,

00:35:05.720 despite having different rulings, one in BC and one in Quebec going against each other, said,

00:35:09.800 we're fine. So let's hope they won't do that in this case, certainly in these times. We were

00:35:15.660 supposed to have Megan Murphy of the Feminist Current on the show. And for reasons I'm still

00:35:22.220 trying to get caught up on, there's like a chat thread on our little in-house show channel. She's

00:35:26.660 not joining us today which is quite unfortunate because I was looking forward to speaking to her

00:35:30.840 but I did tease in the text for the show that I was going to talk about this story briefly out of

00:35:36.560 Windsor which is not far from me Windsor Ontario not Windsor Castle I don't think even the House

00:35:42.140 of Windsor has gone as far as this case has gone just yet but Windsor police are on were on the

00:35:49.580 lookout for a woman who allegedly sexually assaulted another woman at a women's shelter. 0.72

00:35:59.180 Now, let's take a look at the lady they believe was responsible for this. 1.00

00:36:07.620 Oh, that is the lovely lady there. And you can tell she's a very ladylike lady because of the 0.99

00:36:14.280 stubble and the five o'clock shadow. That is the lady identified as in the police press release. 1.00

00:36:24.640 Seriously, Desiree. Yeah, that is Desiree, who also goes by another name, which doesn't sound

00:36:33.820 as ladylike as Desiree does. And, you know, this is a horrific case. The allegation made by police

00:36:40.900 is that this person climbed into a woman's bed

00:36:46.880 at a woman's shelter and sexually assaulted her.

00:36:50.080 That is the allegation by police.

00:36:51.980 This individual has turned themself in to police.

00:36:58.420 And, you know, after all, I don't want to get YouTube

00:36:59.980 to give us a misgendering strike,

00:37:02.180 although Twitter today did change its policy on misgendering,

00:37:06.280 so it's no longer an automatic suspension.

00:37:08.320 if you go and, you know, mention someone's birth name or real name.

00:37:11.820 And, you know, I struggle with a lot of these sorts of stories

00:37:19.800 because you could look at the person who says they're a woman

00:37:23.700 and has the stubble and say, oh, ha, ha, ha, ha.

00:37:27.300 You can look at Dylan Mulvaney parading around drinking Bud Light 0.71

00:37:30.760 and talking about carrying around a tampon after having been a woman for, 0.54

00:37:35.540 I don't know, it was like, you know, three minutes or whatever. 0.98

00:37:37.080 and you can say, oh, ha, ha, ha, this is all ridiculous. 0.98

00:37:39.860 Here we have a woman who was sexually assaulted in a woman's shelter, 0.99

00:37:46.720 a place that she was because she needed refuge and respite

00:37:50.120 from something else that happened to her in the world

00:37:52.720 or was continuing to happen to her in the world. 0.99

00:37:54.560 For all we know, this woman was a rape victim. 1.00

00:37:57.200 Maybe she was the victim of a domestic abuse situation. 0.75

00:38:00.820 Who knows and who cares? 1.00

00:38:01.840 a woman that was supposed to be in what is by design a safe space. 1.00

00:38:07.860 And I don't mean like a university safe space 0.99

00:38:10.120 where you go and you get cookies and play with a puppy

00:38:13.080 because your exams are too stressful.

00:38:14.900 I mean a safe space where you literally go

00:38:17.360 because you could be killed if you go somewhere else. 0.99

00:38:21.620 So she goes there and then this frigging man climbs into her bed 0.99

00:38:27.660 and tries to do whoever knows what, I don't know. 0.99

00:38:31.840 And I don't want to know.

00:38:33.440 It's ghastly. 1.00

00:38:35.100 And people who dare to speak up and say that women's spaces are important,

00:38:40.600 people who dare to say that actually, yes, women should be protected as a group,

00:38:45.660 are called transphobes.

00:38:47.360 They're called bigots. 0.72

00:38:48.400 They have their families threatened.

00:38:50.500 People like J.K. Rowling are denounced by people whose lives and careers she made

00:38:55.700 because she, again, a woman who was in an abusive marriage,

00:38:58.620 stands up and says, you know what?

00:38:59.680 I actually think we need to protect women's spaces. You can be as progressive, LGBTQI2

00:39:07.660 friendly as you want to be, and still believe that perhaps women's shelters should be places

00:39:14.280 that women can seek refuge. And all of these people who for years have said we need to smash

00:39:21.460 the patriarchy have no issue with men colonizing women's shelters now. It is disgusting. It is 0.96

00:39:30.300 despicable and it is shameful how many people will be too afraid of calling a spade a spade

00:39:36.300 because of how rabid some of the activists are in this space. Put up that picture again. Put up

00:39:45.560 that picture, Sean. This is the person that police have accused in Windsor of this crime,

00:39:52.240 the person that is charged with sexual assault. You are to look at that person and see a woman.

00:40:00.500 That is what society tells you you are supposed to do. Is this a healthy society? Do we give 0.97

00:40:09.040 this individual the benefit of the doubt on their self-identification after what just happened

00:40:16.880 and people can say oh but yeah men sexually assault women too well clearly the counterpoint

00:40:22.960 to that is not to allow men to sexually assault more women by allowing men to pretend to be women

00:40:28.140 and even if this person genuinely believes beyond a shadow of a doubt beyond a five o'clock shadow

00:40:32.840 of a doubt that they are a woman, do they not perhaps warrant separate spaces? This is disgusting 0.64

00:40:43.720 and anyone who is silent on this or anyone who turns around and calls out those who speak up

00:40:48.700 for women's space is complicit in this abuse. That does it for me for today. This is the Andrew

00:40:54.060 Lawton Show on True North. Thank you, God bless, and good day to you all.

00:41:02.840 donating to True North at www.tnc.news.

Juno News - April 19, 2023

Trudeau told NATO Canada would never meet its defence spending commitment

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript