No one is mandating that you be vaccinated in Canada. They're just saying don't go to restaurants or bars or other places if you aren't since you're more likely to spread the disease.
https://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/en/covid19-response
You aren't allowed to air-travel without COVID shots. Is that not mandatory then?
Also the courts have stated before that:
> "at the very least, liberty must include those freedoms of lawful conduct always enjoyed by Canadians and by our predecessors in the Anglo-Saxon heritage. If we have enjoyed a right for many centuries then it must surely be included in "liberty" whether specifically stated in the Charter or not."
If one had been able to access centuries old liberties like gyms, restaurants, weddings, funerals etc without disclosing private medical data, then they are covered under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter regarding liberty and privacy is covered under both s.7 and s.8 of the Charter.
> if you aren't since you're more likely to spread the disease
This is inaccurate. Even in mild symptom cases, vaccinated and unvaccinated infections harbour the same levels of viral load. The Delta variant is able to grow in the noses of vaccinated people to the same degree as if they were not vaccinated at all and both groups can unknowingly and unwittingly transmit the virus for 3 days before experiencing any symptoms in 75% of the Delta variant infections.
From your link:
As of October 30, 2021, all travellers 12 years and four (4) months of age and older departing from Canadian airports must, upon request, present a valid record of their COVID-19 vaccination status **or molecular COVID-19 test result**.
> After November 30, 2021, all passengers must be fully vaccinated and present valid proof of being fully vaccinated, with very limited exceptions. COVID-19 test results will no longer be accepted after this date.
> As of November 15, 2021, screening officers will be conducting random proof of vaccination checks of non-passengers at CATSA security screening checkpoints. The checks will take place at 15 airports located in Victoria, Vancouver, Kelowna, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, London, Toronto (Pearson International and Billy Bishop), Ottawa, Montreal (Trudeau), Quebec City, and St. John’s. Upon request, non-passengers will be required to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19 in order to enter an airport’s restricted area.
I know about this because I have an ongoing lawsuit with the Canadian government.
So again not a mandate. Good luck on your lawsuit, you'll need it.
edit: Since you called me dishonest, I'll explain exactly why I think you'll need luck on your lawsuit:
I understand you are highly charged about this issue due to your being involved in a lawsuit, so you seem to be in litigation attack mode. That's understandable. But calling the other side dishonest and not worthy of engagement won't serve you or your lawyer well in a court of law, so you might as well get used to being challenged without taking it personally.
Based on what you've posted here it seems like you feel the vaccine requirements are discriminatory and unfair because they restrict people from gaining access to essential services like air travel.
Yet the links you provide have shown that the Canadian government
1. Had an extended period of time when unvaccinated people could travel with a test to give them time to get vaccinated.
2. Have now moved to a phase where they don't accept tests but still have exceptions to vaccination
3. Those exceptions are specifically designed to accommodate people who rely on air travel for an essential service.
4. There are exceptions for people who cannot get vaccinated
5. There are exceptions for people in the process of getting vaccinated
6. There are options for you to travel if you cannot get vaccinated, making air travel not essential in that case, so your argument falls apart there.
I have no idea how this would hold up in court, obviously I'm not a lawyer. But the government is going to argue that they have the right to set public health policy (true), they have made accommodations (true), there are exceptions (true), and for anyone whom air travel is essential there are further accommodations (true). For the sake of your case, I hope your lawyer presents your arguments in court better than you have presented them here, because I'm not convinced.
https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2021/10/manda...
Look at what the government calls it: "Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federally regulated transportation employees and travellers"
Notice the "Mandatory".
You are being purposefully dishonest. This discussion is not worth proceeding.
Using unbiased information for biased purposes (a lawsuit) does not make the information biased.
but you're right about this: >This discussion is not worth proceeding.
It's more nuanced than peak viral loads clearance rate is important. there is research suggesting that vaccines do reduce transmission, though that benefit may not last as long as one would hope.
> "By analyzing viral loads of over 16,000 infections during the current, Delta-variant-dominated pandemic wave in Israel, we found that BTIs in recently fully vaccinated individuals have lower viral loads than infections in unvaccinated individuals. However, this effect starts to decline 2 months after vacci- nation and ultimately vanishes 6 months or longer after vac- cination. Notably, we found that the effect of BNT162b2 on reducing BTI viral loads is restored after a booster dose. These results suggest that BNT162b2 might decrease the infectious- ness of BTIs even with the Delta variant, and that, although this protective effect declines with time, it can be restored, at least temporarily, with a third, booster, vaccine dose."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4.pdf
However, we also know that the viral loads are also very high in elders, in the obese, comorbidity as well as males. The drop in effectiveness happens the fastest in males, elderly and those with comorbidities.
Also expecting everyone to keep getting boosters every 2-6 months (Canada is allowing after 2 months) is entirely unreasonable.
There's other studies which found same viral loads in vaccinated vs unvaccinated even in mild cases (though it's not clear after what period did they perform the study).
Highly vaccinated Dane County in Wisconsin, US found no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated to vaccinated infections, the viral load was consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v...
Similarly, data from 36 Wisconsin counties found that both vaccinated and unvaccinated can transmit the infection. Infectious virus is found even in vaccinated when specimen Ct values are low, meaning mild cases in vaccinated individuals can spread the virus too.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v...
Houston Methodist Hospital of Texas also found similar viral loads and low Ct values in vaccinated vs unvaccinated infections.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.19.21260808v...
Similar finding in Massachusetts:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
Overall, there's no logical reasoning to not allow tests as a reasonable accommodation and not testing both vaccinated and unvaccinated if the goal is to prevent the spread of COVID.
Also these minute differences in viral loads for maybe 1 to 2 months after inoculation won't be sufficient to justify discrimination based on perceived disability.