Demand to BCGEU and PEA for Representation

The following are letters sent on behalf of BC Public Service Employees to their respective unions (BCGEU and PEA) demanding representation and job action in relation to the BC Public Service Agency’s vaccine mandate.

BCGEU HEADQUARTERS
4911 Canada Way (at Iris)
Burnaby, BC V5G 3W3
Email: president@bcgeu.ca

November 10, 2021

Dear BCGEU President Stephanie Smith:

Re: Mandatory Vaccination Policy/ Medical coercion/Mandatory Proof of Vaccination

Representing a large group of BCGEU members (vaccinated and unvaccinated), we submit this letter to express our profound concerns and stance against human rights violations, discrimination, and abuses of power through medical coercion, mandatory vaccination, and mandatory proof of vaccination as implemented by our employer. Alongside millions of Canadians, we stand united in the universally accepted tenet that our fundamental rights and freedoms keep Canada free and democratic as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights.

We are writing in good faith and good conscience demanding representation by the BCGEU supporting each member’s right to free, full and informed consent, and the right to bodily autonomy. We request that you fulfill your contractual responsibilities to protect your membership from any and all unlawful and inhumane actions taken by the employer to make Covid-19 vaccination and proof of vaccination a condition of employment.

As the BCGEU President, you are responsible for addressing problems affecting the union’s members, responding and engaging with all members and developing concrete strategies through direct consultation. We respectfully request you fulfill those responsibilities to this group regarding the concern(s) we raise herein. You have a duty to remain unbiased to the agendas of the government of the day and to protect your members against harassment, bullying,
discrimination, assault, and crimes against humanity by the employer. Members have reached out to you and Union representatives regarding concerns over the employer’s Covid-19 vaccination policy and have received unsatisfactory support. This behaviour is unacceptable, unethical, unlawful, and breaches all matters of the contractual foundation that enables you to retain your role as President.

You advised in your October 14, 2021 email to the membership that you recognize the union’s primary role is to protect the rights of members as set out in the collective agreement. You acknowledge that this includes the right to safe and healthy workplaces. However, by not stating otherwise, you have insinuated that we have no rights with respect to this mandatory vaccination policy and breach of our private medical records. Your only suggestion was to apply for a medical exemption. This is misguided suggestion since the exemption criteria created by the Provincial Health Officer (PHO) in itself is a human rights violation based on medical discrimination. Furthermore, the links offered in the FAQ do not provide any information on the union’s commitment to protect our legal and constitutional rights.

The orders issued by the PHO make it abundantly clear that there are no exemptions, only deferrals, and the language was notably discouraging to the likelihood that members would qualify. A safe and healthy workplace is one that is free of bullying, coercion, manipulation, and intimidation. The BCGEU should not consider their role as being completed upon the provision of a list of potential exemptions. The unions duty to the membership should, at the very least, include fighting for the legally enshrined rights of choice, medical privacy and to bodily autonomy free from coercion, intimidation, manipulation, and certainly free from any threat against their access to gainful employment.

According to a BCGEU news publication, “existing legal decisions are clear that an employercan make workplace rules about vaccination…”

We hereby request that you provide a copy of these legal decisions indicating the law in Canada that entitles an employer to mandate a medical treatment that is still undergoing its clinical trial phase as a condition of maintaining employment.

You further acknowledged that any rules an employer makes must be reasonable in the circumstances. Mandating a vaccine as a condition of employment, when the virus has killed less than 30,000 Canadians in two years¹ is anything but reasonable. In addition, government regulatory bodies and vaccine manufacturers alike have made it clear: vaccines do not fully prevent contraction or transmission of the Covid-19 virus and their long-term efficacy is unknown. Therefore, it is unreasonable in the current circumstances to mandate vaccines when those who comply still pose a health threat to others as they are more likely to be asymptomatic spreaders of the virus.

Finally, if you truly acknowledge it is the union’s responsibility to ensure a safe and healthy workplace whilst acknowledging that an employer must be reasonable in their development of policies, we hereby request that you protect the BCGEU membership from this unlawful mandate and press the employer for alternative options ensuring health and safety in the workplace that do not compromise our rights to medical privacy and bodily autonomy.

Medical and Scientific Evidence

Canadian physicians and other healthcare professionals around the world have expressed serious concerns regarding the lack of safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines. We share these concerns and ask that you demonstrate your commitment to your members by reading the following letters and examine the information referenced within them. These are but a small selection of the scientific literature available addressing issues around the Covid-19 vaccines.

Canadian Covid Care Alliance Declaration September 24, 2021²
Open Letter from Okanagan Healthcare Professionals October 6, 2021³
Open Letter from Okanagan Healthcare Professionals September 9, 2021⁴

The information referenced in the letters from the Okanagan Healthcare Professionals confirm that the facts alleged by the PHO about the Covid-19 experimental vaccines safety and efficacy are patently false.

We hereby request that the BCGEU cease to support policies that are an injustice to basic human rights and lack scientific credibility.

Letter to Our Employer

Because we have not yet received the representation from the BCGEU that we are entitled to, we took it upon ourselves to write a letter to the employer on our own behalf.⁵ Please take the time to read our letter to the employer as it sets out what we have been advised are our rights by legal authorities. Our letter also sets out the ways in which any individual or organization (both employer and union) that supports, encourages, or facilitates a mandatory vaccination policy and proof of vaccination can be held liable. This liability includes civil damages, fines, and criminal sanctions.

We hereby request that the BCGEU confirm its commitment to advocate for its membership, including our group, so that we will not have to continue to do so without the assistance of our union.

Collective Agreement

Our collective agreement contains no requirement that members submit to mandatory vaccines and proof of vaccination as a condition of our continued employment.

While our PHO has recently said that a medical exemption can be applied for, it is clear by their limited scope that these exemptions are discouraged⁶ and that they likely will be temporary, most of which indicating a deferral for only 90 days.⁷It has also been made clear that a letter from a physician will be required in order to be considered for such an exemption which is also all but impossible.⁸ We are fully aware that the PHO and the College of Physicians and Surgeons have both written letters to doctors discouraging them from writing exemption letters, thereby making it even more difficult to even apply for an exemption.⁹ Hence, the aforementioned medical exemptions were NOT created in good faith and this is profoundly troublesome.

In all of these circumstances, it is unreasonable, if not unconscionable, for the BCGEU and the labour union movement to support the employer’s mandatory vaccination policy. The very foundation of the collective agreement is to protect members from employer overreach. This policy defies the very reason for BCGEU’s existence: to protect workers’ civil rights and liberties, including bodily autonomy, privacy, and the right to informed consent.

We hereby request the BCGEU to substantiate the employers right to implement a Covid-19 vaccination policy and cite where in the collective agreement the BCGEU has agreed to support the violation of members’ right to bodily autonomy and medical privacy.

Our Legal Rights

In our letter to our employer, we have set out our legal rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the common law, the Human Rights Code, the Workers Compensation Act among others. We implore the BCGEU to address the importance of accommodating all members, including those who do not wish to be vaccinated or provide private medical information in accordance with the principles of their Charter protected values which include: the freedom of
conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held¹⁰ that belief is not amenable to compulsion. Attempts to compel belief or practice deny the reality of individual conscience (paragraph 120). An emphasis on individual conscience and individual judgment lies at the heart of our democratic political tradition. The ability of each citizen to make free and informed decisions is the absolute prerequisite for the legitimacy, acceptability, and efficacy of our government and are the
essential conditions of the political tradition underlying the Charter (paragraph 122).

The employer’s vaccination policy clearly violates our constitutional rights and freedoms. To threaten our employment for failing to consent to the COVID-19 vaccine or refusing to share private medical information is a denial of our freedom of individual conscience; it’s a denial of our individual judgment in thought, belief, opinion, and religious conviction and denies our rights of conscientious consent or refusal.

The BC Human Rights Commissioner issued a heavily qualified statement when she said:

… [authorities] can in some circumstances implement a vaccination status policy such as a proof-of-vaccination requirement – but only if other less intrusive means of preventing Covid-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.¹¹
https://bchumanrights.ca/news/b-c-s-human-rights-commissioner-issues-guidance-about-proof-of-vaccinationrequirements/

These conditions have not been met. There are less intrusive means of preventing Covid-19 than forcing people to take a vaccine in order to maintain employment. There is no demonstrable evidence to suggest the protocols and measures the B.C. government employees have utilized for the last 18 months have been inadequate.

The Canadian Covid Care Alliance accurately summarizes the law of ‘informed consent’ in a document entitled “What is Informed Consent and How Does It Applied to Covid 19 Vaccination?”

“Healthcare providers are responsible for presenting patients with clear and complete information about proposed medical interventions, and for answering all questions related to treatment. The information must be contextualized for each patient’s individual situation, taking into account variables such as age, gender, and medical history. The information must be adequate, true and include an explanation of treatment benefits, side
effects, risks, alternatives and the consequences of not receiving treatment. In some cases, information about the clinical trials that support the safety and effectiveness of the treatment is also necessary, particularly when specific groups of people have been excluded from the trials.… Informed consent must be voluntary. After receiving adequate information about a recommended treatment, a person must be in a position to express his or her free will without any controlling influence or coercion…”¹²
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media-resources/what-is-informed-consent-and-how-does-it-apply-tocovid-
19-vaccinations/

Informed consent is not possible given we have not been provided by our employer, or those administering the injections, the information necessary to make an informed choice. The letters from the Okanagan Healthcare Professionals that we have referenced provide volumes of evidence to suggest that these experimental vaccines are both harmful and ineffective.

Our Requests of the BCGEU

Demand Credible Scientific Evidence from the employer that clearly shows the experimental Covid-19 vaccines are 100% safe, offer no associated harm or injury in both the short or long term and provide full disclosure of all risks including potential side effects.
Take United Job Action across the labour union to stop the mandate and other abuses.
Take Legal Action against the employer to stop the mandate and other abuses if the employer is not responsive to the job action. The Ontario Superior Court granted a temporary injunction against the Ontario Government’s vaccine mandates on behalf of Ontario Health Care Workers.¹³
Demand the Employer Cease Unpaid Leave until they identify the legal basis and justification as supported by the collective agreement.
Advocate for all members and provide support and equal representation.
Condemn the Bullying and discriminatory harassment that the unvaccinated and undeclared members are experiencing in their workplaces.
Demand Medical Privacy for all members.
Meet and Consult with our group to address our concerns.

The BCGEU cannot in good conscience turn their backs on their membership. We appeal to you to represent us against this extreme injustice. Long after the governments of the day are gone and the conglomerate media have been broken up, the labour union movement should remain standing, unrelenting in its protection of workers’ civil rights and liberties in the context of employment. If the BCGEU abandons its values and its purpose to protect workers in these
troubled times, then what purpose does it serve? Who truly represents the interests of the workers?

If the BCGEU fulfills its purpose and supports all workers, that means supporting its members rights to make different choices from one another. This attempt to be unified in support can create non-unity amongst its membership but the BCGEU has not shied away from making the difficult but right decisions in the past in order to ensure it upholds Canadian laws and freedoms.

It would be strategically wise of the BCGEU to disengage with the government with respect to this mandatory vaccine policy. The policy is attracting significant liability. It would be significantly detrimental to the BCGEU to be ensnared in legal liability matters.

The law clearly protects members from being constructively dismissed from their employment for maintaining bodily autonomy and right to privacy. The vaccine mandate violates the human rights and liberties of the entirety of the membership and will result in their loss of employment and ability to support themselves and their families. The BCGEU has maintained a commitment to its members’ human rights and civil liberties. As such we strongly encourage the BCGEU to undertake a thorough review of both the employer’s policy and the pillars of the union’s duty to its membership. Acquiescing to the vaccine mandate, in deference to an illegal health order contravenes all of these fundamental duties and principles.

With the greatest of respect, the BCGEU contracted with its members when they joined the union to represent them against any unfair or illegal behaviour of its employer. This is true whether or not the union leadership aligns ideologically with the position of all its members on all issues. It is on the basis of this agreement between the BCGEU and its members that we implore you to represent all members fairly and equally. At the end of the day, the BCGEU has
the support of the law when it finally makes the choice to support its members and defend them.

We look forward to hearing back from you by Monday, November 15, 2021.

The signatories below represent a small and diverse cross-section of the greater group of BCGEU members whom, irrespective of vaccination status, are dissatisfied with the BCGEU’s lack of action in regard to the employer’s Covid-19 vaccination policy and look forward to a dignified and timely response from their union.

Sincerely,

120 BCGEU Members – names have been redacted for confidentiality.

cc:

Paul Finch, BCGEU Treasurer
James Coccola, Executive Vice-President, BCGEU
Doug Kinna, Executive Vice-President, BCGEU
Kari Michaels, Executive Vice-President, BCGEU
Judy Phipps, Executive Vice-Preseident, BCGEU
Paul Servant, paul.servant@icloud.com

Citations

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html?stat=num&measure=deaths&map=pt#a2
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/CCCA-Declaration-Final_v6_Sept26th2021.pdf
https://canadahealthalliance.org/open-letter-to-dr-henry-mr-dix-mr-hogan-attorney-general-eby-6-october-2021/
https://canadahealthalliance.org/open-letter-to-dr-henry-mr-dix-mr-hogan-9-september-2021/
https://bcpsforfreedom.com/open-letter-to-lori-wanamaker/
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-healthofficer/covid-19/covid-19-exemption-guidelines-request-for-reconsideration.pdf
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-healthofficer/covid-19/covid-19-vaccine-medical-deferral-form.pdf
https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/pdf/Joint-Statement-on-Misleading-COVID-19-Information-2021-05-06.pdf
https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/pdf/Joint-Statement-on-Misleading-COVID-19-Information-2021-05-06.pdf
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1985/1985canlii69/1985canlii69.html
https://bchumanrights.ca/news/b-c-s-human-rights-commissioner-issues-guidance-about-proof-of-vaccinationrequirements/
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media-resources/what-is-informed-consent-and-how-does-it-apply-tocovid-19-vaccinations/
https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/ontario-court-issues-interim-injunction-against-uhn-vaccine-mandate

Herb Dunton
Barrister & Solicitor
P.O. Box 16024, Abbotsford, BC, V3G 0C6
T: 604-807-0102; E: herb.dunton@gmail.com

November 9, 2021

Professional Employees Association
505 – 1207 Douglas Street
Victoria, BC
V8W 2E7

Attention: President Shawna LaRade
c. Executive

VIA EMAIL: slarade@pea.org

Dear President LaRade:

Re: Mandatory vaccine policy developed in relation to governmental Public Health Orders

I am writing to you on behalf of my clients, a group of PEA members. My clients have retained my services to assist them in understanding the law and in presenting their requests to you for PEA’s support and representation against the “vaccine” mandate of a ruthless Provincial Government.

My clients are not coming to PEA as an adversary, nor with the threat of litigation. Rather, they are hopeful that this discussion will result in a renewed solidarity and shared sense of purpose among the PEA membership.

My clients are not ‘anti-vaxxers’, having received vaccinations in the past. But they are asserting their legal right personally – and PEA’s legal right on behalf of the membership – to exercise their freedom of choice to refuse injections of experimental medicines known to cause harm.

Requests – My clients respectfully request the following of PEA:
- Evidence – Demand that the employer and/or the BC PHO produce scientific evidence in keeping with their claims as listed in ADDENDUM “A” to this letter, that:
  - the vaccines would make my clients safer to clients and co-workers;
  - the vaccines are safe for my clients – disclosing the risks and side effects.
- My clients have produced evidence in this letter that:
  - the vaccines would not make them safer to clients and co-workers; and
  - the vaccines are unsafe for them.
- Policy Grievance – File a policy grievance with the employer(s) concerning the numerous irregularities around this vaccine mandate, including:
  - the draconian outcomes falling upon individual members, consequences never previously contemplated, imagined or agreed upon – and certainly not deserved.
- Personal Grievances – Stand with individual members in support of:
  - their Charter freedoms of (s. 2a) conscience, religion; (s. 2b) thought, belief, opinion, and expression; (s. 7) their rights of life, liberty and security of the person, including their rights of informed consent and privacy, and (s. 15) their rights to equal treatment. Why would you not stand with your members in these honourable pursuits?
- United Action – Take united job action across the labour union movement to stop the mandate and related abuses.
- Legal Action – Take legal action against the employer(s) to stop the mandate and other abuses, if the employer is not responsive to job action.
- Unpaid Leave – Demand that the employer identify its legal basis for placing my clients on unpaid leave as intended, as this action appears to be in the nature of a disciplinary suspension without sound legal basis.
- Advocate – Support, represent, and advocate for them against mandatory vaccination.
- Bullying – Take action to end the severe bullying of the unvaccinated and undeclared, and the extremist advocacy of the pro-mandate lobby.
- Privacy – Demand the employer respect their privacy concerning medical information.
- Meeting – Meet with my clients to discuss their concerns

2. Collective Agreement – What it says

There is nothing in the Collective Agreement that would permit a vaccine mandate at all, much less a mandate of these mRNA vaccines, which are still in the clinical trial stage. Even if some implication could be drawn from the general health and safety provisions of the Collective Agreement, that PEA members will participate in vaccination programs – which my clients specifically deny – vaccines of the nature being mandated were never contemplated by the drafters of the Collective Agreement.

Vaccine re-defined – The dictionary definition of vaccine¹ has been changed in the SARS-COV-2 (“Covid-19”) era, to now include mRNA medicines, such as Pfizer/BioNTech (Comirnaty), and Moderna (Spikevax), which are claimed to function through an injection of mRNA molecules surrounded by a lipid nanoparticle. It is not open to the employer to require PEA members to receive into their bodies any novel medicines newly defined as vaccines, which were never contemplated when the Collective Agreement were agreed upon. This sort of re-interpretive sleight-of-hand by the employers cannot be palatable to PEA.
Incomplete trials – Clinical trials only begin to be completed in 2023 for the vaccines being mandated by the employer, including the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, as well as the AstraZeneca (Vaxzevria), and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) non-mRNA vaccines. The parties to the Collective Agreement certainly never contemplated that vaccines could be mandated which had not been proven safe and effective through completed clinical trials.
Vaccine death and injury – The parties to the Collective Agreement certainly never imagined that the employer could mandate union members to receive injections of any vaccine that has caused astronomical death and injury, as these ones have. PEA members never agreed to that.
Doctor’s Note– In order to be exempted from the vaccine mandate, the Public Health Office advises that a member’s physician must advise in writing of potential adverse effects. However, the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons have threatened the doctors with regulatory action if they fail to promote a pro-vaccine agenda, and the Public Health Officer has warned doctors about issuing exemption letters. The parties to the Collective Agreement never agreed to something so egregious.

However, despite the risk of discipline, many doctors have voiced their opposition to the government’s Covid-19 policies, such as the 500 doctors of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance in their publication of September 24, 2021, Covid-19 Canadian Covid Care Alliance Declaration, as have a group of Okanagan health care professionals in their 1^st Open Letter and 2^nd Open Letter to Bonnie Henry. These documents contain links to numerous scientific documents.

In these circumstances, it would be unreasonable, even unconscionable for PEA, and the labour union movement generally, to lend their weight and influence to the BC government’s abhorrent vaccine mandate policy. This government policy defies the very reason for PEA’s existence – to protect workers’ civil rights and liberties, including their health and safety in the context of employment. It is alarming that the provincial and federal governments could have won any buy-in at all from the unions for this illiberal policy.

3. Summary of my clients’ concerns

Historically, PEA has maintained a commitment to its members’ civil rights and liberties. The PEA Constitution contains the following commitment at Article II – Objects, 7:

“To do any other things as may be necessary for the welfare of the members of the Association.”

That is the commitment that my clients are asking PEA to stand by. Clearly, the vaccine mandate violates the human rights and liberties of PEA members. This mandate attempts to legitimize a culture of harassment and discrimination – of coerced medical experimentation, and compelled thought, belief, opinion and expression – purportedly in relation to an urgent health and safety issue – and authorize the loss of career and livelihood for those of your members who exercise their rights and do not choose to consent to the Provincial Health Officer’s illegal Orders.

The common law and statutory law of BC and Canada are categorical in their protection of PEA members from being constructively dismissed from their employment for refusing to receive the experimental vaccines.

The labour union movement has always been categorical in its utter contempt and derision of any such contrived reasoning that would crush its members underfoot – until now. It’s time for PEA to reverse course.

The novel, transitory Orders of the Provincial Health Officer requiring vaccination or constructive dismissal are illegal. These Orders are ultimately bound to fail in the courts under the accumulating medical evidence.

Accordingly, my clients request that PEA undertake a reassessment of its current ‘pandemic’ policy, and recognize the irreconcilable conflict between

a) on one hand, its commitment to the civil rights and liberties of its members, and its duty to represent and defend its members against any illegal behaviour of the employer; and

b) on the other hand, its acquiescence, even support of the vaccine mandate, in deference to the Provincial Health Officer.

With respect, PEA contracted with its members when they joined the union to represent them against any unfair or illegal behaviour of employers – whether or not the union leadership aligns ideologically with a member’s cause. It is on the basis of that agreement between PEA and its members, that my clients – your members – seek PEA’s wholehearted support, representation and advocacy of their cause.

I understand that PEA has expressed support for the vaccine mandate, and has expressed the view that the mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, and continues to encourage its members to get vaccinated.

With greatest respect, PEA is not a body of physicians that it could or should offer legal and medical opinions of this nature. I urge PEA to turn back from this policy position, not based on sound and updated medical evidence. PEA’s vaccine convictions may have been reasonable in the past, before the definition of vaccine was changed. But PEA’s vaccine policy is not reasonable now.

Pointedly, the vast preponderance of expert evidence now clearly shows the vaccines are neither safe nor effective, despite the political-media narrative to the contrary, and despite the pressures placed upon you by the vaccine mandate advocates both inside and outside your union, by the virus-terrified, and by your political allies.

My clients are concerned with the employer’s apparent intentions to place them on unpaid leave and possibly require their attendance of Covid-19 re-education courses – disciplinary measures never contemplated in the Collective Agreement, and taken without the recourse of due process or redress. My clients are also concerned that they not be placed in some sort of alternate work arrangement amounting to downgraded employment status. They are further concerned that they not be subjected to PCR testing as an alternative to vaccination. PCR tests are another form of invasive medical treatment which nobody is legally obligated to receive. The preponderance of evidence is that PCR testing is profoundly unreliable – in effect useless ² for determining Covid- 19 infection, at least the way it’s being done in Canada. Rapid antigen screening testing is similarly invasive and ineffective, and in any event requires a confirmatory test like PCR.

My clients entreat PEA to reassess its vaccine mandate policy against its core historical values, and recognize that its obligations lie in protecting its members who refuse the vaccine mandate, including ongoing booster shots, from the abrogation of their civil rights and liberties

– and in particular, from being coerced into receiving an invasive, potentially dangerous medical procedure, or be torn from their employment and career.

4. PEA members’ human rights and freedoms

4(a) The Charter – The principles of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are well known:

s. 2(a) freedoms of conscience and religion;

s. 2(b) freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression;

s. 7 right to life, liberty and security of person

Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Dickson wrote in the case R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 SCR 295,

“… belief itself [is] not amenable to compulsion. Attempts to compel belief or practice denied the reality of individual conscience …” (para. 120)

“… an emphasis on individual conscience and individual judgment also lies at the heart of our democratic political tradition. The ability of each citizen to make free and informed decisions is the absolute prerequisite for the legitimacy, acceptability, and efficacy of our system of self-government […] It is because of the centrality of the rights associated with freedom of individual conscience both to basic beliefs about human worth and dignity and

to a free and democratic political system […] They are the [essential conditions] of the political tradition underlying the Charter. (para. 122) (my underlining added)

The “individual conscience” of each of your members is bound together with their freedoms of religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression. None of these matters of conscience are “amenable to compulsion”, nor may anyone attempt to compel or deny them. For the government to threaten your members’ employment for failing to “consent” to its vaccine experiment is a denial of their freedoms of “individual conscience” and “individual judgment” in thought, belief, opinion, and religious conviction, and of their right to conscientious consent or refusal.

In respect of your members section 7 Charter “right to life, liberty and security of person”, LaForest JJ wrote in the case R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 SCR 387, that nobody may be deprived of these rights, except in accord with “… the principles of fundamental justice …” There are absolutely no principles of fundamental justice that would force your members to receive an experimental medicine, already known to be harmful, which surely puts their lives and personal security at risk.

Section 15 of the Charter guarantees my clients “… the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination …” The vaccine mandate violates this equality principle. My clients are arbitrarily mandated to receive vaccines, while other employees even within PEA doing similar work, are arbitrarily exempted. My clients are clearly being discriminated against without excuse.

Notwithstanding any legal advice PEA may have received to the contrary, all of these Charter rights and freedoms have real application to my clients’ cause. These rights and freedoms are not going away.

4(b) Human rights commissioners – Any opinions offered by human rights tribunals or commissioners – as distinct from “superior” courts – which may have led PEA to believe it to be legal for the employer to trample its members’ human rights and freedoms under the pretext of emergency – will not in the end stand up against the common law of the judges, which flows from the superior courts, has been carefully forged over centuries, and emphatically contradicts such opinions.

In any event, the BC Human Rights Commissioner did not issue an unconditional endorsement of the vaccine mandate and passports in her guidance: BC Human Rights Commissioner’s guidance about proof-of-vaccination. The Commissioner’s statement was heavily conditional, saying:

“[…][authorities] can in some circumstances implement a vaccination status policy such as a proof-of-vaccination requirement—but only if
[a] other less intrusive means of preventing COVID-19 transmission are inadequate for the setting and
[b] if due consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.”

These conditions have not been met. Obviously, there are other “less intrusive means of preventing Covid-19” than the vaccines – for example – the very same protocols and measures that have been used effectively in the PEA work settings these many months – including remote work. Obviously, the commissioner’s guidance is being ignored, as no “consideration is given to the human rights of everyone involved.” Individual rights have been jettisoned. Only communal rights are (purportedly) considered now.

The BC Human Rights Commissioner goes on in the same document, speaking beyond her authority, saying: “… getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is an important way we can all help keep each other—especially the most marginalized and medically vulnerable people among us— [stay] as safe as possible.” The Commissioner does not have the legal authority to offer such an opinion, and certainly not the medical expertise. She is also wrong, according to the evidence.

4(c) International Law – The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says at Article 7: “… no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” This International Covenant clearly rules out the coerced participation of PEA members in this government “medical or scientific experiment”.

The vaccines are currently in experimental trials. They are only in the study stage, irrespective of regulatory approval. The current Phase 4 of the studies is uncovering serious side effects not previously seen in Phase 3. These studies will only begin to be completed in 2023, and later. The global vaccination program is undeniably a medical experiment.

Any company or organization, including PEA, that embraces and promotes information from a merely partially completed trial to encourage or coerce an invasive medical treatment such as the vaccines, is likely to incur serious liability in relation to the vaccine injured (be it psychological, moral or physical injury) who follow their advice and become injured. And those administrators in place at the time the coercive decisions were made will be exposed to personal liability.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us in its preamble:

“Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and […]
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”

This is the language adopted by the nations and peoples of the world in our Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in response to the wicked tyrannies of the day. This foundational international law underscores the imperative that PEA must maintain the highest regard for its members’ human rights, whatever the cost.

The current “contempt for human rights” being demonstrated by the BC government and its Provincial Health Officer, is playing out in the “barbarous acts” of coercing people like your PEA members into receiving vaccines which are known to have injured and killed thousands of people worldwide. Such inhumanity has “outraged the conscience of [people]” worldwide – and in particular your union members, my clients.

PEA’s support for my clients in these circumstances is imperative, not optional.

4(d) Human rights scholarship – Leading human rights scholars have weighed in on these questions. I quote some of these opinions below, from the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. I commend their counsel and cautions to you, as you undertake a reassessment of where PEA, and the labour union movement generally, must stand in respect of the derogation and abrogation of their members’ human rights.

The writers quoted below are not extremists, or “anti-vaxxers”, or “science-deniers”, or any of the other pejoratives thrown about. They are eminent scholars, who in ordinary times PEA would look to and ally with in heart and mind – they may even share PEA’s political preferences. These scholars are among those who, ‘hold the ropes for society’ as we pass through these difficult valleys, helping us to hold true to who we are and what we really believe, even when inconvenient or costly. The applicability of these writings from the Ontario Civil Liberties Association to the vaccine mandate, will be self-evident.

4(e) Ontario Civil Liberties Association – Letter to the Unvaccinated – August 2, 2021

by Angela Durante, PhD; Denis Rancourt, PhD; Claus Rinner, PhD; Laurent Leduc, PhD; Donald Welsh, PhD; John Zwaagstra, PhD; Jan Vrbik, PhD; Valentina Capurri, PhD:

“It is entirely reasonable and legitimate to say ‘no’ to insufficiently tested vaccines for which there is no reliable science. You have a right to assert guardianship of your body and to refuse medical treatments if you see fit. You are right to say ‘no’ to a violation of your dignity, your integrity and your bodily autonomy. It is your body, and you have the right to choose. You are right to fight for your children against their mass vaccination in school.
You are right to question whether free and informed consent is at all possible under present circumstances. Long-term effects are unknown. Transgenerational effects are unknown. Vaccine-induced deregulation of natural immunity is unknown. Potential harm is unknown […]
You are justified in demanding independent peer-reviewed studies, not funded by multinational pharmaceutical companies […] none of the study data have been made public or available to researchers who don’t work for these companies. […]
You are correct in your calls for a diversity of scientific opinions. […] Choosing not to take the vaccine is holding space for reason, transparency and accountability to emerge. You are right to ask, ‘What comes next when we give away authority over our own bodies?”

4(f) Ontario Civil Liberties Association – Letter to the Vaccinated – August 29, 2021

by Angela Durante, PhD; Denis Rancourt, PhD; Jan Vrbik, PhD; Laurent Leduc, PhD; Valentina Capurri, PhD; Amanda Euringer; Journalist Claus Rinner, PhD; Maximilian C. Forte, PhD; Julie Ponesse, PhD; Michael Owen, PhD; Donald G. Welsh, PhD:

“Prime Minister Trudeau recently warned that “there will be consequences” if federal employees do not comply with vaccine mandates. This is a voice of tyranny that has reverberated fear and heightened agitation across our country. […] What are the consequences of mandating such an insufficiently tested medical intervention? […]
And now, mounting evidence worldwide shows that these vaccines cannot stop the transmission of the virus and variants, yet vaccination mandates continue. […]
The meaning of “fully vaccinated” is rapidly changing as leaders demand the next booster upgrade and threaten ousting us from public spaces if we don’t comply. […]
History has taught us that one-sided arguments and outlawed dissent are signs of totalitarianism lurking at the doorstep. […] Mandating vaccines is a breaking point. […] The consequences of following Prime Minister Trudeau’s current orders are greater than his threatened consequences. […]” (my underlining added)

On behalf of my clients, I implore you to heed the wisdom and warnings of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association.

5. PEA members’ rights of informed consent

The Supreme Court of Canada case Hopp v. Lepp [1980] 2 SCR 192, sets out what “informed consent” means with respect to a treatment such as the vaccination, as follows:

“The term “informed consent” […] reflects the fact that although there is, generally, prior consent by a patient to proposed surgery or therapy, this does not immunize a surgeon or physician from liability for battery or for negligence if he has failed in a duty to disclose risks of the surgery or treatment, known or which should be known to him, and which are unknown to the patient.
The underlying principle is the right of a patient to decide what, if anything, should be done with his body […] a patient’s consent, whether to surgery or to therapy, will give protection to his surgeon or physician only if the patient has been sufficiently informed to enable him to make a choice whether or not to submit to the surgery or therapy.” (my underlining added).

This case, Hopp v. Lepp, makes it clear that a healthcare provider who fails to obtain the “informed consent” of a patient to a treatment, can be found liable for “battery” (assault) or “negligence” – either civilly or criminally. The authorities in BC are making no attempt to obtain “informed consent” even from willing patients, and purport to mandate the “consent” of the unwilling. PEA should avoid any association with these errors.

Canadian Covid Care Alliance – The CCCA accurately summarizes the law of “informed consent” arising out of the Hopp v. Lepp case and subsequent case decisions, in a document entitled “What is Informed Consent and How Does It Apply to COVID-19 Vaccination?”:

“Healthcare providers are responsible for presenting patients with clear and complete information about proposed medical interventions, and for answering all questions related to treatment. The information must be contextualized for each patient’s individual situation, taking into account variables such as age, gender, and medical history. The information must be adequate, true and include an explanation of treatments benefits, side effects, risks, alternatives and the consequences of not receiving treatment. In some cases, information about the clinical trials that support the safety and effectiveness of the treatment is also necessary, particularly when specific groups of people have been excluded from the trials. […] Informed consent must be voluntary. After receiving adequate information about a recommended treatment, a person must be in a position to express his or her free will without any controlling influence or coercion.”

Everyone has the right to consent or refuse any medical treatment. Coerced consent is no consent at all. Consent must be voluntary.

If the BC government does not withdraw its vaccination coercion program, I anticipate receiving instructions to send a demand letter to the employer requiring complete and accurate disclosure about the vaccines in respect of each element of “informed consent” – contextualized to each individual clients, including: an explanation of the benefits, side effects, risks, alternatives, consequences of not receiving treatment – along with information about clinical trials and the vast death and injury toll.

It will be apparent to you that accurate answers to these questions about ‘side effects’ and ‘risks’, do not exist. Nobody has these answers regarding these experimental vaccines. And nobody should pretend to offer answers.

“Informed consent” is impossible in these circumstances, in that these vaccines are still under study, and as such, not all the side effects have been discovered let alone published. It is likely that even those side effects that become known will not be published any time soon, due to the fear of speaking out in a vicious cancel culture, and due to the well-known issue of under- reporting at the best of times, and due to publication biases. Moreover, there are no known studies on the long-term effects of these vaccines (i.e. cancers, infertility, neurological injury), in that the vaccine roll-out only started 9 months ago.

So, I anticipate that my clients’ employers will not even attempt to provide answers to these questions, whether PEA or I put the questions to them. Instead, the BC Government will attempt to steamroll all of us, including PEA. They will continue to demand that your members provide involuntary, uninformed “consent” to their vaccines, or lose their jobs. Some of your members will submit to their demands, or have done so already. Statistically, some of your members will die from the vaccines and others will be permanently injured. The full nature of their suffering cannot yet be known.

PEA cannot in good conscience stand for this. My clients appeal to PEA to take up their cause and represent them against this extreme injustice.

6. The science around the vaccines

It is important that PEA examine the scientific basis for the vaccine mandate. The following are only a few of many scientific issues around the Covid-19 vaccines:

a. Pandemic of the unvaccinated? – “It’s certainly untrue … that the unvaccinated are somehow driving the emergence of the novel variants. This goes against every scientific principle that we understand.” ³

b. Vaccine death and injury – The Government of Canada reports 17, 079 adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines as of October 4, 2021, including: ⁴

(i) Thrombosis;

(ii) myocarditis;

(iii) Guillain-Barré Syndrome;

(iv) Capillary leak syndrome;

(v) Facial paralysis/Bell’s Palsy;

(vi) But the Canadian government conceals the number of deaths, which is imperative information for people in giving “informed consent”.

c. Vaccine death and injury – European Union Database for Adverse Drug Reactions⁵ re Covid-19 vaccines:

(i) 20,595 deaths; and

(ii) 1.9 million injured (50%) seriously.

d. Vaccine death and injury – USA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System⁶ re Covid-19 vaccines:

(i) 15,937 deaths; and

(ii) 752,801 injured.

e. 99% under-reporting of adverse reactions to vaccines – Fewer than 1 % of vaccine adverse events are reported, according to a Harvard Pilgrim study.⁷

f. mRNA vaccine risks were previously known – Pre-trials of mRNA vaccines showed risk of autoimmune disorders and blood coagulation.⁸

g. Vaccines generate resistant variants – Viral variants of concern may emerge with dangerous resistance to the immunity generated by Covid-19 vaccines.⁹

h. Vaccinated people still spread Covid-19.¹⁰

i. Vaccinated people were found to be 27 times more likely to experience symptomatic Covid-19 infection than those with natural immunity from Covid-19.¹¹

j. Fully vaccinated are most infected with Covid-19 – Most of the people infected with Covid-19 in Scotland¹² and Massachusetts¹³ are fully vaccinated.

k. Vaccine mortality – The Covid-19 vaccines are emerging as a very substantial source of morbidity and mortality.¹⁴

l. Vaccines wane in efficacy – Covid-19 vaccines wane in efficacy over time, around 6 months, and boosters become necessary.¹⁵

m. Natural immunity to Covid-19 – even in people never exposed to this virus or SARS-CoV-1, provides stronger, longer-lasting immunity than the vaccines.¹⁶

n. Pre-existing antibody cross-reactivity – A majority of uninfected adults show preexisting antibody reactivity against Covid-19.¹⁷

The World Health Organization openly partnered with social media¹⁸, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and many others, and the mainstream media¹⁹ of the world, directing them to, quote: “filter out false information and promote accurate information from credible sources like the WHO and the CDC.” ²⁰ In the result, many leading scientists who oppose the Covid-19 narrative have been censored and crushed by an unknowledgeable media. Despite this undisguised scientific censorship, the accumulating scientific evidence around Covid-19 speaks loudly for itself over the political narrative.

7. Closing Appeal – Government has violated trust with PEA

The human rights and informed consent law that I have summarized in this letter, is very longstanding and oft-applied in Canada. This law will not be overthrown by the hasty ideological decisions of human rights tribunals and transitory governments chasing the passing winds of public opinion in these turbulent times.

Long after the governments of the day are gone and the media accord pushing this global vaccination program has been broken up, the labour union movement, and PEA in particular, should remain standing, unmoved from its core values and raison d’être – of protecting workers’ civil rights and liberties in the context of employment. If PEA abandons its values and its workers in these troubled times, then what purpose remains to it, and who will stand up for these workers?

My clients recognize, with regret, the vehement hostility that the PEA leadership is likely to face from the true believers in forced vaccination, and the fearful within your membership. However, we respectfully submit that PEA is nevertheless bound to throw off these pressures and support my clients, its member, against the vaccine mandate, and is equal to the task.

The government cannot carry off this tyrannical mandatory vaccine program without the cooperation of the labour union movement. Yet, it would be unconscionable for the labour union movement to lend its weight and influence to these abhorrent government policies. Whatever the financial, political and relational costs – and they may be great – PEA must confront the government on these policies.

PEA cannot sustain its current conflict of interest between its political loyalties and its duty to uphold its members’ rights. Let politics go and support your members. For about 35 years the Canadian labour union movement has been largely in accord with successive provincial and federal governments. Almost every cause the unions had fought for over the preceding centuries was adopted at least to some degree by the governments and protected by statute.

That accord has just been shattered by the governments. The relationship is broken. The governments are no longer on your side. And my clients call upon you, their union leaders, to realize that. Realize that through the vaccine mandates governments have launched an oppression against workers unprecedented and unheard of in the history of the union movement. Realize that the governments are equally contemptuous of your interests who are complying with the mandates, as they are of my clients’ interests. This program won’t stop with 3^rd and 4^th doses of vaccine – you can be sure that this government tyranny will soon enough reach out for you and your personal interests. You cannot comply your way out of tyranny. The governments have absolutely violated the trust built up with the unions over decades.

Not the least reason PEA should disengage with the government with respect to this mandatory vaccine policy, is that such a patently illegal, dangerous and devastating policy is sure to attract liability to its perpetrators and promoters, of a magnitude equal to the massive harms being caused by the policy. PEA should take every precaution to avoid incurring this liability to its membership. I reiterate that PEA’s membership has never empowered its union to wander into this minefield of liability – that is of supporting a vaccine mandate – much less, to stay there after fair warning.

My clients implore PEA to take up their cause against ruthless governments bent on the decimation of their civil rights and freedoms, and possibly their very lives and health.

I would be happy to discuss these matters with you at your convenience. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours truly,

“Herb Dunton”

Herb Dunton

Barrister & Solicitor

1^st VP, Cherene Palmer, cpalmer@pea.org

2^nd VP, Cliff Haman, chaman@pea.org

Secretary-Treasurer, Melissa Doyle, mdoyle@pea.org

GLP Chapter, Elizabeth Hunt, dhunt@pea.org

GLP Chapter, Patricia Wilson, pwilson@pea.org

GLP Chapter, Frank Kohlberger, fkohlberger@pea.org

HESU Chapter, Jackie Paquette, jpaquette@pea.org

HSP, Alyssa Beaven, abeaven@pea.org

SMS Chapter, Bev Waterfield, bwaterfield@pea.org

UVic Chapter, Katy Chan, kchan@pea.org

UVic Chapter, John Foxgord, jfoxgord@pea.org

Uvic Chapter, Sheryl Karras, skarras@pea.org

LABC Chapter, Jeremy Orrego, jorrego@pea.org

FMA Chapter, Brent Hird, bhird@pea.org

ADDENDUM “A”

Demand: that the employer or the BC Public Health Officer answer the following essential questions and cite their scientific authority concerning the mRNA vaccines being mandated in BC.

These requests arise from – the “Order of the Provincial Health Officer re Hospital and Community (Health Care and Other Services) COVID-19 Vaccination Status Information and Preventive Measures, of October 21, 2021”.

Re PHO Order, Attestation b, page 4 – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s attestation, that:

“an unvaccinated person who provides health care or services in a hospital or community setting, puts patients, residents, clients, staff and other persons who provide health care or services at risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, and constitutes a health hazard under the Public Health Act.”

2. Re PHO Order, Attestation c, page 4 – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s attestation, that:

“an unvaccinated staff member of an organization which provides health care or services puts staff who provide health care or services, and patients, residents or clients, at risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, and constitutes a health hazard under the Public Health Act.”

3. Re PHO Order, Recital G – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that the vaccines are safe.

4. Re PHO Order, Recital G – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that the vaccines are “very effective.”

5. Re PHO Order, Recital G – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that vaccination is the single most important measure to protect others from COVID-19.

6. Re PHO Order, Recital I – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that there are no other measures nearly as effective as vaccination in reducing the risk of contracting or transmitting SARS-CoV-2, and the likelihood of severe illness and death.

7. Re PHO Order, Recital D – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that the vaccines prevent or reduce the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2.

8. Re PHO Order, Recital E – Provide evidence in support of Dr. Henry’s claim that unvaccinated persons are at a much greater risk than vaccinated persons of being infected with SARS-CoV-2.

9. Re PHO Order, Recital E – Provide evidence in support of the claim that unvaccinated persons are at a much greater risk than vaccinated persons of experiencing higher rates of complications from SARS-CoV-2.

10. Re PHO Order, Recital E – Provide evidence in support of the claim that unvaccinated persons are at a much greater risk than vaccinated persons of experiencing death from SARS-CoV-2.

11. Re PHO Order, Recital E – Provide evidence in support of the claim that unvaccinated persons are at a much greater risk than vaccinated persons of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to other persons.

12. Re PHO Order, Recital E – Provide evidence in support of the claim that unvaccinated persons are at a much greater risk than vaccinated persons of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to vaccinated persons.

Citations

¹ In this letter, the word “vaccine” and derivatives are sometimes used in their original definition and sometimes in their revised definition, which will be apparent from context of use.

² The links show that CDC has withdrawn its recommendation of PCR testing re Covid-19.

³ https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/08/16/the-lies-behind-the-pandemic-of- unvaxxed/

⁴ https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/summary.html

⁵ https://www.globalresearch.ca/20595-dead-1-9-million-injured-50-serious-reported-european- union-database-adverse-drug-reactions-covid-19-shots/5751904

6 https://openvaers.com/index.php

⁷ https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report- 2011.pdf

⁸ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5906799/#!po=0.173010

⁹ https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMsr2105280

¹⁰ https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-08-19-vaccines-still-effective-against-delta-variant-concern- says-oxford-led-study-covid

¹¹ https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater- immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital

¹² https://theexpose.uk/2021/07/29/87-percent-covid-deaths-are-vaccinated-people/

¹³ https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w