7.2.3 Social Effects of Mandates on Canadian Institutions

Introduction

Historically, Canadians have had a high level of trust in their public institutions. Trust in public institutions is often measured through public opinion surveys which assess public confidence in various institutions, including government, parliament, the judiciary, the police, and public health agencies.

While trust levels can fluctuate over time, especially in response to specific events or policies, Canada has consistently ranked relatively high, compared to many other countries, in terms of public trust in institutions. Factors contributing to this trust include Canada‘s reputation for political stability, democratic governance, and robust public services.

The long-term effects of government actions during the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly reduced Canadians‘ confidence and trust in their government institutions. This erosion of trust in the fundamental institutions of Canada is prevalent not just in Canada but around the World.

According to the testimony of Gail Davidson, Canada no longer enjoys the trust of its citizens or that of the citizens of much of the world.

The perception of tyranny is subjective and can be influenced by a range of factors, including political biases, international relations, media narratives, and individual experiences.

While opinions may differ, it is worth noting that Canada no longer enjoys a universally positive reputation for democratic governance and respect for human rights, globally.

Canada‘s long standing tradition of fairness and transparency has been severely eroded, and this negative perception will affect Canadian society for generations to come.

The intent of this section is to provide an overall or general commentary on the subject of institutional trust: detailed discussion and analysis of certain institutions included here are contained in other sections of this report.

Testimony of Witnesses‘ Social Effects of Mandates on Canadian Institutions

Many witnesses testified as to the performance of the fundamental institutions of Canadian society durning the COVID-19 pandemic.

Canadian institutions that were discussed included the following:

• Parliament, legislatures, executive branch,

• Judiciary,

• Legal profession,

• Police,

• Healthcare,

• Regulatory agencies,

• Media,

• Financial institutions,

• Human rights organizations,

• Universities/public schools,

• Churches, and

• National/multinational corporations.

Witness David Leis spoke at length about the absolute erosion and wanton destruction of traditional Canadians‘ confidence in their democratic institutions and how the existential survival of traditional Canadian democracy was in peril.

Regina Goman spoke about her experience in communist Poland and her participation in the Solidarity movement. She told how, based on her experience in Poland, the actions of the Canadian government in restricting and cancelling basic human rights was a stark warning to Canadians that the country was slipping toward tyranny.

Lt. Col. David Redman, who is an expert on emergency planning, testified that despite his expertise, he found the different levels of government would not listen to his counsel concerning the emergency response to the pandemic, and he further stated that the professionals in the emergency planning agencies were sidelined. In his opinion, the emergency response was a complete failure from the outset, and the government was hostile to any suggestions that may have improved the results.

Gail Davidson, an expert in international human rights law, spoke about how, in her opinion, Canada violated the International Human Rights treaties to which Canada is a signatory and is legally obligated to uphold.

Retired Judge Brian Giesbrecht testified that he felt the courts and judiciary had failed Canadians. He testified that, in his opinion, the courts were no longer accessible to Canadians and that the judiciary was avoiding their responsibility to deal with difficult issues that have arisen during the pandemic. Judges often succumbed to political pressure to follow the pandemic narrative, and Canadian citizens no longer received fair and unbiased hearings.

Legal tools such as rulings of “mootness“ and “judicial notice“ were used to avoid hearing and ruling on government actions. Judges simply deferred to government regulations, robbing citizens of equal standing under the law.

Lawyer Bruce Pardy spoke about how the courts have demonstrated a bias toward the government position, as opposed to testing the narrative. He also spoke about the weakness of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Lawyers James Kitchen, Jeffrey Rath, and Leighton Grey spoke at length about the failure of the Canadian judiciary.

Several doctors—including Dr. Chris Milburn, Dr. Phillips, and others—stated that the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons failed at protecting the public. In the opinion of the witnesses, the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons simply enforced the government narrative and did not base their actions on an understanding of science. In addition, these regulators inserted themselves between physicians and patients as well as striking down long held principles and practices in medicine.

Health Canada promoted racial division in Canada by offering early eligibility of the vaccine based on race, as opposed to identifying vulnerable people of all races, based on age and comorbidity. This practice built up a feeling of resentment within Canada.

Many witnesses testified about how they were treated by the police. Tom Marazzo, Vincent Gircys , Richard Abbot, Danny Bulford, and others testified concerning the assault of citizens by police organizations during the demonstrations. In their opinion, the police were no longer acting as protectors of the public but were acting as enforcers of the government edicts. Inappropriate conduct included various breaches of many aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as police using excessive force when dealing with peaceful protest.

Several pastors testified that the police were used to forcibly invade their churches to shut down religious services and arrest pastors.

Rodney Palmer and Marianne Klowak spoke about the complete absence of any traditional journalistic standards in Canadian media. Mr. Palmer detailed bias, misleading news stories, and significant omissions of opinions that were counter to the government narrative.

Several witnesses spoke about the actions of Canadian financial institutions in the freezing of bank accounts of citizens who had not been convicted of any crime. The financial institutions simply undertook to freeze bank accounts, without any push-back on the regulator, nor was there any evidence that these institutions consulted their legal counsel in any kind of an effort of protecting the rights of their depositors.

Testimony was received from witnesses who refused to be coerced to take an experimental injection and, as a result, were dismissed from their jobs. Employers took unilateral actions which allegedly violated human rights. Many of these dismissed employees took their complaints to their unions and the human rights commission, where their complaints were dismissed. Neither the unions or the human rights commissions actually took any action to challenge the employers on these violations.

Universities and public schools followed the government mandates without any regard for the detrimental effects that students were experiencing. The Commissioners heard testimony from retired professors, teachers, and students. In many instances, the institutions adopted policies that were more restrictive than those enacted by the government, and often they prolonged the implementation of these restrictions.

According to the witnesses, students were impacted in a variety of ways that included lost educational opportunities, physical distress, and social and mental developmental damages. Further administration of many schools allowed a toxic atmosphere of hate and bullying to develop against anyone who did not comply with the narrative.

Many churches failed their congregations and were in lockstep with government directives restricting their operation. This was despite the obvious contradictions in the regulations that allowed big box stores, liquor stores, and cannabis stores to remain open as essential services. After the initial pronouncement of the pandemic and lockdowns, most pastors complied and closed their churches to protect the congregations. As the mandates continued and deepened, and it became obvious that the mandates and lockdowns were wrong, many pastors reopened their churches, understanding that the church plays a vital role in the mental, social, and spiritual health of their congregations. Wesley Mack, Hon. PhD, testified on the importance of church attendance to communities of faith.

Testimony was received from pastors who were fined, arrested, jailed, or forced out of their churches, including Pastor Steven Flippin, Pastor James Coates, Pastor Jason McVicar, and Tobias Tissen.

Witnesses testified that national and multinational corporations, including pharmaceutical companies, allegedly took advantage of the environment of terror and panic that gripped the government and the country. Employees were terminated due to non-compliance with unilateral injection mandates.

Pharmaceutical corporations took advantage of panicked and inexperienced government regulators to negotiate incredible concessions on the approval, manufacture, and distribution of an experimental gene therapy while protecting themselves from liability.

Large corporations also turned over confidential client records and monitored clients on request of the government. In some instances, this was done without a court warrant and without the conscious knowledge of the clients. One example discussed was the monitoring of over 30 million Canadians, through their cell phones, by Health Canada.

Conclusions

Here are a few reasons why Canadians‘ trust in their institutions has been shaken:

Democratic Values and Political Stability

Canada was traditionally widely regarded as a stable and well-functioning democracy. It has had a long-standing tradition of upholding democratic values, including free and fair elections, the rule of law, freedom of speech, and respect for human rights. These factors contributed to Canada‘s reputation as a country with strong democratic institutions.

Over the course of the pandemic, many of these democratic rights were attacked, diminished, or eliminated. The Government of Canada, along with the provincial governments, effectively suspended many of the fundamental human rights as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They suppressed peaceful dissenting opinions; they arrested peaceful protestors; and they silenced dissent through the use of the judiciary, police, and even financial institutions..

Canadians were so accustomed to their rights that they could not bring themselves to believe what was happening before their very eyes.

Many Canadians found themselves in a position where they could not obtain legal counsel, as many lawyers in Canada would not represent persons who were challenging the government lockdowns and mandates.

Multiculturalism and Inclusivity

Canadians are known for their commitment to multiculturalism and diversity. The Canadian government, however, had established policies and programs to promote the vilification of certain groups of Canadians by using a propagandized narrative of institutional racism. In order to “protect“ these threatened minority rights, they enacted extremely obtuse laws and regulations which are being used to stifle legitimate dissent and to force citizens to accept their extreme policies or face legal consequences. Those consequences include arrest, fines, and incarceration. This change in approach has not gone unnoticed in the international community.

Strong Human Rights Record

Canada has previously been recognized for its commitment to human rights, both domestically and internationally. Canada is a signatory to numerous international human rights treaties and has actively participated in global efforts to promote and protect human rights. During the pandemic, Canada enacted policies and enforced new laws which suspended human rights in the country, and many of the measures were in direct violation of the international human rights treaties to which Canada is a signatory. Gail Davidson, an expert in international law, set out the details of these gross violations, in her testimony.

Canada‘s legal framework, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, failed to protect the individual rights and freedoms of its citizens. Many of the most basic and fundamental rights “guaranteed“ by the Charter were simply brushed aside, under section 1 of the Charter, titled “Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms.“ By invoking this clause, and without providing clear and transparent justification of the reasons, the government was able to suspend Charter freedoms, and the judiciary did nothing to stop them.

Perception of Government Response

The lack of effectiveness, transparency, and communication of government responses to the pandemic influenced significant mistrust in institutions. Governments demonstrated a lack of efficient and transparent decision-making, they did not communicate clearly, and they did not implement evidence-based measures.

Objectively false statements, missteps, inconsistent messaging, and delays in decision-making eroded trust.

Political Polarization

The pandemic became politicized in most contexts, leading to polarization and divisions along political lines. Trust in government institutions was influenced by pre-existing political beliefs, with individuals more likely to trust or distrust institutions based on their alignment with their political ideologies.

Communication and Information Dissemination

The ability of governments to effectively communicate accurate and timely information is crucial in building trust. The governments in Canada did not engage in open and transparent communication. Although they provided regular updates, many in the population knew that the updates were skewed and biased. In addition, the government relied on “trusted“ experts who, in many instances, were known to have received significant government funding and thus had a conflict of interest, which eroded trust in government institutions.

Handling of Crisis Management

The perception of how well government institutions handled the crisis—including the ability to control the spread of the virus, implement effective public health measures, and protect vulnerable populations—influenced trust.

The public health officials in charge of the emergency response displayed no expertise in emergency management, and the existing emergency planning apparatus was sidelined.

Elected officials who are supposed to remain in control of any crisis situation abrogated these responsibilities to non-elected, and all too often incompetent, bureaucrats with no experience in crisis management.

Trust in Science and Expertise

Trust in government institutions was influenced by the public‘s perception of the government‘s reliance on skewed, false, incomplete, and biased scientific evidence and expertise.

Governments did not follow evidence-based decision-making and sought guidance from inept and inexperienced public health officials and even disregarding crisis plans previously developed by the same public health officials.

Decisions were perceived as politically motivated or contradicting scientific consensus, further eroding the trust of Canadians.

Social and Economic Impacts

The social and economic impacts of COVID-19 mandates—such as business closures, job losses, and financial hardships—have influenced trust in government institutions. Individuals and communities experiencing negative consequences rightly attributed these difficulties to government decisions, which led to decreased trust.

Trust in Public Health Institutions

The response of public health institutions, such as the Public Health Agency of Canada and local health authorities, influenced trust in the broader government system.

Trust in these institutions was crucial, as they provided guidance, expertise, and recommendations during the crisis. The directives being issued by public health were often erratic and were given in a state of panic; and many of the regulations and edicts contradicted long-held medical practice, and all too often they made no sense in a medical or scientific way.

The public was never presented with an overall plan but was simply exposed to a long list of rules and regulations, without any consideration for the quickly developing situation. A dizzying array of different rules from province to province further contributed to a perception that the measures were political and not informed by good health policy.

It is important to recognize the pandemic and its impact on trust in government institutions as complex and multifaceted. Trust can be influenced by a combination of factors, and individual experiences and perspectives play a role. Governments that actively address concerns, engage in transparent communication, prioritize public health, and demonstrate accountability have a better chance of rebuilding and maintaining trust in the long term.

Recommendations

The process of restoring trust in Canadian institutions is a very difficult and complex one. What was destroyed in a very short period of time will take a generation to restore, and only if these institutions make a concerted effort to restore that trust through their day-to-day actions.

Momentary publicity campaigns and propaganda blitzes will not serve either the institutions or the people of Canada‘s best interests.

If these concerns are not addressed in a forthright manner, the very existence of Canada as a free and democratic nation is at risk.

We recommend the following:

1. It is not an option to take a “business as usual“ posture and simply carry on as if nothing happened. Institutions must recognize and publicly admit their culpability in what was perpetrated on Canadians and, if appropriate, must face criminal and civil penalties for their actions.

2. Transparency and Accountability: Information related to the institutions‘ actions during the COVID-19 pandemic must be made publicly available, creating a culture of transparency and accountability within public institutions.

3. Ensure that decision-making processes are open and accessible to the public, and that the actions and performance of public officials are subject to scrutiny.

4. Establish mechanisms for oversight, such as independent audits or ombudsman offices, to hold institutions accountable for their actions.

5. Ethical Conduct: Promote and enforce high ethical standards within public institutions. Implement robust codes of conduct that govern the behaviour and decisions of public officials and employees. Provide ethics training to ensure that individuals understand their responsibilities and the expectations placed upon them.

6. Effective Governance: Strengthen governance structures and mechanisms to ensure efficient and effective functioning of public institutions.

7. Enhance the professionalism and expertise of public servants through training and development programs. Foster a merit-based culture that rewards competence and performance.

8. Public Engagement: Actively engage with the public and involve stakeholders in decision-making processes. Seek public input through consultations, town hall meetings, surveys, and other participatory mechanisms. Demonstrate that public institutions are responsive to the needs and concerns of the people they serve.

9. Communication and Information Dissemination: Establish clear and consistent communication channels to keep the public informed about the work and activities of public institutions. Provide timely and accurate information, particularly in times of crisis or controversy. Use plain language and accessible formats to ensure that information is easily understandable by all segments of society.

10. Collaboration and Partnerships: Foster collaboration and partnerships with civil society organizations, academia, and other stakeholders. Engage in meaningful dialogue and involve external expertise in policy development and implementation. Collaborative approaches can help build trust and ensure that institutions benefit from diverse perspectives.

11. Learn from Mistakes: Acknowledge and learn from past mistakes or failures. Publicly address any instances of wrongdoing or misconduct, and take corrective actions. Demonstrate a commitment to learning, improvement, and the prevention of similar issues in the future.

12. Long-Term Vision and Consistency: Develop and communicate a clear long-term vision for the institution‘s role and purpose. Demonstrate consistency in actions and decision-making, avoiding unnecessary reversals or abrupt changes. Consistency helps build trust by showing that institutions are reliable, accountable, and predictable.

13. Independent Oversight and Checks and Balances: Strengthen the role of independent oversight bodies, such as auditors general, ombudsman offices, or anti-corruption commissions. These bodies can provide an additional layer of accountability and help prevent abuses of power or corruption.

Rebuilding trust in public institutions is a long-term endeavour that requires sustained commitment and effort. By implementing these strategies, institutions can work towards restoring faith in their integrity, competence, and ability to serve the public interest.