7.2.7 COVID Impact on the Social Fabric

When describing COVID‘s impact on Canada, the question really comes down to this: Where to begin? Certainly, the tiny cracks in the social fabric may have surfaced pre-COVID, but in the aftermath, these splinters have become deep crevices. Regardless of where one turned, the threat of even further damage was frightening.

At the beginning of COVID, the prevailing narrative was “two weeks to flatten the curve.“ Most of the citizenry at the time understood that a pandemic could pose a very real threat. Thus, for the most part, the majority of Canadians were willing to concede to a temporary shutdown for the sake of society as a whole. But what happened when two weeks became two months? And two months, two years?

Some argue COVID is multifaceted and complex. Decisions were made with the goal of protecting public health and safety. Any criticism, even constructive commentary, was quickly dismissed, and dissenters outside the one-sided, prevailing narrative were silenced. Nevertheless, pointed questions needed to be asked. Perhaps the most pressing question: Were the governments and the public service honest with the Canadian people?

Traditionally, when a nation comes under siege from outside forces, its citizens unite to defend the country‘s interest. However, the response to COVID and the federal government‘s invoking of the Emergencies Act appeared to garner the opposite response. Instead of rallying together in one accord, with a determination to save Canadian ideals, citizens willingly complied with ever-changing health mandates, even when these bordered on the nonsensical. Indeed, mask-wearing, social distancing, and experimental gene therapy tended to be accepted as the price for participating in society.

In actuality, it could be said that Canada‘s COVID policies brought out the worst in people. The sense of defeat was palpable in the hearts of men and women on the streets. Hope and optimism for the future was not generally observed within the populace. For many Canadians, there were simply too many hurdles to overcome, so they compromised both principles and conscience just to survive.

Subsequent research points to the negative developments that have permeated nearly every aspect of Canadian society. While, admittedly, a multitude of factors influenced the advance of the pandemic, it would be remiss to think, after hearing the witness testimony, that ulterior motives were not at play.

The witnesses alluded to a variety of societal breakdowns, and the irreparable damage that followed in the aftermath of COVID dictates. It is important to recognize the burdens placed on people from all walks of life, journeying within multiple layers of society, because the long-term effects of COVID mandates are intergenerational. In fact, as stated, it could be generations before the harms committed over the years 2020–2023 can be undone, or perhaps they can never be undone. Noticeably, lawlessness increased, but not from the citizenry. Rather, the wrongs that were being committed stemmed from all levels of government officials—the few that believed they knew much better than the populace.

For example, the rule of law, wherein the same application of the law applies to the homeless on the street as the judges dressed in robes in the Supreme Court, has been violated. The supremacy of God was sidestepped. Constitutional rights and freedoms were discarded as if these protections never existed. In many situations, ordinary people who stood for this country, have fallen. Normal day-to-day lives have been damaged. Education and learning opportunities for young people were disrupted.

Medically, suicides, addictions, and domestic abuse increased at phenomenal rates. Adverse medical effects from COVID injections were not accepted by health agencies, even though medically qualified, professional physicians attested to the vaccine injuries to patients. Scientists who contested the prevailing narrative became outcasts. Family businesses were destroyed because these were not considered essential. Neighbours forgot how to trust one another. In its wake, a host of economic, social, health, legal, and public policy tragedies have yet to be acknowledged by the authorities responsible.

One outcome is definite. We are not the same society we were before COVID. Many questions remain. These should include whether the populace is satisfied with the emergence of a new political model that, in essence, replaced all the tenets of parliamentary democracy and justice in Canada. Certainly, the idea that legislators (in consultation with the electorate) no longer decided our destiny during COVID—where Canadians shop, whom citizens befriend, the beliefs and opinions people subscribe to—should have been concerning enough. But appointed (non-elected) health authorities and public service employees, who with the stroke of a pen can further impose predetermined restrictions on one‘s conscience and arbitrarily decide where one‘s inherent rights to live as free men and women should start and stop, should raise serious alarms. Is this the society Canadians want?

How Did We Get Here?

The reality is the elected officials vacated their posts and instead, abdicated or gave over their respective political and public administration responsibilities to chief medical officers employed as bureaucrats within public health. Equally notable, these individuals were also allotted extraordinary powers that clearly went beyond the scope of good governance and accepted democratic

principles. Therefore, in this specific context, did the actions of chief medical officers and corresponding health bureaucrats border on the political doctrine and practices recognized in political science circles as absolutism.

After all, this didn‘t just happen in one province, or even within Canada. The one-mind that emerged occurred in most jurisdictions around the world. The Western ideals that Canadians had come to cherish were extinguished by the stroke of a pen. But whose pen? Who decided that the rights and freedoms of citizens no longer mattered in Western democracies? And why, in such a blessed democratic nation as Canada, did so many blindly follow?

As the numerous witnesses alluded to while sharing their personal testimonies, ordinary citizens were arrested and detained in prisons for standing firmly on the rights and freedoms established in the Constitution Act, 1867; the Charter; and the Bill of Rights. Where was the presumption of innocence? What happened that negated the administration of justice?

The questions do not end here. For the three COVID years, the ever-changing mandates differed, depending in which part of Canada one lived. Language changed. The legacy media suddenly became experts in public health, without ever attaining a medical degree. The content these journalists did not substantively understand translated into a word-for-word repeat of press releases disseminated by public health officials. The more bizarre the content contained in health alerts, the easier it became for media to report—for example, 8 p.m. curfews, wherein no citizens were allowed on the streets in Québec, or how travellers were required to obtain travel papers prior to entry into New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. The Atlantic bubble zone was yet another example—wherein residents in the Atlantic region could travel freely throughout the eastern provinces without question, but Canadians living elsewhere were subject to additional scrutiny and COVID preauthorizations.

This same legacy media also gained an expertise in public shaming. Anyone who opposed the prevailing narrative and, most particularly, those with medical and scientific expertise were labelled as “conspiracy theorists,“ delivering a message of “disinformation“ and “misinformation.“ For their servitude, the legacy media was paid handsomely by their political masters in Ottawa. Truth, investigative journalism, and professional ethics were no longer priorities of mainstream news agencies. As quickly as the government could print news releases, the media adopted them as their own.

There could not be a timelier era for the biblical prophesy forecasting when “right is wrong and wrong is right“ to come to fruition. For example, the term freedom fighter, according to artificial intelligence, is subjective—meaning what one group views as freedom, another might consider an act of terrorism or insurgency. Therefore, artificial intelligence does not acknowledge freedom as an inherent, God-given right in Canada. Any responsible educational inference that willingly omits absolute truth (truth that cannot be manipulated) when constitutional tenets are already defined should scare Canadians.

Further, it appears the media, alongside federal and provincial government institutions, only resorted to historical context for villainy so they could then mangle it beyond recognition to prove a desired outcome consistent with COVID mandates. Are there even recommendations capable of countering this increasing trend toward propaganda-type reporting?

But legacy media were not the only perpetrators. Social media quickly joined ranks, becoming judge and jury of all commentary that allegedly contravened community standards. Facebook, YouTube, and other social media giants censored content, disciplining or suspending privileges of any user who posted content concerning COVID. At no point did governing authorities, the judiciary, or Crown prosecutors challenge these actions by social media conglomerates, even though freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression clearly includes freedom of the press and other media of communication in the Charter.

There is also another emerging concern regarding dialogue and actions that are contrary to the Charter. Increasingly, it appears Canadians‘ rights and freedoms are only concrete and tangible “when reasonable.“ For clarity, there is no “when reasonable“ attached to Charter rights and freedoms. These rights are inherent and God-given. These are not within a government‘s purview to take away. The framers of this nation recognized and founded Canada on these pillars—the supremacy of God and rule of law. These same citizen protections were then reaffirmed and entrenched in 1982.

Further, these citizen rights are guaranteed to be free from any interference or intrusion from government agents of the state. All government institutions are expected to remain neutral, which by extension, prohibits government from selectively cherry-picking which legal activities are deemed reasonable and which are not. These same limitations on government apply to Charter-protected accommodation.

It is herein that the intersection of citizens and governing authorities requires further investigation: the COVID messaging, the forceful actions of authorities, and the question of whether Canadians are once again willing to sacrifice their individual and collective rights and freedoms whenever governments or bureaucrats impose mandates in the future.

Before garnering a response, it may be insightful to review some of the COVID measures imposed over the last three years, and how COVID mandates and government dictates negatively affected the social fabric.

1. Children were told if they visited their grandparents, grandma would die. If these same young people visited their friends, their peers could become infected. Families had to make an appointment to visit loved ones, and far too often, this included bringing the negative results of a rapid COVID test.

2. Children could not play in parks or playgrounds. Social time was not allowed.

3. Libraries, museums, and youth activity centres were closed. So, too, were hiking and
   skiing trails. Education was moved to remote or online. Student-learning expectations and curriculum outcomes were minimized. Structured schedules, so essential to those who plan their lives around them, were disrupted. This, in particular, had a significant impact on people with special needs, as the program services necessary for their health and wellbeing were shut down.

4. The gaps in access to education were even more pronounced when marginalized communities are factored in (for example, financial stress, increased worry, increased conflicts).

5. Public policies contradicted each other. For example, soup kitchens in Ontario were permitted to feed up to 50 persons in a facility at the same time, but religious services held in the very same building were limited to five or ten in-person gatherings, depending on the COVID mandate in place at the time. There was the witness who shared her story. While her mother was alive, she was not permitted in the hospital. But when her mom died, she could sit by her mother‘s bedside and hold her hand. Spiritual care for a palliative patient was conducted through a window. The five children of a man who was assaulted by a disgruntled customer could not see their father before he died. There was also the heartbreaking story of one young teen who ventured down a path from where he could not return.

6. Health authorities were adamant that COVID vaccines were effective and safe, and yet after administering the vaccine to seniors living in long-term-care facilities, there were more COVID outbreaks, more COVID deaths, and presumably more adverse injury events. In Ontario and Québec, specifically, there were reports of the elderly being found in deplorable conditions. When employees walked out at one facility, the resulting circumstances were so shocking that the Canadian Armed Forces were called in to help.

7. Individuals with special needs, including learning disabilities, or mental health issues were put on hold. Countless Canadians waiting for surgeries continued their medical struggle without healthcare intervention. The elderly became even more isolated from friends and families. Many died. The short- and long-term impacts on vulnerable populations are still to be tallied.

8. The homeless, who generally find shelter on city streets and in wooded areas, were forced to find alternative ways to comply with 8 p.m. curfews because COVID measures and lockdowns already prevented them from finding a temporary warming space, bathrooms, or showers in government buildings and not-for-profit facilities.

9. Charitable organizations, including churches, were prevented from offering in-person support programs within the community. For example, Alcoholics Anonymous moved all meetings online. Temporarily, this might have been considered an acceptable compromise. However, if the persons needing AA relied on free computer usage from the library, they no longer could receive support because the libraries were closed. Ironically, the very addiction these recovering addicts were running from was still open and ready to serve.

10. Funeral restrictions were maximized, adding to the grief of family members and friends attempting to say goodbye to a loved one. Proper burials and funeral services looked very different from pre-COVID. As a consequence of the pandemic, the grief and mourning processes were disrupted, negatively affecting people‘s emotional wellbeing. One witness reported that the COVID practice was contrary to the bereavement recommendations for grieving families listed on the Canada.ca website.

11. For the first time in known history, middle-aged women, typically with children still at home, were dying by suicide. The mean age of these women was 47 years old. This demographic was never identified as a risk group. Witnesses spoke of other deaths by suicide as well—of beloved ones who could no longer see the light of this day that would guide them safely into the next.

12. Mobility restrictions were linked directly to the COVID mandates in each province and territory. In larger provinces like Ontario, different rules applied depending on the health district one resided in. Internationally, borders were closed by governments. Hotels were secured as quarantine facilities for travellers arriving in Canada. The whereabouts and activities of Canadian citizens were tracked by public health agencies. Those who travelled outside of Canada were subjected to specific protocols. Inside Canada, where travel from province to province is a guaranteed mobility right in the Charter, several provincial governments imposed additional obstacles and border checkpoints. Citizens were often quarantined. Within the quarantine procedures, travellers were questioned every day by health officials. In several provinces, documentation required by health officials included a mandatory travel itinerary complete with details of overnight locations (including the names and addresses of all residents in the home) if spending time at a family member‘s or friend‘s home. Two examples show the length to which governing authorities would go to control the populace.

    1. In September 2021, Prince Edward Island, for example: ordered anyone travelling to the province be tested, regardless of their vaccination status; recommended travellers 12 and older be tested again between the fourth and eighth day after they entered the province; required that school-aged children under 12 who returned to PEI from travelling, test negative for COVID-19 before attending school; ordered unvaccinated or partially vaccinated travellers to isolate for eight days upon entry and then test once again. The province‘s PEI pass, which permitted entry onto the Island, would only be issued to people who showed they were at least two weeks removed from their second COVID-19 vaccine dose.

    2. In northern Ontario, travellers were required to sign in at eating establishments with verifiable personal contact information. Washrooms in most restaurants, tourist information centres, gas stations, and rest stops were closed to the public. The changing rules became so complicated that Restaurants Canada created a chart informing food and drink establishments of public health requirements, which coordinated with colour codes. For example, green was to “prevent,“ yellow was to “protect,“ orange was to “restrict,“ red was to “control,“ and grey was to “lock down.“ Accommodations added further layers of restrictions. Hotel swimming pools and gyms were closed.

13. Newborns were taken from their mothers at birth under the pretence that the infant or mother may have COVID. Depending on the specific hospital, the mother could not see the child for up to 24 hours.

14. Families were denied access to loved ones in hospitals and long-term-care facilities. Scheduled surgeries were put on hold. Many patients on long waiting lists died in the interim.

15. Access to information requests were ignored by the majority of federal and provincial governments and agencies.

16. Bank officials who forced patrons to line up outside in the winter months based their orders on social-distancing and customer-limit protocols. During the day, when staff were at the bank, an added emphasis was placed on sterilizing ATM machines; but in the evening, there were no employees ensuring compliance with COVID measures.

17. Unions are supposed to protect the rights and interests of paying members. The purpose of unions is to negotiate with employers on collective bargaining issues and workplace concerns. During COVID, however, witness testimony repeatedly pointed to the failure of unions to represent their members. Unions did not ensure vaccine-related policies were fair or transparent, and that workers‘ rights and/or personal medical concerns were taken into account before employment status decisions were made. There was rarely accommodation made for employees with medical and religious exemptions. The unions did not negotiate for alternative work arrangements. Safety measures such as ventilation and sanitation, and additional safety precautions designed to protect both vaccinated and unvaccinated employees were not raised with the employer. Unions did not argue for members‘ vaccination choices that emphasized personal autonomy and medical privacy. When employees who were unvaccinated were escorted from the workplace, unions did not defend the employees‘ rights. Witnesses said their filed grievances were not heard. Legal and ethical issues were not considered when the COVID vaccinations were introduced. The balancing of collective and individual interests, normally advocated for by unions, was not strived for. Unions did not advocate for employer policies that protect public health and respect workers‘ rights.

18. As alluded to in witness testimony, regulatory bodies were determined to control members who questioned COVID mandates. This was particularly true in healthcare, but other witnesses told of similar actions in their own regulatory professions as well. It was observed from the testimony that many of the actions taken by the respective regulatory bodies may have gone beyond the scope of their authority. This was not a first-time occurrence for the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Ontario. In a similar context, it should be noted that the Alberta courts in the Shelia Lewis organ transplant case went to great lengths to protect the coveted doctor–client privilege. The Honourable Judge R. Paul Belzil opined that in the view of the court, it is not necessary for treating officials to reconcile differences in expert opinions, but rather physicians must be free to decide which expert opinions they accept in exercising their clinical judgment which informs the standard of care.

And yet many highly educated and qualified professionals, among them physicians and surgeons, who spoke publicly against government-imposed mandates—including COVID vaccines and/or governments‘ responses to COVID—were subject to disciplinary actions initiated by their own professional regulatory bodies. Dissenting viewpoints were suppressed; physicians were made examples of in order to prevent other doctors from raising concerns too. Moreover, one physician testified to his willingness to lose his livelihood and professional credentials to warn the populace of the potential dangers of COVID-19 vaccinations. The fact that an increasing number of medical physicians are being systematically suspended, disciplined, or professionally removed from their positions cannot be ignored.

As the testimony revealed, the respective colleges appeared to have turned investigations into fishing expeditions. In one example, the college went so far as to seize patient files from the doctor‘s office. Still, not one of these accused healthcare professionals harmed or caused the untimely death of a patient.

1. Ethics in the medical context includes Informed Consent. This did not happen. Governing authorities passed legislation that absolved pharmaceutical companies from wrongdoing. This meant pharmaceuticals were no longer accountable to the Canadian public for adverse medical reactions, undue harm, or death. Moreover, the clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines are ongoing, so ethically, how could health authorities and governments condone the vaccines as safe and effective?

2. Both economically and socially, COVID presented significant challenges. So-called quiet quitting was an emerging trend that appeared to gain momentum as the mandates increased. It was almost as if Canadians were entering their homes and closing the door to the outside world once and for all.

Business operations were defined by bureaucrats as either essential or non-essential. Many people lost their jobs. Households faced reduced income. Family businesses that had weathered previous economic downturns were forced to close while big-box stores and government-sponsored businesses remained open. Building-size regulations or fire code occupancy authorizations were not used as a standard for determining gathering numbers. From witness testimony, Costco was allowed 818 customers in the store at the same time, while businesses and churches with similar size facilities were restricted to ten. The reduction in businesses led to decreased choices in consumer purchasing. For businesses forced to close, there was financial distress and economic hardship.

1. The goal of science is the pursuit of knowledge--not necessarily the pursuit of truth. There is a distinction. When the public follows the science, there is a shifting alliance from the supremacy of God to the supremacy of science. But science changes over time. It is not constant, which is part of the attraction to the discipline of science. Consider the Milgram experiments, the rationale of conscientious objectors, and the various scenarios like electroshock treatments that led to the establishment of professional ethical standards, such as the Tri-Council.

2. Religious and medical exemptions have long been accepted as forms of accommodation in Western democracies. This apparently changed during COVID, when the decision-makers for employment insurance (EI), for example, universally disallowed EI benefits to unvaccinated claimants. Given that the EI program is sustained through payroll deductions of employers and employees, the federal government does not have the legal, moral, or ethical authority to suggest the decision to reject exemptions are about balancing individual rights with the public interests. These civil employees are not qualified to determine the legitimacy of exemptions either. Why not? Because EI is not funded by the federal government. The other point worth noting here is that these same employees are not hired to challenge the legitimacy of medical or religious exemptions. Public service employees are hired to perform their duties according to the legislation that governs their responsibilities. There is no discretion in the legislation. EI as public policy is intended to provide Canadians with income when their employment circumstances change.

It should also be noted that limiting exemptions, is not a legal, moral, or ethical way for increasing vaccination rates within the broader community. It borders on coercion, which in and of itself is illegal in the public square, and this becomes more egregious when demanded as a program requirement from government employees.

1. This brings the conversation directly to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), the Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit (CRSB), the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB), and the other forms of government compensation handouts during COVID. CERB was considered a key financial support program introduced by the federal government to provide financial assistance to individuals who were directly affected by the pandemic and lost income as a result of job loss, quarantine, caregiving responsibilities, or reduced working hours. This begs an obvious question: How can employees who contribute their hard-earned income to payroll deductions (which includes EI premiums) be denied insurance benefits for choosing not to be vaccinated, and yet, the federal government can dole out public funds with no questions asked? It is no wonder the Lord says the right hand of government does not know what the left hand is doing.

This could explain why civil liberties groups criticize the discriminatory acts of governments or why the truckers at the Freedom Convoy stood their ground in Ottawa and Windsor, Ontario, and Coutts, Alberta. Because all levels of government and health authorities, including elected and non-elected officials, arbitrarily put onerous restrictions on the movement or peaceful assembly of citizens within the public square. Indeed, the governing authorities went too far when they infringed on individual freedoms. As the testimony revealed, these same governing authorities condoned bending a knee for Black Lives Matter and other groups during COVID mandates, but then threatened the truckers and attendees at churches and funerals with hefty fines and jail time. Besides heavy-handed bullying, the police services in Canada did not follow their own emergency plans or established protocols. There was no pursuit of justice for the greater good, either. Section 7 of the Charter—which guarantees life, liberty, and security—was discarded, as were many other constitutional provisions.

As Canadians witnessed, governments at all levels continued pursuing their objectives throughout the pandemic. Political legislation was still being put forward. The public service was still employed. Bureaucrats remained nameless. Justice was behind a screen, wherein only the privileged could obtain access. In the process, governments continued to award contracts to businesses that health authorities deemed essential. It would be difficult to deny the obvious patronage and nepotism. In the example of drug stores, witness testimony alluded to contracts awarded to administer COVID vaccinations outside of a fair and open tendering process that provided every entity, business, or organization with the same opportunities. The administrative state continued playing games with citizens‘ lives—because at no point were these employees held accountable for wrongdoing.

Nevertheless, when someone points the finger at citizens, there are three fingers pointing back at them. Governments, like the people, are bound by the law. Governments cannot just decide which laws are to be obeyed and which are to be disregarded.

Throughout COVID, there were winners and losers—each declared by the same governing officials who were elected to represent the public‘s best interests but did not. There was excessive power imposed by authority figures against hardworking Canadians: police versus citizen, teacher versus student, employer versus employee, judge versus accused, elected official versus constituent, vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Is this the trickle-down effect of passive-aggression? Or is it simply the governments‘ method for crumbling a democracy from the inside out?

Regardless, the same application of the law for citizens did not apply equally to those in privileged positions of power. And there was no accountability or transparency. As numerous witnesses shared, ordinary citizens were arrested and detained in jail cells for standing firmly on the rights and freedoms established in the Constitution Act of 1867, the Charter, and the Bill of Rights. Churches were seized. The RCMP sent canine units to hunt for peaceful churchgoers. Truckers participating in the Freedom Convoy had assets seized. And so did a retired Ontario Provincial Police officer for facilitating dialogue between the truckers and governing administrators.

Did anyone ask: Where was the presumption of innocence? Or what happened in Canada that negated the administration of justice? Who is responsible for adhering to the Precautionary Principle in public policy making, which should have legitimized the adoption of preventive measures to address potential risks to the public? Who is the ultimate judge when egregious actions should lead to liability, but there is no public recourse? Who lied?

Perhaps the country can take a lesson from witness Steve Kirsch, who said, “The state has manipulated your mind; once you are willing to question your beliefs, everything else makes sense.“

This is not to suggest there are not some glimmers of hope. The Ingram legal case in Alberta is most certainly a step forward for democracy and justice. Citizens are awakening to the repeated propaganda and messaging that consumed the airwaves over the three COVID years. Critical questions are being asked. And over 300 brave souls, Canadian citizens who believe in standing up for what is right and just and true, shared their personal testimony so that this nation, from shining sea to sea to sea, could be restored from the clutches of schoolyard bullies in adult bodies who need to understand, first, the meaning of good governance before sitting in positions of privilege.

American writer, novelist, and Pulitzer Prize winner Pearl Buck (1892–1973) described the true essence of society in this way: “Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or to be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.“ United States Vice-President Hubert Humphrey carried Ms. Buck‘s thought one step further when he said, “The moral test of government is how government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life: the sick, the needy, and the disabled.“

Or, as Jesus so aptly said in the synagogue in Nazareth, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord‘s favour.“

This is the ultimate mission field for all Canadians to pursue, and in so doing, let the brave NCI witnesses and the truckers in the Freedom Convoy join the many other Canadian voices that understand real answers are not found in rationalizing logic (because as we have observed over the COVID Years, logic too often turns into evil), but rather in shining brightly in one accord, so we too, as proud Canadians, can adamantly declare, “Never again.“

Recommendations

The discussion raises important concerns about the negative impacts of the federal government‘s pandemic response on the fabric of Canadian society. These impacts encompass a wide range of areas, from personal freedoms and trust in institutions to economic, social, and health consequences. To prevent such issues from happening in the future, we put forth the following 12 recommendations.

1. National Crisis Oversight Council: Commission a study to determine the validity of setting up a National Crisis Oversight Council (NCOC), with a rationale and expected format as follows:

Rationale

Establishing the NCOC is essential to safeguarding democratic principles, protecting individual rights, and maintaining public trust during future emergencies, such as pandemics. The NCOC will serve as an independent, multidisciplinary body tasked with monitoring, policing, and investigating government actions during crises.

Basic Characteristics and Principles

Representation: The NCOC will comprise representatives from diverse sectors of society, including law, medicine, science, faith, business, media, arts, and culture. Each member will undergo a public appointment process, with credentials and potential conflicts of interest transparently disclosed.

Subpoena powers: The council will possess subpoena powers, allowing it to compel testimony and evidence from all sectors, including government officials, the judiciary, and other relevant stakeholders.

Public access: To ensure transparency and accountability, the NCOC will offer the public direct and unfiltered access. A user-friendly platform will enable citizens to express concerns, provide observations, and access council proceedings.

Legislative clarity: The powers and responsibilities of the NCOC will be clearly outlined in legislation, eliminating the need for regulatory details to be determined separately. This legal foundation will establish the council‘s authority and scope.

Empowerment for change: The NCOC will have mechanisms to influence government actions during emergencies. It will be empowered to make recommendations, demand corrective actions, and trigger public awareness campaigns when necessary. Its primary goal will be to uphold democratic values and individual rights and freedoms, and help ensure the wellbeing of citizens.

Media access: The council will be expected to have unrestricted access to all forms of media to maintain public trust and transparency. Regular briefings, reports, and public statements will keep citizens informed of its activities and findings.

Purpose and Benefits

The NCOC would be founded on the principle that a robust system of checks and balances is vital in times of crisis. Its purpose would be to:

Safeguard democracy: Ensure that democratic principles are upheld during emergencies, preventing overreach and abuse of power.

Protect individual rights: Safeguard citizens‘ fundamental rights and liberties, even when extraordinary measures are deemed necessary.

Maintain public trust: Enhance transparency and accountability in government actions, fostering public confidence in crisis management.

Promote evidence-based decisions: Encourage government responses to be grounded in science, data, and expert advice.

Support effective governance: Assist in identifying gaps and weaknesses in government responses—leading to more effective crisis management.

Advance public discourse: Facilitate open dialogue between government, experts, and the public to promote informed decision-making.

In summary, the establishment of the NCOC would be a proactive response to ensure that during future emergencies, the rights and values of Canadian society are upheld. It strengthens democracy, promotes transparency, and empowers the public to actively participate in safeguarding their wellbeing and fundamental rights.

1. Transparency and honest communication: Governments should prioritize transparent and honest communication with the public during crises. Information about the nature of the crisis, measures being taken, and the expected duration of those measures should be clearly and consistently conveyed.

2. Accountability mechanisms: Establish mechanisms for holding public officials accountable for their decisions during crises. This includes oversight bodies that can review actions taken by governments and ensure they align with constitutional rights and freedoms.

3. Respect for constitutional rights: Safeguard constitutional rights and freedoms, even during emergencies. Governments should not infringe on these rights without clear and justifiable reasons, and any restrictions should be proportional and time-limited.

4. Balanced approach: Develop and implement a balanced approach to crisis management that considers public health alongside economic, social, and mental wellbeing. Decisions should be evidence-based and consider the broad spectrum of societal impacts.

5. Community engagement: Engage with communities, civil society organizations, and a wide range of experts in decision-making processes. Encourage open dialogue and ensure that policies and measures are sensitive to the unique needs and circumstances of different groups within society.

6. Education and awareness: Promote public education and awareness about public health measures, their rationale, and the expected outcomes. Informed citizens are more likely to be able to make informed decisions and hold officials accountable for their actions.

7. Support for vulnerable populations: Develop strategies to support vulnerable populations during crises—such as the homeless, those struggling with addiction, and victims of domestic abuse. Ensure that access to essential services is maintained.

8. Healthcare infrastructure: Invest in and strengthen healthcare infrastructure to ensure capacity and readiness for future public health emergencies. This includes resources for mental health services, addiction treatment, and domestic violence support.

9. Mandatory ethics training for health care workers: To enhance the ethical standards and ensure the protection of fundamental patient rights and access to care, we strongly recommend the implementation of annual mandatory ethics training for all healthcare workers. This training should apply to frontline, administrative, and managerial staff across the healthcare system, resulting in the following benefits:

• Ethical awareness: Annual ethics training will promote awareness of ethical principles, ensuring that all healthcare workers have a comprehensive understanding of their ethical responsibilities toward patients, colleagues, family members, and the healthcare system as a whole.

• Patient-centred care: Ethical training will underscore the importance of prioritizing patients‘ wellbeing, rights, and dignity in all healthcare decisions and actions. It will reinforce the commitment to patient-centred care.

• Legal and regulatory compliance: Ethical training will help healthcare workers understand and comply with legal and regulatory requirements related to patient rights and access to care, reducing the likelihood of breaches and legal issues.

• Improved communication: Ethical training can enhance communication skills, fostering open and honest dialogue with patients and their families. This will contribute to better-informed decision-making and greater patient satisfaction.

• Crisis preparedness: In times of crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers will be better prepared to make difficult ethical decisions under pressure, ensuring that patient rights and access to care are upheld even in challenging circumstances.

• Accountability: Mandatory training establishes clear expectations and accountability for ethical behaviour. It provides a basis for addressing breaches and taking corrective actions promptly.

• Continual improvement: Annual training allows healthcare workers to stay updated on evolving ethical guidelines and best practices, facilitating a culture of continual improvement in patient care.

• Organizational culture: Ethical training can contribute to building a culture of respect, compassion, and integrity within healthcare institutions, benefiting both patients and staff.

1. Scientific integrity: Protect the integrity of scientific research and expert opinions. Encourage open debate and diverse perspectives within the scientific community to ensure that policy decisions are well informed.

2. Legislative safeguards: Review and update emergency powers legislation to strike a balance between swift response and protection of individual rights. Ensure that such powers are subject to regular parliamentary review and oversight.

In essence, the goal is to develop a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes the health and wellbeing of citizens while respecting democratic values, individual rights, and the resilience of Canadian society as a whole. These recommendations aim to foster a society where crises are managed with care, accountability, and a commitment to the long-term welfare of all citizens.