An Open Letter, and the Question of Power

Last night, during a public call hosted by BC Rising, I shared an open letter addressed to Dr. Bonnie Henry, Premier David Eby, and Minister Adrian Dix.

What stood out was not only the discussion itself, but the response that followed. Within a short period of time, dozens of individuals began adding their names to the letter. It was a small but clear signal that the questions raised are not isolated.

The letter is not written to revisit every decision made during the Pandemic. It is written because a central question remains unresolved.

Why are authority and decision-making powers being further entrenched when there has been no transparent, independent accounting of how those powers were used?

During the Pandemic, extraordinary authority was granted to public health officials and government. Policies such as vaccine mandates were implemented across sectors, including healthcare. People lost employment. Others made medical decisions under conditions that, for many, did not feel fully voluntary.

These were not abstract measures. They had direct and lasting consequences.

In my own case, my employment with Island Health ended in 2022 after I declined COVID-19 vaccination based on documented medical concerns, including a history of anaphylaxis. That experience forms part of the context for both this letter and the book Follow the Science.

Last night’s discussion also pointed to something that is rarely reflected in official accounts. Health professionals on the call spoke about stepping away from their roles, in some cases as recently as yesterday. These are not hypothetical impacts. They are ongoing, and they suggest a gap between reported stability and lived experience.

This bill speaks to whether a society pauses to examine how power was used during a period of emergency before deciding to extend or formalize that power moving forward.

For some, the events of the Pandemic are settled. For others, they are not. Many more are somewhere in between, aware that something significant happened, but unclear on how to interpret it.

That uncertainty is not a weakness. It is a signal that careful, transparent review is still needed.

If decisions were justified, they should be able to withstand independent scrutiny.

If aspects of those decisions caused harm, that should be acknowledged clearly.

Moving forward without that accounting risks normalizing a level of authority that was originally granted under exceptional circumstances.

The question is not whether action was needed during the Pandemic.

The question is whether the use of that action has been fully examined before it becomes part of the permanent structure of governance.

The open letter is an invitation to address that question directly.

For those who wish to read the full letter or add their name, it is available right here on this website.