[ad_1]
Opinion
While questions to the government on its Covid-19 policies are often met with a dismissive “follow the science,” testimony in court documents obtained by The Epoch Times indicates that the government has not followed any science, especially when it came to imposing vaccination mandates on travelers.
Four lawsuits have been launched in Canada challenging the travel obligation. Although the mandate has been temporarily suspended (banning international immigration), the testimony continues and it is becoming clear that the government’s travel mandate was more political and ideological than public safety.
Jennifer Little is a senior bureaucrat at Transport Canada, and she’s tasked with developing the policy that mandates vaccinations for travelers. Under questioning, Little made it clear that neither she nor her team members had any scientific qualifications, but made choices about what she considered to be valid scientific information. Little has a BA in English, making her more qualified in communications than in scientific policy development. It seems to depend more on her ability to sell the policy than to create science-based policy.
For example, Little chose to dismiss a document from the Public Health Agency of Canada that reviewed the issue of the spread of the virus SARS-CoV-2 in flight. She said the data was not useful to support her policy development. In other words, instead of creating policy based on the data, she was collecting data to support her policy.
Shortly before the travel order was issued, Little told Transport Minister Omar Algabra that he would be the “world leader” of the policy. In fact, Canada was the first to adopt such a policy, and when Little was cross-examined in court, she could not clearly explain why or how Canada’s policy was to “lead the world.” The reason is that instead of giving explanations to the minister, she was giving talking points. She didn’t expect to be called later to justify that claim.
The federal government employs well-qualified epidemiologists, but their advice on travel guidance policy appears to have been ignored. Dr. Lisa Waddell of the Emerging Science Group at the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) reviewed and evaluated the available data on the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in flight. According to her report, “the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 in the aircraft cabin is estimated to be 1 case for every 1.7 million travelers.” Waddell said she considered this a low risk and her report did not recommend vaccination as a requirement for air travel.
Dr. Celia Lourenco is the Executive Director of the Biological and Radiopharmaceuticals Directorate at Health Canada’s Health Products and Food Branch. She is the final authority to approve vaccines in Canada. One would think that she was consulted on the proposed authority. Lourenco said she had never been consulted by anyone at any level of government on the vaccination mandate for travelers.
Jennifer Little testified that neither PHAC nor Health Canada made any comment on the vaccination travel mandate. Then who did it and why?
One reason for the strong push for mandatory vaccinations, despite the lack of scientific evidence, is financial. The federal government has contracted for 200 million doses of vaccines by the end of 2023. Vaccines have a shelf life, and if enough Canadians don’t decide to get them, the government could face the politically embarrassing prospect of literally throwing them away. Billions of dollars worth of vaccines below par. The travel order has put a lot of pressure on vaccine-averse citizens to roll up their sleeves and take an inconvenient drug.
Using power to force citizens to take injections they don’t want raises some serious ethical questions. There is a PHAC policy called “Public Health Ethical Framework: A Guide to Canada’s Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic” that could help guide Jennifer Little as she writes the vaccine mandate policy. But when she was asked in court whether she had discussed the matter, she replied that she had not. They seem to have little interest in scientific and ethical guidance when creating one of the most draconian and intrusive mandatory vaccination policies on earth.
Another motivation for pushing for power was political. The government has regularly used the epidemic as a wedge issue and it has worked well for them. They put pressure on a handful of Canadians, then accused anyone who criticized the policy of wanting to endanger public health.
I suspect that because they are unethical, it makes it easy to dismiss any idea of allowing sympathetic exemptions in the travel order policy. While travel orders may only be a convenience for some citizens, it is difficult for others who are forced to miss out on once-in-a-lifetime events such as funerals, weddings and graduations. How can one make up for missing a last visit with a deceased person or being present when a family member gets married? You can’t.
The government is seeking the charges based on the revoked travel orders, saying they have now been lifted because the powers have been removed. Thankfully, applicants are still following this step, otherwise we wouldn’t have access to this important testimony from the people who created and implemented the travel mandate policy.
We have to remember that the liberals are only saying to block the power. You are intentionally leaving the door open to reload.
Real and permanent damage has been done to citizens by these orders. We require the effects of the order to be placed on record, and those affected by them have the right to legal recourse.
The federal government has been able to block an investigation in the House of Commons regarding the policy, but it cannot hide from the courts. Although many Canadians assumed that the mission was motivated by politics rather than science, they could not prove it. Now, thanks to four cases, we can see that the suspicions are correct.
The government must be fully accountable to Canadians for its actions during the pandemic, whether in the courtroom or at the ballot box. History will not look kindly on them.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
follow
Corey Morgan is a columnist based in Calgary.
[ad_2]
Source link
