Juno News - June 09, 2021


Trudeau won’t stay at a government quarantine hotel. Why should anyone else？


Episode Stats

Length

20 minutes

Words per Minute

180.40851

Word Count

3,692

Sentence Count

199

Misogynist Sentences

2

Hate Speech Sentences

6


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 You're tuned in to The Andrew Lund Show.
00:00:09.200 Christian Freeland is not the only person over in the UK right now.
00:00:13.060 Justin Trudeau will be joining later this week.
00:00:15.260 Mark Garneau was there a couple of weeks ago.
00:00:17.100 This is one of the biggest multilateral events to take place in person this year.
00:00:22.340 And the first, in fact, that Canada has participated in in quite a while, as I understand it.
00:00:26.920 And the government has been extolling the virtues of in-person multilateral diplomacy.
00:00:32.120 And by the way, I agree with it.
00:00:33.780 Certain things you cannot replicate on a Zoom screen, especially in a diplomatic context.
00:00:39.760 But the problem is that Canadians like you and like me are still being told,
00:00:44.620 any travel we want to do isn't all that important.
00:00:47.620 We shouldn't be leaving the country, but they can.
00:00:51.300 And politicians are, by the way, exempt from quarantine.
00:00:54.200 They're exempt from hotel quarantine.
00:00:55.880 But Justin Trudeau is choosing to do a hotel quarantine just to prove the point that this
00:01:02.200 is the way we should all be doing things.
00:01:04.540 Except there's a problem.
00:01:06.080 One of the restrictions the federal government put in place was to ensure that international
00:01:11.140 flights could only enter the country through four airports.
00:01:14.440 And it was hotels around those four airports, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver,
00:01:19.640 that had to be converted to these government-approved accommodations.
00:01:23.300 Well, there aren't any in Ottawa, which is where Justin Trudeau's plane is going to be flying into.
00:01:29.540 So just to prove that Trudeau is willing to play by the rules, they're taking over an Ottawa hotel
00:01:34.560 and turning it into a government quarantine facility that Justin Trudeau and his handlers and other staff
00:01:41.340 and even some media will have to stay at.
00:01:43.720 But it's theatrical. It's fake. It's not a real quarantine hotel.
00:01:48.040 It's just being done to appease the peasants, which is so central to the government's insistence
00:01:54.000 that this is all how a normal functioning society is supposed to work.
00:01:58.440 I want to talk about this with Michelle Rempel-Garner, who says that the hotel quarantine in Ottawa is not enough.
00:02:04.480 She joins me on the line now.
00:02:06.140 Michelle, good to talk to you. Thanks for coming on today.
00:02:09.080 Likewise. Thanks for having me.
00:02:10.220 So your motion, which you put before the House of Commons, was to force Justin Trudeau and his delegation
00:02:16.120 to quarantine at one of his designated hotel quarantine sites that every other Canadian's been subjected to,
00:02:23.120 rather than this special Ottawa hotel arrangement that's being set up.
00:02:27.980 When push comes to shove, why does it matter if he's going through the motions
00:02:31.040 and quarantining in a hotel upon return?
00:02:35.120 Oh, let me count the ways, Andrew.
00:02:37.020 First of all, there are tens of thousands of Canadians who are separated from loved ones
00:02:42.680 by border restrictions, and they can't afford the quarantine hotel system, number one.
00:02:50.920 Number two, there have been reports of sexual assaults at these hotels.
00:02:55.600 There have been reports of COVID-19 outbreaks.
00:02:58.480 And the government's own panel of scientists has said that this program should be scrapped.
00:03:05.520 So, you know, the elitism of, well, I'm not going to stay at the regular hotel.
00:03:13.240 I need to shut down an Ottawa area hotel to do this.
00:03:16.600 It's ridiculous.
00:03:18.100 It's theatre at the taxpayer expense.
00:03:20.700 And I just think it's probably one of the most bourgeois things that he's done.
00:03:28.020 I had the department officials at Health Committee today.
00:03:31.600 I encourage you to have a look at that.
00:03:33.520 I asked a couple of the deputy minister-level folks,
00:03:39.080 well, you know, what's different about the prime minister's security
00:03:42.260 as opposed to a woman who's allegedly been sexually assaulted at a quarantine hotel.
00:03:47.540 And their response was just so removed from reality and actually disgusting.
00:03:56.100 The prime minister should not be travelling if he's not going to stay at a quarantine hotel
00:04:00.760 like everybody else, or he should scrap the program,
00:04:03.680 which he should have done a long time ago.
00:04:05.660 Yeah, this is the government that famously said back in 2015 when first elected
00:04:10.720 that it was going to be evidence-driven, unlike those conservatives.
00:04:13.760 We're going to listen to the evidence and listen to the science.
00:04:16.180 And time and time again, when the so-called science doesn't align with their policy objectives,
00:04:21.460 there's always a reason for why they aren't following it.
00:04:24.280 And this report that came out a little while ago is a great example of this.
00:04:28.500 The government's given no concession that the report might be valid,
00:04:32.340 even though they were the ones that put it together.
00:04:33.940 They've just been downplaying it and talking about all the reasons why,
00:04:37.420 well, you know, we'll take it into consideration.
00:04:39.300 It's just an interim report when it says the hotel quarantine simply doesn't do anything.
00:04:44.840 Yeah, great points and a few things to build on from that.
00:04:48.520 First of all, I've heard rumours from a few well-placed sources
00:04:52.140 that the government was actually in possession of that report for a long period of time,
00:04:56.920 that they actually renewed the hotel quarantine program
00:04:59.380 while being in possession of that report and sitting on it.
00:05:03.580 You know, I think that's something that needs to be looked into
00:05:06.420 based on what you just said, that the government isn't making science-based decisions.
00:05:11.540 And just furthering that, I have asked department officials numerous times
00:05:16.640 to publish data that shows that this quarantine hotel system
00:05:21.280 is better at preventing the spread of COVID
00:05:23.260 than any number of other options, including at-home quarantine.
00:05:26.780 They can never provide that.
00:05:27.800 Bluntly put, Trudeau failed to close the border when it counted in early 2020.
00:05:33.560 And the hotel quarantine program was just put in place, I believe,
00:05:37.940 to discourage middle-class Canadians from travelling
00:05:40.580 to make it cost-ineffective,
00:05:43.080 because it's sure not stopping NHL players and rich people
00:05:46.200 from getting special exemptions.
00:05:47.520 It's sure not stopping Justin Trudeau from travelling abroad.
00:05:50.460 And that entitlement, that elitism, that stratification of social class
00:05:57.000 under the guise of public health orders is disgusting.
00:06:00.380 And I hope that Canadians of all political stripes
00:06:02.960 hold him to account for it.
00:06:04.840 You are right about the elitism, not just in hotel quarantine,
00:06:08.400 but in general with a lot of the travel restrictions,
00:06:11.140 because we've seen that people who have money can get around it.
00:06:15.080 You know, they can fly with a private jet into an airport
00:06:17.560 that's not one of those main four.
00:06:19.180 They can pay for the hotel quarantine if they need to.
00:06:22.080 They can do these bizarre arrangements like driving to a border
00:06:25.540 and taking a helicopter over that we heard of happening in Ontario and Quebec.
00:06:29.540 And politicians in the same boat.
00:06:31.220 They're telling Canadians that their travel is not essential
00:06:34.220 no matter why they want to do it or how important it is.
00:06:36.900 But when they're doing something abroad,
00:06:38.640 whether it's a G7 summit or something else, it's essential.
00:06:42.360 And there is a double standard there.
00:06:44.160 And admittedly, I'm not one who's saying don't travel.
00:06:46.660 I'm saying that if they're telling people not to travel,
00:06:49.880 they should be playing by the same rules.
00:06:52.360 How is an NHL player traveling into Canada more essential than,
00:06:59.120 you know, I had a constituent in tears call me
00:07:01.340 about how his cross-border relationship is in very difficult times,
00:07:07.500 has family members that are sick.
00:07:09.640 How is that travel more essential?
00:07:11.040 It's just complete, you know, I was going to use an expletive.
00:07:15.260 It's just so bad.
00:07:19.420 The program needs to end.
00:07:21.200 And at this point in time,
00:07:22.600 the federal government should be putting forward benchmarks
00:07:25.000 for safe reopening and lifting of federal restrictions
00:07:28.360 as it pertains to the border.
00:07:29.680 They can do that while at the same time doing something
00:07:31.740 that they've also completely failed on,
00:07:33.600 which is putting in place a system to detect pathogens
00:07:38.060 that are like might have a significant impact on Canada,
00:07:42.360 like COVID variants of concern.
00:07:44.700 Why did the COVID, the Delta variant,
00:07:47.040 that's what they're calling it, I believe, in India,
00:07:49.200 was detected in October.
00:07:51.480 And then they only banned flights from there,
00:07:54.240 what, about a month ago?
00:07:55.540 What is like, how does that happen?
00:07:57.940 So it's just nonsensical.
00:07:59.880 I also actually condemn the, you know,
00:08:03.300 some of the senior level officials
00:08:04.800 that are giving the government advice on this.
00:08:07.340 They're so disconnected from reality.
00:08:08.940 But the buck stops with these ministers
00:08:10.700 and the prime minister who are living
00:08:13.560 by one different set of rules for themselves
00:08:16.180 than everybody else.
00:08:18.300 And I hope that people realize that,
00:08:20.100 that this is an entitled elitist system
00:08:24.180 from an out-of-touch government
00:08:25.500 and from a prime minister who thinks
00:08:27.120 it's more important to go to, you know,
00:08:28.820 to travel abroad when no one else can,
00:08:31.600 rather than fix the system first.
00:08:33.280 He should have done that.
00:08:33.980 He's making people pay tax dollars
00:08:36.440 so that he can stay in a bougie hotel in Ottawa for optics.
00:08:42.480 If he's so committed to the hotel quarantine system,
00:08:45.000 maybe he should stay in one of those rooms
00:08:46.560 that don't have a lock
00:08:47.560 that other women have had to be subjected to.
00:08:49.780 If his security is so important,
00:08:51.160 maybe he could just fix the system for everybody.
00:08:53.820 Very well said.
00:08:54.860 Conservative health critic Michelle Rempel-Garner,
00:08:57.160 always a pleasure.
00:08:57.820 Thank you, Michelle.
00:08:58.820 Thank you.
00:08:59.820 I want to turn from the political side of this
00:09:02.160 to the legal side of this.
00:09:03.500 Last week, I was tied up for three days.
00:09:05.840 I say tied up.
00:09:06.580 I enjoy doing it.
00:09:07.560 And I wasn't nearly as tied up as the people
00:09:09.160 that were actually participating in the Zoom call.
00:09:11.540 But in a federal court Zoom hearing,
00:09:13.920 as the constitutionality of the hotel quarantine
00:09:16.560 was being challenged,
00:09:18.360 there were a number of applicants,
00:09:19.600 most of them represented by the Justice Center
00:09:21.800 for Constitutional Freedoms.
00:09:23.060 But our friends at Rebel and Kian Bextie
00:09:25.780 were also putting their claims forward,
00:09:28.040 arguing that this federal hotel quarantine program
00:09:31.480 is not constitutional.
00:09:33.620 And also, basically, that it doesn't work.
00:09:36.520 The effectiveness, or lack thereof,
00:09:38.660 became very central to the hearing as well.
00:09:41.280 I want to bring in Sia Hassan,
00:09:43.120 who is a lawyer with the Justice Center
00:09:44.700 for Constitutional Freedoms
00:09:45.940 and was one of the two primary litigators
00:09:48.220 on this case for the JCCF.
00:09:50.780 Sia, thanks for coming on.
00:09:52.080 Great to talk to you.
00:09:53.120 Thank you so much for having me.
00:09:54.660 Now, we've seen an injunction
00:09:56.560 on this question before.
00:09:58.040 This is really the first time
00:09:59.620 that in a full hearing on the merits,
00:10:02.240 we've had the constitutionality of this
00:10:04.540 attested, isn't it?
00:10:06.240 That's correct.
00:10:07.020 Yes, the Justice Center brought a constant,
00:10:09.220 an injunction hearing
00:10:10.280 where we were not successful.
00:10:11.980 But the judge found that there were serious issues
00:10:14.940 to be tried when it came to Section 7
00:10:17.020 and 9 of the Charter.
00:10:18.220 And then we were able to have the full hearing
00:10:21.420 on the merits of our charter argument.
00:10:24.280 The premise of this program,
00:10:26.240 I know I've talked about it on the show in the past,
00:10:28.180 is that in January,
00:10:29.980 the government of Canada said,
00:10:31.480 we've got all these variants coming in.
00:10:33.180 Our travel measures that we have in place
00:10:35.100 now aren't working.
00:10:36.220 So we're going to force anyone
00:10:37.880 who comes into the country by air
00:10:39.540 to stay in a hotel near the airport
00:10:41.940 for three days to get a test.
00:10:44.060 And then at the end of that three days,
00:10:45.560 they can continue on home
00:10:46.900 and complete their quarantine.
00:10:48.980 What's really the basis of your arguments?
00:10:51.380 And what is it that your applicants
00:10:52.900 are actually fighting for?
00:10:55.160 We brought quite a,
00:10:56.880 we were challenging quite a few
00:10:58.440 of the charter sections,
00:11:00.100 but really the main area is the detention.
00:11:03.400 So under Section 7,
00:11:04.900 we have the right to liberty
00:11:06.300 and security of person.
00:11:07.640 And under Section 9,
00:11:08.800 we have the right
00:11:09.460 not to be arbitrarily detained.
00:11:11.240 And really the focus was on the fact
00:11:13.500 that people that are forced
00:11:14.680 into these government-mandated hotels,
00:11:17.000 they're being detained against their will.
00:11:18.740 They are not going there voluntarily.
00:11:21.320 And of course,
00:11:21.860 we raised the issue
00:11:22.680 that once you're detained,
00:11:23.820 you're entitled to speak to counsel,
00:11:25.580 which is also a right
00:11:26.700 that is being violated
00:11:27.720 during these quarantine hotels
00:11:30.660 when this is going forward.
00:11:33.020 So those are,
00:11:33.600 those were some of the issues
00:11:34.880 that we raised.
00:11:35.920 I was tuned in
00:11:37.100 for the majority of the hearing.
00:11:39.000 And at one point,
00:11:40.160 the federal government's lawyer
00:11:41.520 was saying that,
00:11:42.900 well, it's not arbitrary
00:11:43.780 because everyone is getting it to,
00:11:46.360 everyone's subjected to it.
00:11:48.100 And you have people
00:11:49.680 that are coming into the country
00:11:50.960 that know this is going to happen.
00:11:52.680 Is the government admitting
00:11:54.860 that this is detention
00:11:56.020 when they make that argument,
00:11:57.460 when they just focus
00:11:58.220 on the arbitrary part?
00:12:00.740 No, I don't think they were admitting
00:12:02.200 any part of the detention.
00:12:03.580 In fact, they argued
00:12:04.280 that it was a frivolous argument.
00:12:06.640 But the argument,
00:12:08.420 there's two parts to detention.
00:12:09.960 So first,
00:12:10.480 you have to actually
00:12:11.320 either be physically
00:12:12.120 or psychologically detained.
00:12:13.820 And they argued
00:12:14.520 that once you're at the airport
00:12:15.880 and you're being mandated
00:12:17.640 to go to these quarantine hotels
00:12:19.460 and or the quarantine facilities,
00:12:21.340 you are detained.
00:12:22.580 And then the second part
00:12:23.720 is that it has to be arbitrary.
00:12:26.060 And the arbitrary argument,
00:12:27.480 there's quite a few arguments to it.
00:12:29.080 But one of them
00:12:29.940 is the fact that
00:12:30.820 there's only a small number
00:12:32.760 of people actually
00:12:33.620 who are being subject
00:12:34.460 to the quarantine hotels.
00:12:35.700 75% of the international travelers
00:12:38.720 who come to Canada
00:12:39.620 are completely exempt
00:12:40.960 from the quarantine hotel.
00:12:42.700 So their focus is only
00:12:43.940 on 25% of the international travelers.
00:12:47.260 That in itself,
00:12:48.100 we argued,
00:12:48.640 was arbitrary.
00:12:49.720 The fact that
00:12:50.380 the land travelers
00:12:51.280 are being treated differently
00:12:52.540 than the air travelers,
00:12:54.240 those types of things
00:12:55.060 make the detention arbitrary.
00:12:57.160 At one point,
00:12:57.960 when you talk about
00:12:58.720 how few people
00:13:00.240 of overall travelers
00:13:01.600 are subjected to this,
00:13:02.680 one thought that comes to mind
00:13:03.740 is that a lot of people
00:13:05.020 are simply not traveling
00:13:06.500 because they don't want
00:13:07.600 to be subjected to this.
00:13:08.880 And it seems as though
00:13:10.280 the government has put in place
00:13:11.660 a lot of these measures
00:13:12.720 not because the measures
00:13:14.280 themselves work,
00:13:15.600 but because they're trying
00:13:16.780 to make travel
00:13:17.740 so convoluted
00:13:19.900 and so costly
00:13:20.940 for people
00:13:21.440 that they don't do it.
00:13:22.260 They're trying to discourage travel,
00:13:23.640 it looks like.
00:13:24.520 And if that is,
00:13:25.640 in fact,
00:13:25.980 the case,
00:13:27.000 that's not a selling point
00:13:29.400 on a constitutional defense
00:13:30.900 for the government.
00:13:31.540 Because as I understand it,
00:13:33.740 any limitation
00:13:34.400 of constitutional freedoms
00:13:35.540 has to be very pointed
00:13:36.600 and very directly tied
00:13:38.440 to the policy objective,
00:13:40.040 which if it is just a part
00:13:41.480 of discouraging it,
00:13:42.580 it really isn't tied.
00:13:44.300 Well, the government
00:13:45.260 is arguing that
00:13:46.160 the reason for these measures
00:13:47.640 is to limit the importation
00:13:49.920 of the variants.
00:13:51.540 But you're absolutely on point.
00:13:53.400 And one of the other arguments
00:13:54.580 we made was the Section 6.1 argument,
00:13:57.000 which is your chartered right
00:13:58.260 to enter Canada freely
00:13:59.820 and be able to leave freely.
00:14:01.740 And when you put in place,
00:14:02.880 when the government
00:14:03.360 puts in place measures
00:14:05.280 that prevent people
00:14:06.480 from traveling
00:14:07.280 or makes it difficult
00:14:08.360 for them to come back,
00:14:09.860 that violates their charter rights
00:14:11.540 under Section 6.1
00:14:12.760 because the measures
00:14:15.140 are very restrictive
00:14:17.660 and they violate a lot of people
00:14:20.660 to enter.
00:14:21.160 It just makes it
00:14:21.720 a lot more difficult.
00:14:23.000 And they argue
00:14:23.520 that that was also
00:14:24.480 against Section 6.1
00:14:25.940 of the charter.
00:14:26.500 Anyone who's ever followed
00:14:29.180 any of these constitutional arguments
00:14:30.840 in Canada in any case
00:14:32.400 knows that we, of course,
00:14:33.760 have Section 1 of the charter,
00:14:35.140 which subjects
00:14:35.800 all of the subsequent charter rights
00:14:37.480 to so-called reasonable limits.
00:14:39.880 And in a lot of contexts,
00:14:41.900 this means, I would fear,
00:14:43.700 that if the government
00:14:44.360 can say the program's working,
00:14:46.440 a court could find
00:14:47.620 that the limitation
00:14:48.660 of freedoms would be limited.
00:14:50.240 Is that where you feel
00:14:51.400 this case is headed,
00:14:53.220 where the court may concede,
00:14:54.700 yes, rights are being violated,
00:14:56.640 but the limitation is justified
00:14:58.840 because of X, Y, Z,
00:15:00.480 when you're talking about
00:15:01.320 the variance or importation risk
00:15:03.380 and so on?
00:15:04.700 Well, we're hoping
00:15:05.400 the court will not find that,
00:15:06.880 that they will find
00:15:07.660 that these limits
00:15:08.460 are not justified
00:15:09.380 under Section 1.
00:15:10.800 But that's probably
00:15:11.960 where things are going to turn.
00:15:13.940 And we were before
00:15:15.220 the Chief Justice, Crampton,
00:15:16.900 and he was actually
00:15:17.700 very concerned about the evidence
00:15:19.140 and he was asking the Crown,
00:15:20.800 you know,
00:15:21.020 where's the evidence for this
00:15:22.260 and where's the evidence for that?
00:15:23.540 So he was very alive to the issue
00:15:25.240 and I take comfort
00:15:27.260 in the fact that
00:15:28.060 he was asking questions
00:15:29.420 and he wanted to know
00:15:30.500 where the evidence was.
00:15:32.460 So I thought
00:15:33.740 that was a good sign.
00:15:35.140 Yeah, and one point
00:15:36.040 that I found very interesting
00:15:37.660 and the government lawyers
00:15:38.960 did not really seem
00:15:40.040 to have an answer for it
00:15:41.260 was,
00:15:42.500 and just for people
00:15:43.300 that haven't come
00:15:43.920 into the country under this,
00:15:44.900 you might not know this,
00:15:45.740 but you go to the hotel quarantine,
00:15:47.200 you get a COVID test.
00:15:48.460 At the end of your three days,
00:15:50.140 if your test is positive,
00:15:51.600 more often than not,
00:15:53.280 you still continue home
00:15:54.860 exactly as you would have
00:15:56.700 if your test came back negative
00:15:58.360 and you still go into
00:15:59.580 14-day quarantine
00:16:00.600 exactly as if your test
00:16:01.900 was negative.
00:16:03.400 And in doing so,
00:16:04.820 the government has really made it
00:16:06.220 so there's not
00:16:06.760 a substantive difference,
00:16:08.320 which makes me question
00:16:09.800 and I would hope
00:16:10.340 makes anyone question,
00:16:11.680 okay, well,
00:16:12.220 what's the point of this all?
00:16:13.580 And the judge had asked,
00:16:14.940 I know,
00:16:15.440 at a couple of points
00:16:16.300 for more information about that
00:16:17.880 and the government
00:16:18.280 didn't really seem
00:16:18.920 to have the data
00:16:19.720 on how many people
00:16:20.620 have actually not been permitted
00:16:22.260 to go right home
00:16:23.080 even with a positive test result.
00:16:25.280 And, you know,
00:16:25.900 at one point,
00:16:26.440 it seemed like the lawyer
00:16:27.760 for the government of Canada
00:16:28.820 had said,
00:16:29.400 well, you know,
00:16:30.180 if you know you're positive,
00:16:31.580 your mindset will be different
00:16:32.980 when you're in quarantine,
00:16:33.960 which again,
00:16:34.500 doesn't seem like
00:16:35.800 the most selling argument
00:16:37.400 for them.
00:16:38.920 Definitely.
00:16:39.620 And that was,
00:16:40.320 I mean,
00:16:40.600 I think they argued
00:16:41.440 a lot of points,
00:16:42.800 but one of them was,
00:16:43.860 yes,
00:16:44.020 the government is arguing
00:16:45.240 that if you know
00:16:46.000 that you're positive,
00:16:46.820 then you will have
00:16:47.820 a different mindset.
00:16:48.960 Well,
00:16:49.140 the argument was,
00:16:50.040 where's the evidence for this?
00:16:51.480 It certainly wasn't
00:16:52.240 in any of the affidavits.
00:16:53.580 It just,
00:16:54.080 it was something
00:16:54.820 that one of the Appian
00:16:56.160 stated in her cross-examination.
00:16:58.680 And so that was something
00:16:59.800 that we challenged.
00:17:01.340 And certainly,
00:17:02.420 it doesn't appear
00:17:03.080 that they are collecting data
00:17:04.560 with respect to
00:17:05.300 how many people
00:17:05.980 who test positive
00:17:07.160 get to go home
00:17:08.020 versus who is being directed
00:17:09.540 to the quarantine facility.
00:17:12.340 Now,
00:17:12.920 I know that this was,
00:17:13.900 again,
00:17:14.080 a three-day long hearing.
00:17:15.720 There were thousands
00:17:16.440 and thousands
00:17:17.020 of pages of evidence.
00:17:18.800 It's entirely possible
00:17:20.280 that the program could end
00:17:22.380 if the government
00:17:22.940 ends the program
00:17:23.840 before a decision
00:17:25.180 comes from the court.
00:17:26.600 But if that happens,
00:17:27.720 is it still important
00:17:28.700 in your eyes
00:17:29.420 that this be found
00:17:30.500 unconstitutional?
00:17:32.320 Absolutely.
00:17:33.200 I think it's very important
00:17:34.660 because this is the first time
00:17:36.240 in post-charter history
00:17:37.740 where the government
00:17:38.780 is forcing people
00:17:40.940 into quarantine,
00:17:41.880 essentially detaining
00:17:42.860 people en masse.
00:17:44.160 And if this is found
00:17:46.580 to be constitutional,
00:17:48.000 I think it's going to be,
00:17:48.960 it's going to set
00:17:49.700 a very dangerous precedent
00:17:51.040 because moving forward,
00:17:52.660 the government
00:17:53.120 can continue to do so.
00:17:55.240 Versus if the courts
00:17:56.160 put a stop to it now,
00:17:57.820 they will not be able
00:17:58.840 to use that later on
00:17:59.940 in other emergency contexts.
00:18:02.920 Yeah, and this is,
00:18:04.560 I think, a very important point,
00:18:05.940 Sia, because we know
00:18:06.820 that, yes, this is
00:18:07.720 a once-in-a-lifetime problem
00:18:09.620 that we're dealing with now,
00:18:10.760 we certainly hope,
00:18:11.780 as far as COVID,
00:18:12.700 but the very nature
00:18:14.280 of the circumstances
00:18:15.660 under which governments
00:18:16.540 wish to suspend liberties,
00:18:18.040 which is situations
00:18:19.200 of emergency,
00:18:20.160 are the circumstances
00:18:21.220 in which it's most important
00:18:22.500 to preserve
00:18:23.500 and protect liberties.
00:18:24.580 I mean, the right
00:18:25.200 to enter the country
00:18:25.960 without detention
00:18:26.720 is, for the most part,
00:18:28.460 not a right
00:18:29.420 that is challenged
00:18:30.260 on a day-to-day basis
00:18:31.580 under normal circumstances.
00:18:32.920 So this idea
00:18:34.200 that an emergency
00:18:35.060 is a trump card
00:18:36.480 that you can use
00:18:37.200 to suspend the charter
00:18:38.140 is simply not accurate
00:18:40.000 and very dangerous
00:18:41.340 of a presumption
00:18:42.200 by the government,
00:18:42.940 I'd say.
00:18:43.940 Absolutely,
00:18:44.720 and that's what we told
00:18:45.780 the Chief Justice
00:18:47.160 that it's exactly
00:18:48.480 during these times
00:18:49.540 the emergencies
00:18:50.240 when charter rights
00:18:51.920 are being violated.
00:18:53.060 So it's very important
00:18:53.980 for the courts
00:18:54.680 to be vigilant
00:18:55.400 and to be the gatekeepers
00:18:56.800 and ensure that the government
00:18:58.160 isn't violating our charts
00:19:00.340 arbitrarily.
00:19:03.640 So I know predictions
00:19:05.360 are very difficult.
00:19:06.560 You put your best foot forward,
00:19:08.120 you make the arguments,
00:19:09.040 you submit the evidence,
00:19:09.980 the Chief Justice
00:19:10.600 has to rule.
00:19:11.920 What do you think
00:19:12.660 this case will really
00:19:13.780 come down to
00:19:14.680 in the court's decision?
00:19:15.820 What do you think
00:19:16.260 will be, I guess,
00:19:17.520 the factor that sways
00:19:18.940 the decision
00:19:19.640 one way or the other?
00:19:21.560 It's really hard to tell
00:19:23.000 and I really can't predict,
00:19:24.500 but what I can say
00:19:25.720 is that the Chief Justice
00:19:27.120 was listening.
00:19:28.080 It was very clear
00:19:29.180 that he had read
00:19:30.000 everyone's material.
00:19:31.420 He had marked things up.
00:19:32.860 He was asking
00:19:33.420 a lot of intelligent questions
00:19:34.980 and he did tell all of us
00:19:37.320 that he was going
00:19:38.040 to review all of the affidavits
00:19:39.980 and the evidence in detail
00:19:41.440 and that we had given him
00:19:42.900 a lot to think about.
00:19:44.380 So I think that's all,
00:19:46.420 that's what we can ask
00:19:47.300 when we're having a hearing
00:19:48.320 to have a judge who listens
00:19:49.520 and who takes notes
00:19:51.080 and who asks questions
00:19:52.320 and I think that's always
00:19:53.800 a positive sign.
00:19:54.900 Sia Hassan,
00:19:56.680 lawyer with the Justice Centre
00:19:58.080 for Constitutional Freedoms.
00:19:59.380 A very big week last week
00:20:01.080 with three days
00:20:01.940 in federal court
00:20:02.940 arguing for the end
00:20:04.260 of the hotel quarantine plan.
00:20:05.560 So I hope you were able
00:20:06.640 to get some much needed
00:20:08.020 and much deserved rest afterwards,
00:20:09.440 but I appreciate you
00:20:10.640 joining me today, Sia.
00:20:11.580 Thank you.
00:20:12.100 Thank you.
00:20:12.580 Thank you for having me.
00:20:14.080 Thanks for listening
00:20:14.800 to The Andrew Lawton Show.
00:20:16.220 Support the program
00:20:17.040 by donating to True North
00:20:18.280 at www.tnc.news.
00:20:21.440 The Andrew Lawton Show
00:20:24.680 to to theいる
00:20:27.200 at www.tnc.news.gov.
00:20:27.600 .