00:05:02.380And I see that you've had my good friend and colleague James Kitchen on before.
00:05:08.180We've been working very, very intensely over the past several months, specifically in relation to vaccine mandate cases, as these cases really came to the fore in really October and November of last year, not coincidentally after the last federal election.
00:05:30.760um our work is not on behalf of employers it's not on behalf of unions we act for workers and
00:05:40.000the reason what we've seen in acting on behalf of workers both unionized and non-unionized
00:05:45.040is uh i've come to the uh the informed opinion that the vaccine mandates really have nothing to
00:05:54.500do with health and safety. I think that recent data, real-world data about the ineffectiveness
00:06:02.740of the vaccines, both in terms of preventing infection and preventing transmission of the virus
00:06:10.100have informed this opinion and also the fact that the virus itself is not cooperating because
00:06:18.100let's face it everybody is getting omicron because it's 140 000 times more transmissible
00:06:25.060i understand than the original virus but what's really going on in my respectful view
00:06:31.620with vaccine mandates is it's a it's really a surreptitious attack on the canadian working
00:06:36.900class that's designed to to hit the canadian workers people i call the best canadians the
00:06:42.900galoo canadians the ones who are really supporting their communities and paying all the taxes and
00:06:48.740serving on school boards and doing all the things that really support our country it's an attack on1.00
00:06:55.540them so that they could not that they lose the ability the freedom that comes from having an
00:07:02.260income to support their families to acquire and maintain personal property the vaccine mandates
00:07:08.020do not hit destitute people, they do not hit street people, they do not hit people in prisons,
00:07:15.780they do not hit the political class or the uber rich, they hit the Canadian working class.
00:07:23.620It's my view that this is a weaponization of COVID-19 as a means to achieve a political
00:07:31.140agenda that's been very clearly and publicly mapped out by the Liberal government in Ottawa.
00:07:38.020Now, a lot of things are starting to change, especially as you mentioned with the Omicron
00:07:45.800variant and how it is highly infectious, but really much less severe in symptoms and illness.
00:07:56.880So a lot of things are starting to change.
00:07:58.540I mean, even this morning, as we mentioned, we just did a story covering how UK is moving
00:08:07.760They're moving away from mask mandates, they're moving away from the vaccine mandates.
00:08:13.080And so we're seeing this sort of unravel in other countries as well.
00:08:18.280And I know in Canada, you were just mentioning that the Treasury Board has sort of updated
00:08:25.940the work from home guidelines and have now said that instead of the mandate being federally
00:08:34.300imposed it's going to be sort of left to the different departments to be
00:08:38.540decided on whether whether federal employees will be will be mandated can you can you speak to that
00:08:43.500a little bit i i can um more broadly speaking i i think you make a great point about what's going
00:08:51.340on in britain i think that if you look back over the past 18 months or two years i think it's fair
00:08:56.940to say that britain has been a little bit ahead of north america maybe three to six months ahead
00:09:03.100of us in terms of uh you know signaling to us what's coming from covid and it is uh it is
00:09:10.620encouraging to see that in britain really they're starting to wake up to what uh the people on our
00:09:16.540side of the case have been saying for about two years um there's a really really excellent source
00:09:23.580of information that's been largely banned uh on social media and the internet um and which dr
00:09:30.140Fauci has publicly criticized called the Great Barrington Declaration which was formulated by
00:09:36.140a group of world-renowned scientists and if you go back and look at that document now
00:09:41.020about two years on virtually everything that they were saying two years ago has come true.
00:09:49.100The only jurisdictions that really paid close attention to the Great Barrington Declaration
00:09:54.460and instituted it were places like Texas and Florida and Tennessee and you can go and you
00:09:59.420You can look at how they have fared in terms of COVID-19 versus what the lockdown restrictions have done.
00:10:09.340And I think anyone can see that the lockdown restrictions have been a huge mistake.
00:10:14.840So it's very encouraging to see that some of these governments, the British government, are starting to see the need for a new policy in terms of COVID.
00:10:28.220But I also noticed in the news very recently, Bill Gates, who, of course, has been a proponent of vaccines, in fact, a purveyor of vaccines, is saying that Omicron is essentially the common cold and that we have to start dealing with Omicron and COVID as though it is an endemic situation.
00:10:47.840there's also been signals um in canada that this is this is coming i i saw a recent interview
00:10:54.800that dr bonnie henry who's the chief medical officer for british columbia game where she said
00:11:00.080things along the same lines and in other words she basically said that she sees omicron as an
00:11:05.280encouraging sign that uh that that uh covet 19 has essentially run its its its course and that
00:11:13.200we can see the end of COVID. What's interesting about that, and again this is my opinion as
00:11:18.800somebody who's been following this story, this narrative for about two years and following it
00:11:26.960very closely as someone who's immersed in it, I think what we're seeing is governments especially
00:11:33.600trying to find an exit strategy, an end to COVID, let's say an elegant exit to it.
00:11:39.760and I think we're starting to see preparation for that. At the same time, what's interesting
00:11:45.360is we're seeing this competing force, this tension, where some people, in particular our
00:11:51.200Prime Minister in the province of Quebec, or at least the Quebec government, are really trying to
00:11:59.600race against the sunset to push these vaccine mandates through as far as possible, really
00:12:04.960against, in defiance of all sense, and everything that we're learning daily about COVID-19 and
00:13:17.900So I think as Canadians, we're going to need to be much more watchful about government
00:13:24.900government overreach. And people like me will be advocating in the aftermath of COVID for
00:13:31.560serious legislative change, which will restrict, for example, the accessibility, the easy accessibility
00:13:39.800of governments to declare states of emergency and to assume really undemocratic, unconstitutional
00:13:48.020executive powers and i think also to set limits upon government spending because i think if we
00:13:55.860had limits on the ability of the federal government to spend money let's say back in march of 2020
00:14:02.980i think that that would have been beneficial to canadians in two respects firstly it would have
00:14:09.380prevented the ungodly unconscionable spending that has driven our country into hopeless debt
00:14:14.900we're dealing with you know endemic really frightening inflation and tax increases like
00:14:20.100mr naylor was just talking about as a result of that but it also would have forced our government
00:14:25.780to be much more resourceful and creative and wise about the decisions that they were going to make
00:14:32.340in order to deal with a pandemic as opposed to simply uh you know adopting the philosophy
00:14:38.340that no problem can be defeated if we throw enough money at it
00:14:44.900So, my question to you is this then. So, you know, there's been sort of a shift in some of the narrative that's been going on. And I know, again, with this decision that's come down that was announced just two days ago from the feds, basically that the federal public service is going, so the feds are going to leave it to the different departments to determine whether they're going to mandate
00:15:14.900vaccination, whether they're going to allow workers to come back to work, who work from home.
00:15:19.960I mean, that to me, when we're talking about even the logic behind the law and talking about real
00:15:25.980public safety, I happen to have a friend who worked for an airline as a call center employee,
00:15:32.360and she was put on leave without pay for, you know, she worked from home and was not able to
00:15:40.600do her job working from home. I mean, like legally that I just can't understand the leg
00:15:47.340that they would have to stand on to say that that is a public safety issue for somebody working from
00:15:52.160home being required to be vaccinated. You know, I'm sure you're dealing with that for other
00:15:59.260clients as well, but what's your thoughts on that? No, it's a great point. And actually it supports,
00:16:05.260It really informs the opinion that I expressed a moment ago about the fact that the vaccine mandates really have little or nothing to do with occupational health and safety, because the vaccines really are not protecting workers.
00:16:19.320The people who have taken the vaccine have not been protected, for example, from Omicron.
00:16:24.040Coming back to the question about the Treasury Board, I think that's an example of what I was saying earlier, where I think governments are turning away from or trying to turn away from.
00:16:35.260the expansion or the extension of the COVID narrative. The Treasury Board decision, I think,
00:16:40.640is very important in and of itself because apart from, I believe, apart from CRA, the
00:16:49.640revenue agency, every other government agency and department relies upon funding that comes
00:16:58.980through the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board is sort of the circulatory system for the federal
00:17:02.600government and the delegation or let's say the the walking back of the blanket vaccine mandate
00:17:12.280that you talked about is significant because it didn't it didn't really exist before in fact
00:17:19.640if you trace it back a couple of steps you'll see that the the letters of appointment that
00:17:26.120that Prime Minister Trudeau sent to people like Minister Fortier, who's the president
00:17:32.520of the Treasury Board, in those letters appointing these new ministers when he had his last cabinet
00:17:39.400shuffled, he specifically charged them with the duty to ensure that everyone in their
00:17:47.680department is vaccinated. So I think on one view of the matter, we can look at this Treasury
00:17:55.360Board announcement as a promising sign that perhaps the winter is starting to thaw.
00:18:01.040However, I would say that we still need to be, as Canadians, we still need to be vigilant
00:18:06.480and watchful, much more vigilant and watchful of the actions of our governments than we ever
00:18:11.600have been before. I think I read a book recently that I'd recommend to your viewers that was
00:18:17.760written by Conrad Black his most recent book and in it he talks about how well Canada historically
00:18:25.440has been governed and as a result Canadians are very very trustful of government and but I think
00:18:32.480we've entered a new era I think that going forward we're all going to have to have to be much more
00:18:38.320watchful much more questioning what the government has been telling us not the least of which and
00:18:44.640And this might be the most concerning thing about the public health system, if we can
00:18:54.400Perhaps the most concerning thing to me is the high level of censorship and the use of
00:19:00.620things like words like misinformation, where we've essentially been told from the very
00:19:05.740beginning that we shouldn't look at other sources of information.
00:19:09.920We shouldn't look at things like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine or other therapeuticals.
00:19:14.640even though Pfizer is developing one of their own right now, because that information is not
00:19:19.980coming from government. In other words, the only reliable source of information about public health
00:19:24.520comes from government. When you track through, for example, what the Alberta government has
00:19:29.900been telling us about public health information, it's basically been an avalanche of inconsistency.
00:19:38.680In fact, I don't think any party has put out more misinformation about COVID-19 than our governments.
00:19:50.220It's interesting you bring that up because we actually just aired a video from MLA, Peter Guthrie, from the Airdrie-Cochran area.
00:20:00.540And he said the exact same thing, you know, taking into question AHS, the fact that it seems as though things have obviously changed from the beginning of the pandemic to the end.
00:20:13.960I mean, in the beginning, we didn't have much information.
00:27:36.820Both myself and Mr. Rath feel quite strongly that that would seriously impair our ability
00:27:46.620to conduct a proper cross-examination of Dr. Hinshaw.
00:27:49.620So we've taken the position that we would agree to the WebEx hearing, with the exception of Dr. Hinshaw,
00:27:54.500whom we would want to have testifying hearing.
00:27:57.680The main reason for that is because it's our intention to confront her with literally hundreds of documents
00:28:03.680for the purposes of impeachment to attack her reliability and credibility
00:28:11.500in terms of the statements that she's made to the public about COVID-19 and lockdown measures.
00:28:17.820Most recently, your listeners are probably aware of a recent press release that was made by Dr. Hinchon, really a public admission by both she and Alberta Health Services, that the numbers of people during the heart of the pandemic, which were used as really the impetus for lockdown measures, were misrepresented to the public.
00:28:41.000in that the number of people who are actually in ICU with COVID
00:28:48.460versus people who tested positively for COVID
00:28:53.220but were not there really suffering from COVID symptoms
00:29:01.080So that's one example of the type of contradiction
00:29:04.200that we would want to put to Dr. Hinshaw under oath
00:29:07.660and we want to do it with her in person
00:29:09.960as opposed to Webex, the Court of Queen's Bench Justice, Justice Romaine, is going to
00:29:18.440rule on that application and will be very interested to see over the next few days what
00:29:24.080she decides. I know, for example, another case, a similar case in Manitoba, was done
00:29:31.280entirely with virtual testimony under a virtual platform. And so it's conceivable that Justice
00:29:39.840remain will will agree to the government's request but for what it's worth we've done our best to
00:29:45.600oppose that application now i'm curious layton can can the average person watch in if this is a webex
00:29:55.760hearing can the average person watch in because i'm seeing a lot of comments from our our viewers
00:30:01.600that are saying they would like to be able to and they think it it should be made public that
00:30:06.640the public can watch this this hearing well that's part of the reason why we wanted to have
00:30:12.080an in-person hearing uh because our courts are still open open to the public and uh to my nose
00:30:18.560there was no restriction placed upon the number of people who are going to be uh in the courtroom
00:30:23.600at any given time however under the virtual platform um uh i don't know the precise answer
00:30:31.600to the question i i expect that the it will be possible for a certain number of people
00:30:40.320to be on a platform to to view the trial uh i don't know the precise circumstances under which
00:30:46.640that type of access is going to be granted i would expect that members of the media
00:30:52.480accredited media would probably be given uh preference um but um that that it's important
00:31:00.480to note and it's disappointing actually that this is a very important case it might be the most
00:31:06.320important civil case that's ongoing in the entire province and yet uh most people don't know anything
00:31:11.680about it uh because it hasn't been really publicized at all in the legacy media so we're
00:31:18.080grateful for uh for uh people like the western standard to get this word out to the people
00:31:24.420But the hearing is going to take place during the last two and a half weeks of February.
00:31:32.560It'll be decided in Calgary, but it's likely that most of the participants will not be in the same courtroom.
00:31:41.200Again, this is due to the ongoing health emergency that the province of Alberta has declared and really has been in place since the middle part of September.
00:31:51.340Right. So I will do my best to look into that to see if there's an option to potentially
00:32:01.660watch this in some ways. Is there any way that you know of to petition that the court
00:32:06.540make this viewable for many? I'm just responding to an overwhelming
00:32:13.740response here from a lot of viewers who think this should definitely be something the public
00:32:19.580is is allowed to watch well obviously there is the the option of contacting your your mla um and uh
00:32:29.180and and sending emails or or calls of course they they are the people who are charged with
00:32:35.740the responsibility of representing them locally um there may be information available on the alberta
00:32:42.300courts website um i would caution people against inundating the you know the courts the courthouse
00:32:50.220with calls because they're very the clerks they're uh very very busy and of course they're they're
00:32:55.820dealing with a lot of uh coveted restrictions themselves and coping for you know really
00:33:01.500coping well with that um so i would caution people uh about inundating them with with uh
00:33:07.580inquiries about this um but uh but those that that's what i would that i would suggest probably
00:33:13.900the best avenue would be to contact your local mla um because they would have some influence
00:33:20.220over talking to uh to the alberta government about uh about perhaps increasing um the the level of
00:33:27.660visibility of this hearing of course it's entirely conceivable and i don't know this to be true that
00:33:33.820the alberta government would not want the public to be able to widely view what's going on in the
00:33:38.140hearing i hope that that's not true because the issues that are being dealt with in that hearing
00:33:44.300really concern whether lockdown restrictions violate essential freedoms fundamental freedoms
00:33:52.140that canadians have under the charter under section two of the chart in particular freedom
00:33:56.860of religion. It's a huge one. But the real question is whether what the lockdown restrictions
00:34:04.620have done in terms of impacting Albertans is whether that outweighs any good that was done
00:34:18.780in terms of preventing the infection transmission of COVID-19.
00:34:23.500If there's a strong case to be made for saying that anything that the Alberta government has
00:34:31.740done has reduced the infection rates and transmissibility of COVID-19, I can't see it.
00:34:44.300In fact, we have a very close comparable if we look at the state of Florida, which has been open
00:34:50.620really since last spring with no COVID restrictions, but for the concentration of their public
00:35:01.400health resources on the most vulnerable population, which is obviously the elderly, we can see
00:35:08.580that Florida actually has one of the lowest infection, I believe the lowest infection
00:35:13.560rate in all of North America without masking, without social distancing, without closing
00:35:19.160down businesses without vaccine mandates and things of that nature. But the case is really
00:35:26.760about what are the impacts of these lockdown restrictions and are they a reasonable limit
00:35:34.200on the constitutionally protected freedoms that are enshrined in our charter. One of the witnesses
00:35:40.520in our case is a man named Brian Peckford who is the last surviving premier who was at the table
00:35:47.800when the charter was conceived and signed into law and he's been a very outspoken critic
00:35:55.320of the way that governments and our courts have have dealt with this and
00:36:01.480we we hope to have him testify at the hearing to talk about this to say that really the approach
00:36:08.920that's being taken to assessment of this charter question and particularly to the saving provision
00:36:15.560there's section one of the charter saying that this is wrong headed so we know what he's going
00:36:22.200to say it's a question of whether the court is going to give it any credence or any weight
00:36:26.600we we hope that the court does because our charter is going to turn 40 in april
00:36:32.040it's very important it's a cherished part of our of our nation and it's an expression of our
00:36:39.160of our collective culture and our history and our values and it's not being respected right
00:36:45.160now in this country and it must be because without it um as we've discovered over the
00:36:51.640last couple of years we're not very free what what's always seemed so surprising to me in
00:36:59.880these last two years is that there hasn't been any public forums and you know i think that's
00:37:06.040what has led to people feeling so much mistrust and feeling so misled and lied to, flat out lied
00:37:13.960to. I mean, you alluded to the conversation or the announcement Dr. Hinshaw had. I know yesterday,
00:37:22.040they also started to report on the percentages of hospitalizations that are because of COVID,
00:37:29.400not just with COVID. I mean, that's a big difference. I know, you know, if somebody's
00:37:33.240in there with a broken arm or a hip surgery and that's the reason they're in the hospital,
00:37:40.520but they're counted as a COVID case and reported on as a COVID case just because they tested
00:37:45.560positive in hospital. I mean, it's created such a fear narrative to just be reporting
00:37:55.780on all of these cases. So yesterday was the first time that I actually saw Hinshaw report
00:38:03.200on the the percentage and it was kind of 50 50 really 50 of the people were in there
00:38:08.080because of covid and 50 were were in there this is just regular hospitalizations i know it was
00:38:13.520higher it was in the 70 range um for people in icu but but that i think that makes a difference
00:38:20.560and and and i think you know i think there have been a lot of calls from the public and others
00:38:26.560that that ahs be more transparent and the ministry be more transparent with these numbers and the
00:38:31.920reporting yeah it's a great point and i must say i i feel very badly for people who i see
00:38:40.320walking around outside with masks on they're in fact the the the government's expert in the
00:38:48.720manitoba case was asked uh under oath whether there was any any study uh showing that there
00:38:57.040was a risk of contracting COVID outside and they said quite frankly that there is not. There is
00:39:02.800virtually no risk of getting COVID outside and you see people walking around with masks on.
00:39:09.040Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who is the chief expert on our side in the Ingram case that we were just
00:39:14.320talking about and also one of the three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, he is a
00:39:20.560a professor of medicine and an expert in virology and epidemiology at Stanford University in
00:39:27.120California. He, in discussing this with him, it's his opinion that the real pandemic is,
00:39:35.340as you quite rightly state, is fear. And what Dr. Bhattacharya said to me, his greatest concern,
00:39:44.780Because, of course, just like Dr. Hinshaw, he's a professional in public health.
00:39:51.400But Dr. Bhattacharya's opinion, and this is a man with a 35-page resume, 1,400 peer-reviewed scientific articles.
00:40:00.680He said the greatest legacy of public health out of COVID is going to be a legacy of distrust of public health, just as you say.
00:40:11.740And so the net effect of that, unfortunately, is that although it's good and we're fortunate that COVID-19 did not turn out to be the worldwide super killer that we thought it was going to be perhaps in February, March, two years ago.
00:40:31.240when we do get a very, very dangerous virus, like, for example, in Ebola, where things like
00:40:41.660contract tracing and social distancing and quarantining will be necessary in order to
00:40:47.100protect the public, because Ebola is a virus that actually kills humans, as opposed to being,
00:40:53.880as opposed to a coronavirus, which is really evolutionarily adapted to focusing on transmission
00:41:03.380as its success story. When we have a real killer virus, probably more than half the population,
00:41:10.400based upon recent polls, is not going to take that seriously, because they will have learned
00:41:15.400from COVID-19 to distrust what public health officials tell us. And Dr. Bhattacharya says,
00:41:23.440basically is that what we have through COVID-19 is a distortion of the role of public health.
00:41:29.140The role of public health historically has been to provide the public with reliable information
00:41:36.440about the risk, the prevalent health risk that they can use in order to make informed,
00:41:44.440responsible decisions to reduce their own risk and by extension, the risk to the public.
00:41:49.980What public health has become under COVID-19 is an excuse to create a medical dictatorship where people are infantilized and they're treated like children and told precisely what to do.
00:42:09.640And if they don't, that they'll get seriously sick and die, overwhelm the health care system.
00:42:15.440And in fact, what we found, and Mr. Neal was just talking about what's happening in Manitoba, it's not COVID-19 that's overwhelmed the health system, but it's lockdowns and the restrictions and the way that our healthcare systems are managed and rationalized and mismanaged and bureaucratized that is the greatest threat to our health.
00:42:41.880not COVID-19, but in my view, the irresponsible way in which public resources are being used
00:42:51.180and applied as regards public health care. And I think for me, the sort of pink elephant
00:43:00.420in the room is the hundreds of billions of dollars federally that's been spent over these
00:43:06.500last two years, and we're still in no better position. We're still seeing
00:43:11.460hospitals. I mean, that money, I'm certain, could have opened thousands upon
00:43:18.940thousands of hospital beds. If truly the issue in our country is a
00:43:25.580shortage of beds and shortage of care workers, you would think that the
00:43:31.680hundreds of billions that we've spent would have would have gone a long way to
00:43:35.840fix that. So yeah, there's I think a real realization now that there's been some
00:43:44.080huge mismanagement financially as well through this pandemic that is leading to mistrust which
00:43:51.280you know I think is in a way a good thing because as you're calling on people that we need to be
00:43:56.640you know really wary moving forward and really keeping a good eye on things I think
00:44:02.560I think this will help people focus on that a little bit more.
00:44:11.180And this gets back to my other point about in the aftermath of COVID,
00:44:15.760I think that as Canadians, we need to demand some legislative changes
00:44:20.520that are going to place some restrictions on the ability of governments
00:44:26.940to do things like spend money and to drive the country into debt.
00:44:33.100If you look at right now, we have a record debt in this country.
00:44:38.760And really, if we had, as you quite rightly pointed out,
00:44:44.380if we had rationalized our resources and been more intelligent,
00:44:48.280more wise in the way that we use them,
00:44:51.680we wouldn't be in the situation we're in as a country right now.
00:44:56.940with expanding debt, inflation, and a legacy that we're passing on to our grandchildren's children
00:45:04.660of having to pay back the money that was doled out, literally doled out under COVID.
00:45:12.560That was a disastrous policy, which created a problem that I think is going to be much more serious
00:45:19.380and long-lasting and punitive to not only this generation, but future generations of Canadians
00:45:25.720than COVID-19 would ever be, because it looks as though we're coming to the end of COVID-19,
00:45:31.940thankfully, knock wood, but we're going to have this legacy of debt and inflation for a long,
00:45:38.500long time to come. Yeah, very long time. Now, Leighton, we are still in the midst of it here
00:45:44.920in this province and in this country specifically, too. A lot of people still facing being put on
00:45:52.440leave without pay. As we speak, I'm hearing from people every day who are facing this. And I mean,
00:46:00.800we're talking, you know, when we get into the employment laws and human rights laws, I mean,
00:46:05.620some of the, even the idea of the exemption, a religious exemption, for instance, you know,
00:46:13.720I have somebody who's dealing with looking at trying to get a religious exemption as we speak
00:46:20.820to continue working. What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of religious exemptions and
00:46:27.000the fact that they are being sort of blatantly ignored or rejected? Well, I can tell you that
00:46:34.580with a couple of notable exceptions, every single religious exemption that has been applied for by
00:46:43.880our clients and that's numbering several hundred people no religious exemption has been granted
00:46:54.560the most extreme case is a lady who worked for many years for the Salvation Army that's the
00:47:02.580Salvation Army and her religious exemption was denied because they had no regard for her
00:47:09.860christian faith and their salvation faith-based organization right card for someone's christian
00:47:17.180religious beliefs uh you know where where do you go um so so um i have a suspicion
00:47:25.980that uh these exemption claims um whether they're medical or they're religious uh
00:47:34.920In virtually every case that I've seen, whenever a worker applies for these exemptions, they have to provide very detailed personal information about themselves, their religious beliefs, their medical background that would normally be protected by privacy legislation.
00:47:57.700And I've been advising our clients that I'm very concerned about the disclosure of this information because if these exemptions are just being uniformly denied, and they are, like we're talking about form letters in response where it's clear that these applications have been dismissed out of hand,
00:48:21.780that there may be a much more surreptitious purpose behind the collection of this data.
00:48:30.340We know how important and valuable people's data is nowadays.
00:48:35.920In fact, this is the main asset that companies like Meta, formerly Facebook, Google, Twitter,
00:48:48.080And I'm concerned about employers and public and private employers having this information and the use that they're making of it, particularly in a situation where it seems clear that the goal of mandatory vaccination in Canada is to have everyone carry around vaccine passports with QR codes where we can be tracked everywhere we go and whatever we do.
00:49:18.080so the exemptions themselves have been uh as i said not not a very useful exercise for most
00:49:25.760workers and i would caution people who are thinking about provide applying for exemptions
00:49:31.760to be very mindful of the risk of providing this personal information
00:49:35.920to an employer who is in the act of violating your human rights
00:49:41.680So, but all of these people that are reaching out with questions,
00:49:49.040they're just hoping somebody can give them some guidance. What should I do? My employers,
00:49:56.160my back's against the wall with my employer. I need to stay employed. I need to be making money.
00:50:01.040I don't want to get vaccinated. But you're also saying, I would hazard that you produce all of
00:50:08.320that information to your employer what do you recommend what what is the best course that these
00:50:14.240people can take well i still think people should claim their exemptions the best exemption in my
00:50:20.720opinion is to claim uh the doctrine of informed consent but there's a an eminent doctor named
00:50:27.920dr payne p-a-y-n-e who wrote a brilliant letter last september 20 page letter to dr hinshaw
00:50:35.360uh three of the last three or four pages of that are just references because uh the letter is so
00:50:42.340is so well done and uh and so brilliantly uh noted noted up and cited uh both medically and legally
00:50:51.440that it it really presents a replete a complete uh argument in favor of the doctrine of informed
00:50:59.080consent and the essence of that letter just to boil it down is that no one can provide informed
00:51:07.000consent to the taking of the covet 19 vaccine it traces back the this all the way back to the
00:51:14.360ancient greeks and hippocrates who uh sort of is sort of the granddaddy of all doctors famously
00:51:21.480said you know do no harm the hippocratic oath but also uh in 1947 there was an international
00:51:29.560charter called the nuremberg code which basic which is which recognized that certain medical
00:51:36.680atrocities happened in the death camps in europe during world war ii medical experiments where
00:51:42.520people were injected with things and heinous medical experiments were conducted on people
00:51:47.320against their will the nuremberg code people can google that and it sets out uh the whole doctrine
00:51:53.160of informed consent and states clearly that no person can be forced to put anything into their
00:51:58.360bodies against their consent dr payne's point uh which is made up as i said very well in his letter
00:52:05.960is that there's no person who can provide informed consent to the taking of the code 19
00:52:10.680vaccines because firstly we can't be informed we don't know the short-term impacts of the
00:52:17.000taking of these vaccines which are still experimental until 2023 and by the way
00:52:22.200Pfizer is about to release in March their their next version of the vaccine so that this is going
00:52:28.920to go on interminably but also apart from the short-term impacts of these vaccines
00:52:34.600some of which are being reported and are horrifying, no one knows the long-term impacts
00:52:40.760of these vaccines, both the medical and the long-term social impacts of both the vaccines
00:52:48.600and the vaccine mandates, which have been so divisive that our Prime Minister recently made
00:52:56.040a statement publicly that equated the unvaccinated with essentially political dissidents who are
00:53:04.600racist, and misogynist. And of course, you have the Quebec government that has now passed
00:53:10.020legislation aimed at taxing and penalizing people who simply do not want to have a vaccine,
00:53:18.240which really is not a vaccine at all, but more of a bioweapon, ingested into their or injected
00:53:24.380into their bodies. So really, what I suggest to people in terms of exemptions, that's the best
00:53:31.720exemption claim you can have because in that situation, you don't need to provide a lot of
00:53:37.540personal information to your employer in support of an exemption. What you're claiming is you're
00:53:43.840relying upon a well-documented and world-renowned and recognized claim for exemption from the
00:53:54.220application of a medicine. We've never had a situation in, certainly in the West,
00:54:00.820where we've been publicly extorted, privately and publicly extorted into taking a substance
00:54:09.760into our bodies and vilified, publicly vilified and penalized for not doing so. It's an
00:54:19.060unprecedented situation. In fact, the government of Canada's own lawyers in a 1996 report to
00:54:27.300government told them that they couldn't do it because it violated the constitution.
00:54:33.060This is precisely why, in my opinion, employers, public and private, are being used as a mechanism,
00:54:43.300as a conduit to impose a vaccine mandate that is fundamentally legal. In other words, governments
00:54:50.020are doing indirectly what they cannot do directly. Having said that, I have to applaud premiers like
00:54:56.840Mr. Kenney and Mr. Mo, who, despite the pressure that's coming from the federal government
00:55:02.660to impose these vaccine mandates, are standing firm and saying, no, we took this out of our
00:55:08.520public health legislation. We think this is wrong and we won't have it. Unfortunately,
00:55:14.560that hasn't led to the repeal of these programs that are in place in Alberta that are requiring
00:55:22.980businesses and most public places to require proof of vaccination or proof of a negative COVID test
00:55:31.640just to enter now i i'm sure you heard of the uh the story uh out of shell scotford's location
00:55:39.800where they have now sort of reversed their vaccine mandate they are not requiring
00:55:45.400uh any workers or contractors to show proof of vaccination they are doing on-site testing
00:55:52.200uh for people who are coming on site but uh no longer mandating at least for now it says that
00:55:58.720they've temporarily stopped. Thoughts on that? I mean, that seems hopeful as well. It seems like
00:56:07.140they're recognizing that maybe these decisions have not been wise business since.
00:56:14.440I think that is hopeful. I think it's a move in the right direction. I do not like the
00:56:23.380requirement of testing, however, I consider that to be still a human rights violation
00:56:29.480because what it is requiring people to do is to provide a bodily sample for analysis
00:56:35.040that the results of that analysis then have to be disclosed to the employer.
00:56:44.440And then if those results turn out to be unfavorable to the employee in terms of a
00:56:49.740positive result then there are prejudicial impacts for the employer for the employee so i i am i i
00:56:57.660equate that testing uh to to uh to be something similar to um unjustified uh testing of uh people
00:57:08.320for example if if they're out driving and uh if the police can haul somebody off on the side of
00:57:14.700the road and take them down to the police station and test them for the presence of of alcohol and
00:57:19.540test their blood alcohol level, even though there are no reasonable, probable grounds
00:57:23.640for the belief that that person has been, you know, has been, is impaired.
00:57:27.780In this situation, we're testing asymptomatic people, and under circumstances where that
00:57:38.100really should stop, and Dr. Hinshaw recently stated in a press conference that she hinted
00:57:44.020strongly that perhaps this is something that we were going to stop doing, but then of course
00:57:48.540the federal government is telling us that they've ordered many millions of rapid tests that have
00:57:54.740been delivered to our schools. Another promising sign, apart from Shell, is I believe this was
00:58:01.760just announced, the National Hockey League has announced that after the All-Star break, which
00:58:06.520is upcoming, they will no longer be testing players for COVID-19 who are asymptomatic.
00:58:13.900so so i think what we're seeing if we're want to uh sort of look at the bright side of the moon
00:58:21.020is that there is a progression a movement away from the what i say and what many experts say
00:58:28.540is the myth of asymptomatic spread it never made sense to be testing uh people who were had no
00:58:36.140symptoms. The risk of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is banishingly low. It always has been.
00:58:43.100We've known it for a very long time. And to have people going around wearing masks and social
00:58:49.200distancing and all these sorts of things really does no good and does tremendous harm. And so
00:58:56.840I do applaud Shell for taking a very bold step. And I certainly am hopeful that other large
00:59:05.380companies, large-scale employers will follow suit. Unfortunately, it hasn't yet gathered
00:59:14.900enough momentum that we can call it a trend. It's a step in the right direction and let's hope that
00:59:20.740other employers follow suit. I think the big one is going to be the federal government because
00:59:28.180really, they are the drivers of all this stuff. I suspect that there are several provinces,
00:59:38.860and I think Alberta is among them, who would like to have COVID-19 in the rearview mirror.
00:59:46.520Premier Kenney has expressed this repeatedly in some of his public statements, but it's very
00:59:51.420difficult to do that when the entire country is under public pressure from the federal government,
00:59:57.860which is the largest employer in Canada to keep the COVID narrative going, despite all of the
01:00:08.660evidence that really COVID-19 no longer poses a serious public health risk, either at work
01:00:16.260or anywhere else, and that the lockdown restrictions and the vaccine mandates are doing much more harm,
01:00:23.220both presently and long-term than the virus ever has or could.
01:00:29.820Now, Leighton, I know I've had you for about an hour, and if you can give me a little bit more time,
01:00:35.200I have a few more things that I wouldn't mind touching on with you if you have the time.
01:00:42.600One of the things that I've had a lot of people bring up to me when it comes to the exemptions
01:00:47.840is the the notice of liability which isn't necessarily necessarily an exemption but
01:00:53.440people have been you know wondering if these notices of liability that they're presenting
01:00:58.320to their employer telling the employer that you are taking responsibility um you know for any
01:01:05.520outcomes or you know any any issues that i may suffer from you know like what what are
01:01:11.280your thoughts on those notice of liabilities are they effective do you recommend them um
01:01:17.840I do endorse them. I do encourage them. I think that it is important for workers to let the employer know that they're taking the position that their rights, their employment, and their human rights are being violated.
01:01:37.680and to put the employer on notice that if these violations continue that there will be legal
01:01:46.720repercussions. I'm not convinced, I'm not as cynical as some, I'm not convinced that most
01:01:53.520employers who are subjected to these vaccine mandates actually support them. In fact,
01:02:02.500I'm privy to when I saw a correspondence exchange between the current Minister of Transport and the
01:02:11.800CEO of Canadian Pacific in which the CEO of Canadian Pacific was basically saying to the
01:02:18.560Minister that if the vaccine mandate the Minister of Transport's order were applied strictly it
01:02:26.720essentially shut down Canadian Pacific and the CEO was questioning how that would be good for
01:02:33.680the Canadian public to essentially shut down one of its essential railways and especially in the
01:02:41.840context of what we're talking about constantly about supply chain problems. So I think that
01:02:49.120there's two purposes that are served by these liability letters and my firm usually puts them
01:02:55.920into the form of something called the cease and desist letter. Firstly, it gives notice to the
01:03:02.320employer. It's information that they can use so that they are aware that certain numbers of their
01:03:09.280workers do not accept the vaccine and are opposed to it. And I think that's important information
01:03:15.840for employers to have. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the employee has a duty to provide
01:03:21.120that information but i think it certainly shows um it's it's good conduct on the on the part of
01:03:27.600the employee to provide the employer with that information so that they can make proper decisions
01:03:34.000and i think the second part of it is it does give notice to the employer that what they are doing
01:03:40.400exposes them to the risk of of litigation and and i think that also informs the employer so that
01:03:48.640they can seek legal advice and make proper decisions and it's just likely and i believe
01:03:53.920it this is happening that as this situation develops it's an organic situation that's in flux
01:04:01.120i have no doubt that many of the employers in shell might be a great example
01:04:05.440whereas some of their employers i don't know this to be true but it's entirely conceivable
01:04:09.520and even probable that some shell employees uh complained about this and uh claimed exemptions
01:04:16.480and gave notice to the employer that they saw this as a human rights violation.
01:04:22.480And then a company like Shell went back and reassessed their original decision
01:04:27.020and then moved forward and made a better decision.
01:04:31.560I mean, companies are run by boards of directors and they're beholden to shareholders
01:04:38.020and they can only act on the best information that they have.
01:04:42.880and I think this is an important purpose that these liability letters and cease and desist
01:04:51.080letters serve and I think that so I encourage workers to do it not only for their own good
01:04:57.220but for the good of the employer and anything that's good for these employers by extension
01:05:03.020is good for Canadian workers and good for the Canadian economy. Right and it sounds like the
01:05:08.240more a company receives these, these notices of liability, it can sway their, like you're saying,
01:05:15.920it can sway their decisions, how they want to move forward with these, these mandates and whatnot,
01:05:20.900because, you know, I think the louder their employees are, the more they're protesting this
01:05:27.100with these, these kinds of notices, I think you're right, it definitely can affect decisions down the
01:05:32.040road. Now, I know there are a few different sites that people can find these notice of liabilities,
01:05:39.100you know, ones that you can sort of print off. Anything you can recommend where people can go
01:05:44.560to find a good notice of liability that's comprehensive? Yeah, well, I mentioned my
01:05:53.920friend James Kitchen, who has been on, and he's a lawyer for an organization called Liberty
01:06:00.820coalition they have a lot of uh documents like this on their website that are downloadable
01:06:06.900the justice center for constitutional freedoms which is based in calgary has information uh
01:06:13.060like that some of the um some of the cease and desist letters that we have produced
01:06:20.580are posted on uh the rebel news site uh because uh many of of our clients are engaged through
01:06:29.220an organization called the democracy fund which is a third-party crowdfunding organization and
01:06:35.460so uh when we do for example the university of winnipeg uh lawsuit that has been publicized
01:06:41.780recently is an example of a case that we've undertaken on behalf of uh some some teachers
01:06:47.780at the university of winnipeg through the auspices and the support of the democracy fund and so uh
01:06:54.260when there is actually a cease and desist letter an example of that uh in relation to that case on
01:07:00.340the rebel news website so those are those are a few examples where people can can access this
01:07:06.660this information great appreciate that uh one of the other things i wanted to touch on you late
01:07:12.820uh touch on with you layton is uh this the the and and you did mention it a little bit earlier but
01:07:19.380this sort of overreach that's happened, especially when it comes to medical professionals,
01:07:25.460doctors who have been trying to say, treat patients for COVID or, you know, doing things
01:07:33.540against what strangely has been has been sort of deterred by the College of Physicians and
01:07:41.940surgeons or AHS or the ministry. You know, there seems to be this this fear that's happening even
01:07:50.180for doctors. I know I've heard from a couple who've actually been raided by the College of
01:07:55.860Physicians and Surgeons. One of them was an interesting story that we covered on
01:08:01.940uh doctor or sorry um the lawyer uh jeffrey rath his doctor ended up getting um raided and they
01:08:12.500specifically went for um jeff rath's file at his doctor's office while mr rath was in active
01:08:22.980litigation against the college of physicians and surgeons um you know for clients that that seems
01:08:30.660like a massive overreach in in my opinion uh what are your what are your thoughts on that
01:08:38.340well the best expression of my thoughts about that are actually published in a paper uh that i've
01:08:45.700that i've written and if people are interested it's on a another website there's a wonderful
01:08:50.900website called the frontier center for public policy i've actually written a paper on this
01:08:56.900But just to boil it down, what I say in that paper is that COVID-19, in my opinion, is an example of a trend, of a progression that's occurred in Canadian and in Western society and in Canada,
01:09:19.060whereby problems that we used to solve locally as individuals and as society,
01:09:28.100what we've done is we've delegated responsibility for that to the state.
01:09:34.140And what that has permitted the state to do is to translate that responsibility into power.
01:09:41.860And in my view, in terms of a successful functioning democracy, which Canada is set up to be and historically has been, right now we have an imbalance of power as between the individual and individual societies and the government.
01:10:05.320For example, historically, as communities in Canada, we've been able to do a very effective job to deal with things like, you know, forest fires, flash floods, things of that nature, public emergencies and health emergencies.
01:10:24.340And the public, that is society versus the state versus government, has been able to do a much better job of managing resources and of providing real help to people and solving problems than governments have been able to do.
01:10:45.060But what we've had through COVID-19 is a situation whereby the power of government has been massively expanded.
01:10:58.700The best example of this, the best proof of this in Alberta is if you look at the Public Health Act.
01:11:03.520During COVID, the government of Alberta significantly amended the Public Health Act and bestowed
01:11:17.740upon Dr. Dina Hinshaw, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, dictatorial powers, executive
01:11:27.320powers whereby she could declare laws.1.00
01:11:33.020could impose immediately prohibitions on activities, compel people to do things, and this made0.82
01:11:42.440her, and she still is, the single most powerful person in the history of our province. And
01:11:51.460these, even after COVID is gone, those powers will remain. That should be of concern to
01:11:58.280Albertans because that's not a good thing. It's not a good way. It's not the way that
01:12:02.560our democracy is set up. The way that we all learned in social studies class about how laws
01:12:07.980are made in Canada, in terms of the proper functioning of a parliamentary democracy through
01:12:14.940debate and exchanging free ideas about the wisdom of laws, first reading, second reading,
01:12:23.440third reading, that's all been swept away. And for the past two years, Alberta and indeed
01:12:31.800all of canada has been governed through executive uh dictatorial order and uh it's it's in in my
01:12:40.520respect for you it's inverted uh the whole the whole uh way that our democracy was intended
01:12:48.600to function and although it's true that this executive form of government is more immediate
01:12:57.560and in some ways is more effective in terms of getting things done i don't think that it serves
01:13:04.040the public good very well because and we can see the impacts of this uh just if you sit down and
01:13:11.320you think about all the things that you can't do now that you could do uh a few years ago
01:13:18.600before government was given all of this emergency dictatorial power.
01:13:24.440It's my view that these emergency powers should not exist at all.
01:17:16.560Secondly, I think that courts have been historically reluctant to enter into the realm of being lawmakers.
01:17:29.400The role of our courts is to interpret and apply the law in making rational decisions that are consistent with the Constitution.
01:17:40.440It's the role of government to create law.
01:17:43.480And so what we've been asking courts to do is very, very difficult.
01:17:47.320You think about it in the midst of a pandemic, we've been asking judges to come in and really second guess the laws that the governments have been making in order to deal with something called the pandemic.
01:17:58.540The only criticism that I would love of the courts, which I think is a fair one, is that
01:18:08.560courts have been very ready to presume the existence of something called a pandemic,
01:18:15.160as opposed to going deeper and really analyzing the evidence to determine the question of
01:18:22.340whether or not COVID-19 actually poses an existential crisis, a serious public health
01:18:29.960risk. But, you know, that gets back to the onus on lawyers. People like me, perhaps we
01:18:35.900haven't done a good enough job of persuading the court to enter into that inquiry. But
01:18:41.740I think there is a reluctance on the part of courts, and I think a healthy one, to not
01:18:49.440be quick to second guess and strike down. I mean, let's take it to the nth degree. What if we had
01:18:58.160a court system that was constantly striking out the laws that government made? What kind of society
01:19:04.240would we have then? Then we'd be living under a judicial dictatorship, wouldn't we? So I think
01:19:10.120there's a balance there that needs to be struck. And I think that there are very good people in
01:19:15.260our courts, very intelligent people, highly principled people. And I think that ultimately
01:19:20.020they are going to strike that balance. We're going to see some decisions come about that are
01:19:26.360going to reveal very clearly that our judges are not biased, that in fact we still have a very
01:19:33.000well-functioning free court system. The other thing I would say in defense of the courts is that
01:19:41.660But it has been very, very difficult to keep the courts open throughout the pandemic in the face of the information that the courts have been provided.
01:19:52.200And I can tell you from somebody who's working in the courts that the chief judges of our province have worked very hard and been very innovative in terms of continuing to provide access to justice for Albertans.
01:20:08.180And so I think they deserve credit for doing that.
01:20:10.860I'm speaking specifically to the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench and also of the Court of Appeal and also the pandemic.
01:20:20.040The one, I think, excellent development that will be a legacy that comes out of COVID-19 is that it has allowed the courts to really modernize some of its structures.
01:20:32.280For example, access to justice has been significantly improved in a lot of ways through the introduction and the advent of modern technology, like the one that you and I are accessing right now.
01:20:44.780So I don't buy into this idea that the courts are biased.
01:20:48.620I think that we still have a free and independent judicial system, and I think we're going to see better decisions or more favorable decisions to our side of the case as we go forward, if we're able to rise to the challenge of being more persuasive, providing the court with better evidence in these cases.
01:21:52.900And I think that we're going to be, if we do the right things and make the right decisions,
01:22:02.060we're going to be a much better country, more free country that is going to cherish freedom
01:22:08.520more um and i think that we'll be better equipped to deal with crises like a public health crisis
01:22:16.680going forward if as a society we demand more of our government and if we're willing to make
01:22:22.760you know uh the right the right decisions uh going forward uh i'm optimistic that canada still
01:22:31.240uh has a very bright uh future we're going through a very difficult time
01:22:35.240but you know as they say strongest steel is forged in hottest fire and this may be something that
01:22:43.760we were just had to go through in order to get to a better place in Canada and I know many people
01:22:52.840in my profession believe that to be the case and let's let's hope that we're we're all willing to
01:23:00.200do what it takes to get there, but it's going to take sacrifice. Liberty is not free. Benjamin
01:23:09.280Franklin famously wrote that one who would give up a little bit of liberty for some security
01:23:16.420will end up with neither and deserve neither. There's a price to be paid for freedom and
01:23:21.800we all have to pay it, even if it means, for example, that we're not willing to trade our
01:23:28.960liberty and the integrity of our bodies for the security of a job. Well, I'll tell you, we've got
01:23:35.880a lot of comments thanking you. And, you know, I get the impression that people are feeling a little
01:23:41.920bit more hopeful with what they've heard from you today. So I really appreciate that, Leighton.
01:23:47.080And I know you were mentioning that Frontier Centre for Public Policy. You'd mentioned that
01:23:51.400was a fantastic resource with just loads of information that people can access. So what
01:24:01.120I'm going to do is make sure that that's on our website on the page for this story for
01:24:06.360this interview. So I'll grab the URL from you and have that up on our page for people
01:24:12.460to access. And you know what, Leighton, it would be great to continue to check in with
01:24:17.940In fact, I would really like to to talk with you again once that court case starts to starts to move in February with the with the case against the provincial government.
01:24:30.940So hopefully I can check in with you again on that and we can keep people updated on how that's going.
01:24:35.940And again, hopefully I can find find out if there's any chance that can be a public option for people to watch.
01:24:46.940great thank you for having me on it's been a real pleasure yeah thanks for joining us
01:24:51.340Leighton and again just really appreciate your your your optimism on how things are unfolding and
01:24:59.580yeah I appreciate your time today thanks very much thank you that was Leighton Gray with uh
01:25:06.300Leighton sorry Gray Woke Spencer LLP I know all of the lawyers that we speak to on a regular basis
01:25:12.700are extremely busy with all sorts of cases representing everything from employment law to
01:25:19.100union law and whatnot so again if if you're struggling with a situation with work we'll
01:25:26.620have that website for frontier center for public policy up for you to access and again it's great
01:25:32.780woke spencer llp i will also have their the url for their website for you to access coming up
01:25:40.620up shortly. So thanks again for joining us this afternoon and hopefully you're feeling a little