By Kennedy Hall
According to recent court documents, the Liberal government’s almost nine-month ban on domestic and foreign travel for vaccine-free Canadians was not based on science.
A stunning article by the National Post's @rupasubramanya on @bariweiss's must-read Common Sense News: Canada's travel vaccine mandate was purely a political decision; the facts and the science just didn't matter. Everyone should read and reflect on this. https://t.co/sFfjMVXPf6 pic.twitter.com/KeWszzQMWs
— Ryan Alford (@ryan_p_alford) August 2, 2022
National Post contributor and freelance journalist Rupa Subramanya published a piece for Bari Weiss’ Common Sense substack wherein she outlined the details from newly released documents that show a lack of scientific rationale for the unprecedented ban.
She wrote that “recently released court documents — which capture the decision-making behind the travel mandate — indicate that, far from following the science, the prime minister and his Cabinet were focused on politics.”
Subramanya was referring to information that has been revealed to the public as part of a lawsuit filed by two Canadian residents against the government.
Shaun Rickard, a British citizen and permanent resident of Canada, and Karl Harrison filed a court challenge in the winter against the travel ban. Both have family in Britain and were cut off from seeing them because of the restrictions.
The two are represented by lawyer Sam Presvelos, who said, “the real focus of the case is just looking at the science.”
The travel mandate was crafted by a department of the Canadian government that Subramanya called “the secretive government panel. By way of the lawsuit, it has been unearthed that “no one in the COVID Recovery unit, including Jennifer Little, the director-general, had any formal education in epidemiology, medicine or public health.”
In fact, Little has an undergraduate degree in literature, and she testified that only one of the 20 members of the panel had any experience working with a public health agency, but it was not specified what the role was.
Little also suggested that a “senior official” in Trudeau’s Cabinet or maybe even Trudeau himself ordered the panel to impose the travel ban. This was intimated by the fact that Little said she could not reveal who gave the orders because of “cabinet confidence.”
Subramanya wrote, “The term ‘cabinet confidence’ is noteworthy because it refers to the prime minister’s Cabinet. Meaning that Little could not talk about who had directed the COVID Recovery unit to impose the travel mandate because someone at the very highest levels of government was apparently behind it.”
It was also discovered that in the days leading up to the implementation of the mandate at the end of October 2021 that “transportation officials were frantically looking for a rationale” to impose the draconian measures.
According to Subramanya, “they came up short,” as was “made clear by an email exchange” between relevant government officials.
Aaron McCrorie – the associate assistant deputy minister for safety and security in Transport Canada, the department that houses COVID Recovery – emailed a colleague charged with finding a rationale for the restrictions “just over a week” before the mandate was implemented, saying he “need[ed] something fairly soon.”
Two days before the mandate was enacted, McCrorie received a reply with the alleged general benefits of the COVID jab, but with no information relative to why there would be a travel ban.
This means that when Trudeau’s government announced the policy in August, and when he was campaigning to a would-be electorate about the unvaccinated being a danger to the jabbed on trains and planes, that there was no established rationale with Transport Canada.
A year after his classic fuhrer-style rant, newly-unsealed court documents reveal that Justin Trudeau’s government had no scientific basis for a ban on domestic travel by unvaccinated Canadians. Full report: https://t.co/Ttd2PVgsnxpic.twitter.com/CZCbS2aXKY
— LLadany (@lladany) August 2, 2022
When the mandates were dropped in June – at least temporarily as they could be re-enacted at any time – Subramanya said that “government lawyers filed a motion to shut down” the case due to the fact that it was now “moot” as there were no restrictions leveled against the vaccine-free.
Presvelos told Subramanya that he believed this was done to make sure the court documents were never made public.
In order to ensure the case would continue, Presvelos filed for additional damages on behalf of his clients that made “sure the suit didn’t go away and the court documents were made public.”
It is expected they will have a day in court in September.