7.2.8 The Effects of Government Pandemic Measures on Faith Communities

Introduction

When governments decided to close gathering places during COVID, it wasn‘t by chance or because the safety of citizens was at risk. It was according to the playbook of totalitarian regimes that authoritarian governments resort to when attempting to control the citizenry. By design, the first to close were gathering places where people could freely converse. From a bigger-picture perspective, It appeared to be all part of the plan to prevent people from discussing the motivations behind the launching of a strange flu-like pandemic—and possibly, too, in meeting, from finding ways to resist the oppressive actions of governments that followed the playbook.

Curiously, the first ordered closed were restaurants, in-person bereavement, addictions support, small businesses, schools, meeting places, and places of worship—each deemed non-essential by health authorities. Although this section primarily deals with churches and how governments used force to shut down congregant assemblies that had remained open or that decided to reopen during the pandemic, it is also a message of hope and education: that going forward, every citizen initiative, every support group, every business regardless of size or purpose, every school, and every church will always be deemed essential. Readers will also have an opportunity to understand why governments and their agencies acted beyond the scope of the law.

More important, this section on faith and churches provides a glimpse into the lives of the real heroes in Canada—the many NCI witnesses who boldly and very publicly proclaimed their very personal life experiences. These strong men‘s and women‘s actions represented a higher calling, including standing up for democratic ideals, the Constitution, an ordered society, and functioning social fabric—where men and women are free to serve others without barriers from the state. It is these individuals (and the many more voices NCI could not accommodate) that will be recorded in the history books. For it was these honest hardworking Canadians who stood boldly against persecutors and prosecutors alike.

Perhaps the next time the federal and provincial governments, the media, the judiciary, professional regulatory bodies, police forces, the public service, school boards, ministers of health, and solicitor generals act beyond their respective scope of authority, and not under the supremacy of God and rule of law, the people of Canada will stand together in unity against any and all authorities that choose not to respect the people of Canada, from which ultimately comes their power.

Why is this important? Because this democratic experiment called Canada—founded firmly under the supremacy of God and rule of law—is still worth fighting for. To this end, public policy makers need to become educated with Canada‘s constitutional roots—and those governing, reacquainted with representing the populace, rather than appointing non-elected bureaucrats to dictate by rule. Therefore, if the intent is to represent well, governing authorities ought to respect that every citizen, including the privileged, are not only equal and free, but on a lifelong spiritual journey.

While people‘s beliefs in God or a higher power may differ, what is universally true for all citizens who are not philosophical materialists is that Canadians are united in our understanding of life as being a spiritual journey. That citizens are living souls, unique beings created for a purpose, and for this reason alone, citizens require the freedom to embark upon their respective faith mission, in accordance with their personal conscience and convictions.

These same ideals and moral values inspired Canada‘s first Constitution. Not just religious-based traditions, as today‘s secular-minded might imagine, but moral values that reflected the conscience and faith of people throughout the country. It is in this spirit the framers and founders laid down a God-inspired foundation that resulted in Canada becoming a beacon of hope. The founders were determined to prevent legislative or administrative decision-makers from fettering the exercise of discretionary powers in the future. Carefully crafted checks and balances were critical in establishing the institutional pillars and framework that would prevent citizens from potentially enduring abusive authoritative governments. Legal precepts were based on the moral laws of God. Freedom and, most particularly, keeping religious freedoms safe from tyranny and dictators, was paramount. This led to Canada‘s founding on the supremacy of God and rule of law.

“Insofar as the dialectic between God as supreme and law as human rule is observed, maintained, nurtured, developed, and practised, Canadians will be blessed with rights and freedoms truly worthy of men and women.“

In other words, neither the supremacy of God or the rule of law could be true unless both were equally true. A more comprehensive explanation of the significance of this point follows. But for now, any theological or political analysis intended to shape this nation should begin with God and church.

So, what is a church? Metaphorically, a church can be likened to a lighthouse. It orients ships away from coastal dangers. It also directs ships safely into harbour. In carrying out these dual responsibilities, the lighthouse illuminates a light so powerful it resonates with neighbours near and far. Nonetheless, a lighthouse is much more than an historic landmark. Ships sailing in the height of a raging storm would be lost without it. For the lighthouse keeper, never letting the light go out is much more than a job. Indeed, it can be legitimately equated with a life calling.

It is from this perspective that the figurative aspects of the lighthouse can be compared to religious and faith-based organizations. Like lighthouses, churches, too, are analogously situated as beacons of light in communities, instrumental in warning people of life‘s imminent dangers—both spiritual and physical. This may explain why churches strive to provide stability for congregations. Similarly, churches carry the torch of inviting people into abundant life, wherein, like the lighthouse, the light of life shines brightly.

Further, people recognize the need for an anchor that holds during times of societal upheaval. Historically, churches have stepped into this role. Recognized as places of belonging and solace, church communities are charged with spreading the good news gospel message of the Lord Jesus Christ. Often this includes displaying faith and the love of others through charitable works. These include loving one‘s neighbours, taking care of the elderly and orphans, and giving so that no one within society is without.

But today, like many societal constructs, there are exceptions. Not every church provides spiritual direction and moral guidance. Not every religious organization believed it was wrong to acquiesce to a government-imposed moratorium on civil liberties and freedoms. For the churches consequently caught in the quagmire of COVID restrictions, several immediate concerns emerged. Specifically, the spiritual leaders and attendees of these congregations believed blind obedience to worldly governments contravened the Lord‘s command to assemble. The authorities in Canada ignored this nation‘s founding principles.

Many of the congregants within churches that remained open or reopened during the pandemic cited the scriptural example of apostles Peter and John, who authorities commanded not to preach in that name. The apostles responding said, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.“ Thereafter, the apostles continued preaching in the name of Jesus.

Other churches pointed to Romans 13. Here, apostle Paul offers a reasoned rationale for submitting to higher authorities. To paraphrase, rulers, by virtue of their office are responsible for promoting the good within society, while similarly protecting the public‘s interest. When churchgoers submit to governing authorities, it is because these same authorities understand the important contributions religion and churches make within communities and, by extension, the social fabric. Reverend Jonathan Mayhew offered an in-depth commentary of Romans 13 in the year 1750. He states:

Some suppose the apostle in this passage enforces the duty of submission, with two arguments quite distinct from each other; one taken from this consideration, that rulers are the ordinance, and the ministers of God (Romans 13:1–2, 4) and the other, from the benefits that accrue to society, from civil government (Romans 13:3–4, 6). And indeed, there may be distinct motives and arguments for submission, as they may be separately viewed and contemplated.

But when we consider that rulers are not the ordinance and the ministers of God, but only so far forth as they perform God‘s will, by acting up to their office and character, and so by being benefactors to society, this makes these arguments coincide, and run up into one at last. At least so far, that the former of them cannot hold good for submission, where the latter fails.

As alluded, the persons who are vested with authority are those who are democratically authorized to carry out their legislative duties and responsibilities on behalf of the citizenry. Who those are, the apostle notably leaves Christians to determine for themselves; but whoever they are should be obeyed. Why? Because it is not without God‘s permission that these are clothed with authority to cultivate good within society. This is not to suggest that rulers have their commission immediately from God, the supreme Lord of the universe, because according to Reverend Mayhew, this would border on blasphemy.

Only mind to do your duty as members of society; and this will gain you the applause and favour of all good rulers. For while you do thus, they are, by their office, as ministers of God, obliged to encourage and protect you; it is for this very purpose that they are clothed with power.

But what happens when these same state authorities choose to do evil, subsequently becoming a terror to good works? Historically, the Romans 13 interpretation wherein believers are taught to submit to oppressive leaders without question (also recognized historically as the divine right of kings‘ doctrine) is not a new impasse. For centuries, this long-misunderstood analysis has surfaced in the public square, primarily whenever a plan is underway for some governing authority to overstep its constitutional and legal authority.

Some surmise the intent of these constant resurgences of Romans 13 is to confuse and divide the church. Nevertheless, to suggest Paul‘s counsel to believers, translates into blindly submitting to lawless rulers acting in contradiction to their own laws, is reprehensible to many who believe there is only one King. That is, Jesus Christ, the one and only blessed Potentate, as King of kings and Lord of lords.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. It cannot be supposed that the apostle designs here, or in any way of the succeeding verses, to give the true character of Nero, or any other civil powers then in being, as if they were in fact persons as he describes, a terror to evil works only, and not to the good. For such a character did not belong to them; and the apostle was no sycophant, or parasite of power, whatever some of his pretended successors have been. He only tells what rulers would be, provided they acted up to their character and office.

Therefore, it should be obvious that when apostle Paul spoke concerning the office of civic rulers, his purpose was to encourage that which was good. It was not to dictate beliefs and practices in religious circles, or to make laws for governing men‘s consciences; or even to inflict civil penalties for religious crimes. Apostle Paul (formerly Saul) understood the value of an ordered society wherein God‘s authority is fully recognized. As a Pharisee of Pharisees, Paul was very well educated. But Paul also understood the Lord‘s grace: “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourself. It is the gift of God.

Still, as the inversion of Romans 13 suggests, most scribes and pharisees were non-believers, recognized as heathen when it comes to faith, and therefore, relentless enemies of the Lord Jesus and the beliefs of faith-based Christianity. After Paul‘s conversion, the apostle himself suffered reproach. He was repeatedly imprisoned, beaten with rods, stoned, shipwrecked, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of the heathen, and even in perils of his own countrymen. Wherever Paul travelled, he was at significant risk—in the city, in the wilderness, and in the sea. While Paul repeatedly suffered at the hands of tyrannical-type rulers, he was not about to give these same rulers the authority to exterminate the Christian faith. Didn‘t Paul repeatedly preach against the idolatries and superstitions of paganism which resulted in the promotion of evil? Reverend Mayhew asks the same question.

Can anyone reasonably suppose that the apostle had any intention to extend the authority of rulers, beyond concerns merely civil and political, to the overthrowing of that religion which he himself was so zealous in propagating. But it is natural for those whose religion cannot be supported upon the footing of reason and argument, to have recourse to power and force, which will serve a bad cause as well as a good one; and indeed, much better.

There are additional reasons why certain churches challenged health orders. First, the scriptures dating back to the beginning of civilization are full of examples of good governance. Canada‘s parliamentary practices and laws are firmly grounded in biblical text. The election of leaders through a democratic process also emanates from the Bible. Some prime examples include the selection of seven table servants to look after the widows and orphans; the replacement of the disciple who betrayed Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane; the Israelites desiring an earthly king to rule over them; and when God instructed Adam and Eve to be good stewards over the land.

The Old Testament offers a further example whereby the Lord God raises seven of twelve judges for the explicit purpose of saving His people out of the hands of raiders. One of these judges was a woman named Deborah. Therefore, the right of resistance, and by extension, the right of believers to resist the usurpation of power by tyrannical authorities has its origin in scriptures as well.

The point being the right of people to depose a ruler whom they find oppressive was established very early in the scriptures. There were also acts of peaceful civil disobedience. In Moses‘ time, for example, the midwives were ordered to kill all Hebrew male newborns. When called to give an account before Pharoah, these midwives pointed to the Hebrew women giving birth before the midwives could arrive. There is more:

If those who bear the title of civil rulers, do not perform the duty of civil rulers, but act directly counter to the sole end and design of their office; if they injure and oppress their subjects, instead of defending their rights and doing them good; they have not the least pretence to be honoured, obeyed, and rewarded, according to the apostle‘s argument. For his reasoning, in order to show the duty of subjection to the hither powers, as was before observed, built wholly upon the supposition that they do, in fact, perform the duty of rulers … exalted to bear rule; and as magistracy duly exercised, and authority rightly applied, in the enacting and executing good laws.

In this context, laws have two purposes. The first is to ensure the common welfare and best interests of the people comes to fruition. Second, the laws must be agreeable to the will of the beneficent author and supreme Lord of the universe; whose King of kings rules over all: and whose tender mercies are all over His works.

To suggest tyrants are God‘s ministers would be particularly corrupting when these same rulers oppress the citizens they are called to represent. The Scriptures again point to the example of the Israelites in Egypt. The Israelites had asked for time off from their brick-making responsibilities to worship their God. Pharaoh decided that if all the Israelites could think of is worshipping God, then perhaps, they needed to fetch the straw, too, for making bricks. Up until this point, the Egyptians would bring the straw. In today‘s world, it could be likened to the constant increases in taxes. Whatever way the example is discerned, it is important to observe these authorities had stopped submitting to the ordinance of God. This meant, in turn, failing to rule for the good of all people.

Over time, philosophers and scholars shifted their focus. Rather than question whether Christians have a right to oppose unjust laws, the reasoning moved to the justice or injustice of the laws on their own merit. Ironically, the conclusion, “A law which is not just does not seem to me to be a law.“ This same premise is confirmed again in section 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states, “The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.“

As stated previously, the preamble to the Constitution formally recognizes Canada is founded upon principles that recognize both the supremacy of God and rule of law. This means every right and freedom guaranteed within the Charter are formally declared to be founded upon these two principles. Together, these prefatory words are the grounding point which inevitably holds this nation together. It is equally important to note the founding fathers relied on the same tenets in establishing Canada‘s original Constitution, the British North America Act (BNA).

In the interest of clarity, it is important to understand that the supremacy of God and rule of law must concurrently hold true. If neither aligns perfectly—or there is a movement of either the supremacy of God or rule of law taking precedence over the other—the result is a broken democracy. Why? Because the rule of law is no longer subject to the supremacy of God (spiritual) and vice-versa: the supremacy of God is no longer beholden to lawful interpretation (political/judicial).

Without both being subject to the other, the elevation of the rule of law leads to tyrannical authoritarian governments which then insist any new law created, even those laws which are absolutely immoral, must be obeyed. Conversely, without the supremacy of God, there lacks an understanding of a much higher law, a spiritual law, that emanates from knowing there is a hereafter.

When Benedictus Spirioza wrote Theologico-Political Tractatus, he argued the Bible, as the sovereign cause of itself, must be interpreted separately on its own terms. Therefore, the Bible cannot be subordinated to a conception of reason, which in this case, would be viewed as a political authority, which is neither superior or inferior to it, either its master or its slave.

For religion, and Christian assemblies in particular, the moral laws of God are not written on tablets of stone or established through legal precedent but penned in individual hearts. Thus, the separation of governance and religious powers is, by virtue of their respective roles, completely independent from one another. This distinct separation is fully understood, since both pillars must, by design, remain fully accountable to both God as supreme and the rule of law. Further, as the framers of Canada‘s founding Constitution, the British North America Act, reveal, church responsibilities to the state are not described. Only the state‘s obligatory duties to the public are specifically defined. Interestingly—but not surprising, given the original founder debates—the BNA remained silent on the status, authority, and responsibilities of religious institutions within the union. At its root, the duty of the state is neutrality.

For clarity, the law of neutrality refers to the legal principles and regulations that govern the behaviour of states during times of conflict. Neutrality is the state of not taking sides but, instead, maintaining an impartial stance, and that essentially means not favouring one party or perspective over another. In Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, this means the state has an obligation and responsibility to ensure its laws or policies do not unduly burden the practice of religious freedoms. Taken one step further, the state is prevented from enacting laws that result in favouring, or conversely, heavy-handedly burdening one religious belief system over another.

While the rights and freedom provisions in both the historical documents and the Charter apply equally to both religious and non-religious, secular and non-secular persons alike, it quickly became evident during the COVID pandemic that the safeguards, protections and fundamental principles afforded to every citizen equally were increasingly denied to the only congregants the state viewed as a threat to its current and evolving state ideologies.

Perhaps, here, it should be stated that while representatives of every religion and faith group were invited to testify at NCI, it was primarily those of the Christian faith who chose to do so. This was not a premeditated design or some one-sided agenda to stack the deck. It is just what happened. Further to this point, it should be acknowledged that newcomers and immigrants to Canada might have been afraid to publicly speak because in the countries from whence they came, airing one‘s views publicly could inevitably result in danger or death.

Regardless of religious (or non-religious) affiliations, all Canadians should recognize that any limitation imposed by the state on even one single Charter freedom can be no greater than necessary or, by extension, must be demonstrably justified by those that govern. As background, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982, forced all governments to revise laws that were contrary to the Charter by 1985. The citizenry presumed, going forward, that any law enacted after 1985 would remain consistent with Charter provisions, and therefore, for the most part, was not concerned that their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms would ever be jeopardized.

The Charter guarantees citizens more than one freedom. Every citizen, for example, has the right to hold and practice their deeply held beliefs without interference or disruption by state authorities. Other protections include freedom of thought, opinion, belief, conscience, and expression. Accommodation and equality rights correspondingly prohibit discrimination.

However, the terms of citizens‘ rights and freedoms were arbitrarily changed with the introduction of emergencies legislation in Canada. Formerly known as the War Measures Act, the Emergencies Act granted the federal government expanded powers that go beyond the scope of acceptable laws and regulations within Western democracy. While the Emergencies Act covers a wide range of emergencies—including war, invasion, and insurrection—this Act was written to suggest emergency powers can be invoked when government(s) believe the situation cannot be adequately managed through existing laws and resources.

The procedure for declaring an emergency in Canada is this: the Act requires the Governor-in-Council (cabinet) to declare that a state of emergency exists. This declaration must outline the nature of the emergency and specify to the public the powers that governments plan to exercise. Depending upon the severity of the emergency, the authorization presented to the public by governments may restrict the ability of citizens to carry on their day-to-day activities. To prevent abuse, the emergency declaration must be reviewed on a strict cyclical timeline. Likewise, any restrictions on the populace are subject to judicial oversight and must be consistent with Canada‘s constitutional rights and freedoms.

As we heard from NCI witness testimony, the concerns cited by all levels of government in the beginning of the COVID pandemic may have warranted some societal restrictions, but it didn‘t take long before the truth began to surface. Was COVID a national emergency such as war, insurrection, or an invasion? Did COVID threaten the populace? Or was it a hoax? As one witness asked, “What is the point of strict distancing in the airport, only to crowd everyone into a plane like sardines in a can?“ Another witness asked why COVID restrictions for air travel were lifted in the United States months ahead of Canadians. Yet another witness simply asked, “Is this Canada?“ Certainly, the contradictory rules raised numerous questions.

Around this time, pockets of citizen resistance across Canada began to emerge. A number of churches decided to open their doors and stand in the gap for all Canadians. Like the founders of this nation, the churches wanted to ensure the inherent, God-given rights and freedoms of all citizens remained intact. This included the right of all Canadians to attend religious services, to worship God, and to be fully accommodated when state policy priorities transcend personal convictions and conscience. The overarching rationale? That within the spirit of the law, any attempt by the state to impose another authority over the church (including governments) translates into undermining the authority of Jesus Christ as the head of the body of Christ Church, which cannot be tolerated.

As alluded to previously, this inalienable right to worship the Lord not only predates the founding of Canada but has, from the beginning, been instrumental in nations receiving the Lord‘s blessings. As the framers of this nation ultimately decided—when they intentionally chose a unique, one-of-a-kind correlation for church and state within the Canadian political landscape—only He determines the standing of His Church.

Not to be outdone, federal and provincial authorities have more recently relied on a self-serving interpretation of section 1 of the Charter, which ironically, gives deference on all judicial matters to the ruling government. It is at this juncture that the witness testimony becomes even more meaningful in shaping the relevance and necessity of the modern-day church to stand in opposition to a lawless state.

Equally significant are the innumerable negative consequences that emerged within the social fabric when churches became noticeably absent from the societal constructs. Like the ships seeking guidance from a lighthouse keeper amid a rampant, late-night storm, multitudes of people needed an anchor to secure themselves and family members in the societal turbulence caused by COVID measures. Sadly, the spiritual guidance and support the populace sought could rarely be found. Were government authorities successful in their quest to extinguish the light displayed via faithful assemblies? Or was the Constitution simply rules that have been papered over? It is from these perspectives and many more that long-lasting and satisfactory remedies must be found.

Canada‘s Historic Beginning

Canadians understand intuitively that a Constitution is a corpus of fundamental law that must, by definition, be subject to the control of those whose lives it regulates. And, similarly, that constituents in Canada are not subservient to the arbitrary whims of dictators, whose motivations include oppressing the populace. Even before Canada was founded as a nation, churches responsible for spiritual matters operated separately from legislated government institutions. Or, as the Scottish used to sing, "Never the twain shall meet."

This ideal was a priority for the initial framers of this nation. These practical men, (who were often claimed to be pragmatists), understood democratic principles well and, as such, envisioned a future remarkably unique from what they had known from the past. This was evident from the lengthy debates and deliberations which followed: on self-government, representative institutions, security of property, the rule of law, the framework of democratic ideals in a new land that to them must include freedom of conscience, individual rights, and responsible governments that guarantee at its very core political liberty and equality.

Undoubtedly, the founding fathers firmly believed themselves to be free men. This is evident from the dialogues regarding conscience and liberty within the constitutional framework of a responsible parliamentary government. Although the status of the church within governments and society had yet to be established, its institutional importance was integral to the discussions that took place.

As Reverend Mayhew preached, “Let us all learn to be free, and to be loyal. Let us not profess ourselves vassals to the lawless pleasure of any man on earth … [instead] be loyal to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice. To which King eternally immortal, invisible, even to the only wise God, be all honour and praise, dominion, and thanksgiving through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.“

He further claimed that any citizen advocating for unlimited submission or passive obedience to a king or monarchial government wherein those in authority have a divine right to do whatever they please whenever they want, to the point where no one can resist, is misled. But the reverend does not stop at the divine right of kings doctrine, as being only applicable to the king. He also includes all subordinate officers acting beyond their commission and the authority. Today, the equivalent of subordinates would be the public service.

Equally key to the prevailing mindset at the time (and very different to our post postmodernism era) was the understanding that hardly anyone would have argued against imposing consensual standards within a community, even when they extended to the private conduct of consenting adults.

While the obvious imminent concern was the very real possibility and threat of dictatorial rulers and writing a Constitution that would prevent tyrannical government from coming to power, the founding debates represented a much broader intersection—which included the preservation and practice of liberty and religion. For example, T.L. Wood described liberty as inalienable rights. An inalienable right is usually characterized as one that may never be waived or transferred by its possessor. For example, the right to life, liberty, and security. These differ from forfeitable or absolute rights.

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth and not to be under the will or legislative authority of men but to have only the law of nature for his rule.“

Interestingly, William D. Lawrence was opposed to Confederation, calling the proponents of a unified country traitors and enemies. Further to the point, he said in 1884, “All great results have been the result of years of thought and care . . . there is nothing like a stiff opposition for a man to succeed . . . Kites rise against, not with the wind.“ Nevertheless, he proclaimed the spirit of liberty as forever being heard wherever it exists, and that limiting a person‘s freedom would never satisfy a free people.

Charles Tupper, for the most part, agreed with both colleagues, firmly believing both civil and religious liberty is needed to be enjoyed by all. He added that he himself would be happy knowing there existed no hostility between different religions. And Frederick Brecken ventured even further, pointing to self-government as the greatest blessing of all because he could now worship God as he pleased. But after some reflection, he also later queried if becoming part of the dominion would at some point in the future, jeopardize this inherent religious freedom.

A similar sentiment was reiterated by John McMillan when confronted with anti-Christian and unphilosophical excess. Here he pointed directly to Scripture, asking his opposers, who said this line: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek the Lord, if haply [sic] they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.“ For those who may not understand the question to Mr. McMillan, this scripture refers to the God of the Bible who desires that we seek after Him.

Others, like W.H. Pope, would be happy to see the province he represented, Prince Edward Island, unite with neighbouring provinces if it would result in the Protestant population having less cause to dread popish supremacy, that religious animosities would weaken, and ultimately great good would become the consequence.

Still another, Robert Pinsent, advocated enjoying the privileges of Britain‘s unwritten constitution [the British constitutional conventions] in its full perfection, without blot or blemish. But Pinsent also wanted an education system that offended none, the fullest measure of civil liberty, and perfect freedom and equality in religion, where the exercise of constitutional government can be better and more effectively applied.

What does all this mean? Taking together, the original framers wanted the Constitution to be legitimate in the public‘s eyes. The priorities were twofold. The first was how to prevent tyrannical persons from gaining governing authority; and the second, the intertwined connection between churches and state, and civil liberties. This should not be surprising. After all, these men (based upon their own personal convictions), wanted the particular religious institutions they cherished to continue. However, they also understood the underlying necessity that within broader society, this also included respecting the religious traditions of others as well.

To this end, religious liberty was repeatedly discussed in the context of responsible government. Notably, at length. Many sided with John Locke‘s arguments that all legitimate government rests upon the consent of the governed, and therefore, the government is beholden to the people. Locke is famous for suggesting church and state should be separate. Perhaps, to a greater extent, that religion and religious distinctions should be banned altogether from operating side-by-side with governments within the political sphere. In essence, this meant politics and the leaders within political systems should be concerned with the people‘s legal rights and material welfare. Period. But the leaders had no authority over the hopes and fears associated with spiritual matters, and the life hereafter.

Others joined in the discourse. For Richard J. Cartright, there were two issues that could lead to the loss of liberty. The first situation occurs when hereditary rulers from aristocratic and oligarchic backgrounds manage to attain positions of power within the governing body. The second is when rulers professed to represent the people so they could obtain power but, then, later exploited them, essentially making rules in defiance of the people‘s wishes. More to the point, he opposed governments taking actions that fail to protect minorities and individuals from authoritative overreach.

Mr. Cartwright went on to say: “I think that every true reformer, every real friend of liberty will agree with me in saying that if we must erect safeguards, they should be rather for the security of the individual than of the mass and that our chiefest care must be to train the majority to respect the rights of the minority, to prevent the claims of the few from being trampled underfoot by the caprice or passion of the many.“

From these multifaceted commentaries, it was evident that any direction taken toward the establishment of a Constitution for a Dominion from sea to sea to sea must involve steering away from the possibility of tyrannical dictators. From this stance, the following question is asked: Should there be some basic rights ascribed that no amount of majority can trample? Isn‘t this the gist of the Constitution?

George-Étienne Cartier considered the underlying motivation that had made England great, comparing it to the vision he wanted to see Canada embrace. He asked, “Had the diversity of race impeded the glory, the progress, and the wealth of England? Had they not rather each contributed their share to the greatness of the Empire? … In our own federation, we should have Catholic and Protestant, English and French, Irish and Scotch, and each by his efforts and success would increase the prosperity and glory of the new Confederacy.“

Looking into the future, T.L. Wood asked, “What would happen if Ottawa were ever so amiable and ever so pure that the moment citizens felt the yoke tightening, would the people repent?” For those not as familiar with the Scriptures, the term revolt may seem like a better fit than the word repent. By way of explanation, the people of Israel in the Old Testament often turned to the worship of small gods and idols. Whenever the Israelites did this, their nation would stop prospering. Many times, this led to the Israelites becoming slaves. When they finally repented and asked the Lord God‘s forgiveness, Israel would become a blessed nation again. Mr. Wood‘s reference then suggests that when Ottawa tightens the yoke, it‘s because the people have turned away from the Lord God, and the only way to return to becoming a blessed nation is by recognizing, once again, God as supreme.

John Sanborn concluded that to render a constitutional obligation secure, it must first be in the hearts of the people. He, too, asked the question: “Why was it that the English had always resisted attempts upon their Constitution?“ His response? “Because every link of the great chain had been conquered by resistance to oppression, and by sacrifices of blood, by resistance to royal exactions and assumptions, and these achievements were preserved, held dear, understood, valued, and clung to with all the tenacity of that great people‘s nature. This was the reason why it rested upon such a solid foundation, why it had endured so long and was likely to endure forever.”

All this to say that within the founding debates, there was considerable latitude to discuss the status of religion within the context of responsible government. Unlike the U.S., where the separation of church and state are clearly defined constitutionally, Canada created a distinctive Constitution, the British North America Act, which remained completely silent on the standing of churches. Translated, this meant the founders, as ardent defenders of religious liberty, had no intention of churches becoming subject to temporal governments and popish-type supremacy.

Certainly, the founders had choices. It wasn‘t like the topic of religion, faith, and Christian conscience was not on the table. It most certainly was. Yet, when the founding constitutional documents were signed, any reference to church status was nil. In effect, the BNA was wholly about governance in the physical realm, yet nothing was defined in the spiritual.

This non-acknowledgment of the church was further confirmed in the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Think of the rule of law, and God, and the federal and provincial powers as separate pillars. Each can be likened to a pillar, but in Canada these pillars do not intersect. If they did, they would not be pillars. When federal and provincial powers overlap, the federal power has supremacy. Similarly, the Constitution, under the supremacy of God, has supremacy over federal powers. This is why the Constitution defines federal power. Therefore, the status of the church, from the viewpoint of citizens, has not changed since the founding of the nation in 1867. The Charter simply reaffirmed the position of the authors who initially created the British North America Act.

Again, the Canada Constitution inclusive of the Charter does not define church and state as interrelational. What the Charter does do is rightly reaffirm the constitutional guarantees and protections of churchgoers. As Canadian citizens, these congregants have the same rights as other citizens to freely assemble and associate. By extension, congregants from all faiths (or non-faiths) can freely worship without opposition or disruption from governing authorities.

The underlying premise, then, is simple: state authority starts and stops with the administration of justice and fair laws. Government responsibilities extend solely to ensuring orderly social structures are maintained, as it pertains to the life, liberty, and security of the populace it is installed to represent. As evidenced, the BNA clearly defines the powers allotted to federal and provincial jurisdictions. Section 91 of the BNA defines the federal and provincial powers.

Conversely, the body of Christ Church is solely responsible for overseeing spiritual matters under God. These are not intertwined responsibilities wherein the church shares these obligations with governments. Neither are these overlapping responsibilities where the prevailing government could assume a fine line between government‘s obligatory duties and the churches‘ spiritual authority. In actuality, the silence between these two pillars concludes the state has no authority to bind men‘s consciences because all authority, including the power to forgive sins was already wholly given to Jesus. As the Scriptures state, “And ye shall call His name JESUS, for He shall save His people from their sins.“ Even more obvious, the founders of this great nation had no desire to make churches subject to government.

Therefore, neither government, the judiciary, or state actors can demand Christian churches in Canada—or for that matter, any church or religious institution—comply with government dictates through arbitrary or heavy-handed actions. Alternatively, as witnessed during the COVID pandemic, this could involve civic authorities and law enforcement selectively focusing on religious organizations and outdoor religious gatherings whose beliefs they personally oppose.

Why not? Because the separation of governance and religious powers is, by virtue of their respective roles to the populace, completely independent from one another. There is a distinct separation, even though both pillars are fully accountable to God and rule of law—institutionally distinct because church responsibilities to the state are not defined. Only the state‘s obligatory duties to the populace are strictly defined.

So again, what is the church? For Bible-believing churches, there is a strong emphasis on faith and salvation. There isn‘t one specific religious denomination universally associated with Bible believers. Instead, it‘s a broad term that incorporates various evangelical, charismatic, and independent faith-based assemblies. Traditionally, these churches emphasize the Lord Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords, and the Bible as the supreme authority for its beliefs and worship.

Moreover, faith is considered a central tenet. As well, the emphasis is that salvation can only be obtained through Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. In alignment with Jesus‘ teachings, these highlight the power of a believing faith in Him, which in turn, leads to miraculous healings, both physically and spiritually. For example, the Scriptures point to apostle Peter‘s shadow healing the sick lying on the roadside as he passed by. Apostle Paul regularly cast out demons from people considered to be insane or mad by society. It is within this context that Bible-believing churches tend to be stronger and more united, both internally as a church and within the community at large. Jesus‘ commandment to love one another is a strong component of Christian faith, which often leads to varying forms of evangelism and sharing the Lord Jesus with others.

It should also be stated that not every NCI witness who testified held a Bible-believing worldview or faith to the same degree. This aspect alone signifies the magnitude and breadth of the religious community identified as Christian. This too should prompt an understanding that God did not create cardboard cut-outs. Neither does being created as equals negate everyone possessing a singular uniqueness and purpose. This may explain why painting all Christians with the same brush does not work.

Still, it is remarkable that the testimony collectively led to the same questions, primarily: How were governing authorities able to justify the lockdowns? Where were the churches? And what can believers now do to pick up the pieces of a fragmented social fabric?

Perhaps, understanding how the witnesses viewed church may help. For Wesley Mack, Hon. PhD, church was a fellowship of believers who come together for a common cause—where people who desire teaching and learning can receive spiritual nourishment and, without the threat of external deterrents, can enjoy social interaction with co-worshippers and the pastoral community. Equally significant within the church are the numerous outreach initiatives that support the broader community and demographics at large and, most particularly, cater to the most vulnerable.

Gospel minister Tobias Tissen added to this definition. He maintained that a church provided a much-needed avenue for socializing and getting together, which includes the exchange of both social and spiritual dialogue. From the church perspective, both he and the congregants who attended felt an obligation to continue gathering. To this end, the church had a duty and responsibility to fulfil scripture and, similarly, not forsake the assembling of the saints, in accordance with the Scripture Hebrews 10:25.

Other ministers, including Rev. Randy Banks, highlighted the importance of offering spiritual nourishment to patients in hospitals and long-term-care facilities. He reiterated the value and importance of God at the bedside, particularly when, traditionally, this would be a time when people would be at their lowest. But as Mr. Banks also pointed out, spiritual sustenance and healing is not only for palliative patients facing imminent death but also offers much-needed spiritual support for family members and close friends as well.

On this point, Mike Vogiatzakis had an epiphany. Amid a funeral for a six-year-old boy, the police threatened fines if he exceeded gathering limits. An uncle of the boy confronted the director, asking, “What kind of a man are you to keep me from seeing my nephew?“ It was here that Mr. Vogiatzakis‘ compassion led to inviting both this man and all those waiting in the parking lot to attend the boy‘s funeral. He believed that if all the churches had stayed open throughout the pandemic, there would have been fewer deaths. His conclusion? “If we get prosecuted [sic] [persecuted] on earth for doing the right thing, we have another life to live afterwards.“

Jérémie Miller raised concerns that the COVID measures implemented by government were causing division in the community. Early on, he began to question conflicting government messaging, particularly the mantra that suggested it was the citizen‘s fault Canada is still coping with a pandemic. He was not an anti-vaxxer. He received the first COVID vaccination. When he returned to get his second vaccination, nurses told him he should consult a doctor. This was because he had experienced side effects after the first vaccination. Big picture, he said church obligations include standing against oppressive policies. He referred to his religious practice and his belief in the right to be protected to live his faith without barriers.

The personal convictions of pharmacist Camille Mitchell led to submitting a notice of liability and a declaration of faith to her employer, the president of Island Health, and the president of the Health Sciences Association. She had been a pharmacist for 26 years. She applied for a vaccine exemption. She was hoping her religious exemption would be approved. However, Ms. Mitchell‘s employer never acknowledged her religious exemption. Similar to many other NCI witnesses, religious [and medical] exemptions were either very difficult to get or these were not being honoured.

One of these witnesses was nurse Grace Neustaedter, who testified of her strong personal faith. She held a master of science in nursing. In the beginning of COVID mandates, Ms. Neustaedter thought the vaccination was a reasonable precaution. Because of her research and knowledge, she also knew a vaccination would take five to ten years to be properly tested. She soon realized the required clinical trials and Informed Consent could not happen within the COVID time frame. She also heard health professionals denigrating the unvaccinated, even when these same patients could hear them. She eventually walked away from the career she loved. The irony was, on the same day she was prohibited from setting foot on Alberta Health Services property, she received her 40-year employee recognition plaque.

Ms. Neustaedter‘s religious exemption was denied. She never even heard back from her employer after the exemption was received. She did hear that only one exemption was accepted, and this was for a non-Christian. Ms. Neustaedter continued to attend the same church her family had participated in for more than 40 years. She was surprised people didn‘t question the COVID restrictions. Some said it was all part of God‘s plan. Others swore at her husband, who physically couldn‘t wear a mask. She observed that people were more concerned about their own health and welfare than what Jesus would want them to do. They began attending a new church that had intentionally remained open.

Brandon Pringle also felt a firm commitment to religious freedom. In his case, he was persuaded that like-minded believers should not be prohibited from gathering. As he testified, he spoke to the societal breakdown that occurs when churchgoers are prohibited from meeting. Prior to COVID mandates, Mr. Pringle‘s family was very close. Family and church events were a regular component of family interactions. They all attended the same church. When the mandates went beyond the two weeks to flatten the curve, Mr. Pringle spoke with his adult children. From a faith-based perspective, he outlined his concerns about emerging tyrannical mandates. They agreed to disagree. He didn‘t realize how bad it was going to get. At one point, his son-in-law claimed the reason COVID continued was because the unvaccinated would not comply. Using propaganda, the media had launched a campaign intended to target the unvaccinated. Mr. Pringle was saddened that his once close-knit family was becoming divided.

Patrick Allard was a member of the Manitoba Group of Five. He organized his first protest on May 9, 2020, in front of the Legislature. He called the rallies “mental health rallies“ because it brought people together so they were not alone. He missed church so he attended an outdoor drive-in church. He was arrested for shaking hands and hugging people. He said he was treated like a criminal by the police. His bail conditions stated he could not communicate with certain people. He compared the rallies to the government-approved Manitoba Hydro Union and Black Lives Matter demonstrations. He said these were scheduled during COVID mandates too. The difference? There were no arrests in the latter government-approved demonstrations.

Mr. Allard thought Canada might go down this path again in the future and thus, in his opinion, there‘s nothing Canadians can do but continue to stand. It doesn‘t help, as witness Mr. Pardy pointed out, that the courts were dismissing the evidence of those challenging the rules, or that the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens were not being honoured by the courts. The question for Mr. Allard then was simple. If the courts were not willing to sort out COVID rules because it would be similar to serving a political function, perhaps it was time for God to intervene.

Dr. Gerald Bohemier said red lights began flashing when everything he had learned in science and in his profession as a chiropractor was contrary to the government messaging on COVID. When attending rallies, he observed a constant police presence. The police recorded the attendees. He was arrested and, from his testimony, not treated very well. The legal protections put in place to protect citizens from unnecessary detainment were not available. He spent the night in jail.

Dr. Bohemier also attended a drive-in church. He knew church services were purposeful and the rights of citizens constitutionally protected. Therefore, religious services could not be interrupted by government authorities. Ironically, Dr. Bohemier was led to remind the police of Criminal Code 176, which prohibits any person from obstructing officiating clergyman, disturbing worship or meetings wherein an assemblage of persons meets for a moral, social, or benevolent purpose. He alluded to the police officers committing a crime. Section 176 specifically states:

Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman

• 176 (1) Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who (a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent an officiant from celebrating a religious or spiritual service or performing any other function in connection with their calling, or (b) knowing that an officiant is about to perform, is on their way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a) (i) assaults or offers any violence to them, or (ii) arrests them on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process.

• Marginal note: Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings (2) Everyone who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social, or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• Marginal note: Idem (3) Everyone who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Pastor Steven Flippin described how Criminal Code 176 was breached when the church he was involved with reopened. Two factors contributed to the decision. First, if the legislature was willing to delegate their rule-making authority to unelected officials and, likewise, the church fell outside of the government and judicial jurisdictions, it only made sense for the church to restore its servitude status of helping others. Relying upon the Scripture in Hebrews 10:25, Mr. Flippin said Christ commands us not to be subservient to government. Indeed, he reaffirmed Christ‘s desire that we all come to Him.

It should be said, however, the decision to open was not made in isolation. Both the elders and church members consulted together. In time, both the police and health authorities were knocking at the door. Fines were issued. He was told that no court would accept Criminal Code section 176 in the same way the church interpreted it. Even though statutes are in place to protect the church from those who would obstruct services, this did not stop the authorities from spying on the church. Eventually, the church was prosecuted and Pastor Flippin forced to take the fines personally. Nevertheless, he said there were wins: attendance doubled; those who attend include young families, new immigrants, and everyday Canadians.

But not everyone was a winner. Mildred Kucher, a woman in her 90s, regularly attended church. Pre-COVID, she was constantly socializing with family and friends. In this regard, the church was more than just a place to go but essential. It might be important to note here that Ms. Kucher was a social butterfly. In fact, as her daughter suggested, it was difficult to get an appointment to see her. Of course, when the churches closed, everything changed for Ms. Kucher. She had always said she didn‘t want to die of loneliness, but in the end, it was loneliness that led to her passing. For so many reasons, David Leis‘ testimony hit the nail on the head. Never before in the history of Canada has there been such a policy disaster. “Canadians relied on institutions on the assumption that they would serve them, but instead they were let down.“ Through no fault of her own, Ms. Kucher had become a casualty.

Witness Don Woodstock ventured down a different road. He was so adamant that churches were essential and, therefore, should be open that he started a petition that would pave the way for church congregants to hold services in big box stores. As a business operator in the security business, he understood firsthand the COVID fear instilled in clients. For Mr. Woodstock, the paranoia that pit neighbour against neighbour, dividing communities, had gone too far. It was time to rise above the damage caused by COVID policies.

Another witness, Steven Setka, shared Mr. Woodstock‘s motivation to challenge the prevailing COVID mindset. He raised concerns with his church leadership regarding vaccination passes. The church had reserved a section for undeclared individuals. Within a church of a thousand people, Mr. Setka was the only churchgoer in the unvaccinated seating section. He had since changed churches, which included adjusting to a new social circle. Being deemed an outcast by both his extended family and his church led to a lot of anxiety, depression, and loneliness. In part, he blamed not having a strong, supportive community around him for his struggles. But it wasn‘t just churchgoers who were at odds with how churches dealt with COVID measures. Pastors witnessing the negative impacts of COVID lockdowns on the social fabric were not always welcome either.

Pastor Jason McVicar‘s experience specifically shows that not every church is the same. Just like so many entities within society, there will always be some that more effectively meet the physical and spiritual needs of the people they serve, and some that will not. In Pastor McVicar‘s case, the Board of Directors within the church did not align with his stance on vaccines. Even though the government offered bribes in the form of opening to full capacity if the congregants were vaccinated, Pastor McVicar did not concede his principles. Instead, he parted ways. In so doing, he was able to find a welcoming congregation that did not take issue with his unvaccinated status.

Like varying denominations, leadership roles within the church can differ too. For example, Mr. Tissen did not consider himself to be a pastor. Rather, he considered ministry to be a higher calling. In part, this could be because the role of pastor is often linked to professional employment, whereas ministry is when one willingly chooses to serve others.

Mr. Mack considered himself to be an elder. He said he missed in-person church services. Having spent most of his life working in the church community, COVID measures leading to the closure of assemblies represented a significant change. Although he was still able to watch church services online, he said it was not the same as physically going to church. Christians are called to fellowship, serve, and support one another. COVID restrictions prevented Mr. Mack from giving back to the community. To him, this was a significant loss. He also lost friends because of church closures. Social interaction with like-minded co-worshippers had ended. He said the lack of interactions with the pastoral team left a gap. In terms of the broader community, outreach initiatives were suddenly put on hold. He found the spiritual nourishment that he was used to receiving in his day to day lacking. He was further deprived of visiting family due to border closures.

Mr. Tissen also confirmed the far-reaching impact of COVID measures and lockdowns. First, the church with 160 congregants had been shaken by the actions of police and health authorities during the pandemic. The broader community was divided. At home, his family, too, had suffered from actions taken by government. His children were traumatized by the very police they had been raised to respect. He further alluded to a family get-together in the park. After being widowed, his mother had made plans to return to Europe. It was kind of like the last supper. But instead of a family memory, she watched her adult son arrested and pulled out of reach by state authorities, as if Mr. Tissen was some sort of hardened criminal. His crime? Ministering the good news gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ to those seeking the purpose of life. And, as he indicates, showing others, by his own example, how to love their neighbours.

At 28-years-old, this family man had a much deeper understanding of right and wrong than the RCMP officers who chose to arrest him: These same officers who watched Mr. Tissen bury his father. The same detachment of officers who believed it was within their authority to block the church entrance from congregants who desired to worship the Lord. As another NCI witness observed, the police were on the wrong side of the law.

As an aside, the church of God in Steinbach, Manitoba, had zero COVID outbreaks, no deaths, and everyone to the day of testimony, were still in good form. Mr. Tissen confirmed that in the beginning, the restrictions were novel, and like everyone else, the church family stayed home for a bit. But when they realized people should be there for one other and there was a calling within the Scriptures to do so, the church moved to drive-in services. The scriptural reference refers to believers not forsaking the assembling together, as the manner of some, but instead, exhorting one another, and so much the more, “as ye see the day approaching.“

Mr. Tissen said there was no division regarding the decision to reopen the church. He said the congregation remained in one accord, like a family should be. He observed drive-in church is not the same as physical and social interactions with other believers. Still, when the church acted on their constitutionally protected right to serve God in a manner that historically in Canada could never lawfully be restricted, the church became a target.

Witness Dr. Francis Christian likened many of the actions of governments during the COVID pandemic to the tyranny found in the Soviet Union. He pointed to how the data disseminated through media and health authorities was meant to deceive the public. He also commented on how data was used to frighten and manipulate the population. Although most of Dr. Christian‘s testimony focused on vaccines, he spoke about the persecution against anyone who speaks outside of the prevailing narrative. This was an outcome for churches that reopened in Canada had become all too familiar with over the last three years.

Again, not everyone was going to stand by and watch Canada destroyed. Rick Wall identifies himself as a God-fearing man and praying father. During the pandemic, he missed attending church. As the business owner of a trucking firm, he became suspicious of COVID measures early on. Mr. Wall participated in an outdoor drive-in church because he felt violated that his right to worship the Lord freely was taken away. This was about the same time outdoor gathering sizes were decreased to five persons. Almost one hundred people attended the first outdoor church service. Consequently, everyone who attended received fines for non-compliance to health orders. When the truckers decided to travel to Ottawa as part of the Freedom Convoy, Mr. Wall and his wife prayed about it. They were willing to lose everything to stand for what was right. The couple were both at peace over the decision. On January 17, 2022, truckers went from zero to hero. The truckers had captured global media attention.

Mr. Wall said the non-compliance order was consistent with an outdoor sermon he heard. At the outdoor services he attended, there was always a police presence. Mr. Wall did not ask why the gathering numbers for both indoor and outdoor church services were the same. Nevertheless, it might be insightful to understand what the Lord Himself said: “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?“

It is important to note that in these examples, as witness David Leis alluded, it would appear Canadian society is moving closer to authoritarianism. He said it was so sad that people have forgotten their role in serving people. Others might suggest the landscape witnessed by the public was the contrast between good and evil.

Retired OPP officer Vincent Gircys agreed. He admitted tremendous mistakes had been made because of COVID, and that police forces had violated the oath each officer had taken to uphold the law and serve the community. These deliberate blunders by authorities were like a festering sore within the profession he had been so very proud of, not that many years prior. It should be noted that upon retirement, Mr. Gircys had received an exemplary service medal for his years of service. Yet, as Mr. Gircys testified, he was also concerned with police behaviour.

Watching the deployment of 200 police officers on horses shutting down one single restaurant led him to question how police actions were being taken against citizens. Further, on multiple occasions, he witnessed the tyrannical behaviour of the Aylmer police department toward the Church of God assembly. As a former police officer, he referred to the police actions and the continued violations of Canadian‘s constitutional rights and freedoms as deplorable.

Beyond the criticism, Mr. Gircys commended officers who voluntarily left the Aylmer police force, for these officers did the right thing. He began publicly raising concerns. He referenced the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the most supreme law of the land. Most particularly, he pointed to the preamble in the Charter which states, “Wherein Canada is founded upon the supremacy of God and rule of law.“ He remembers his early days in policing when he was issued a King James Bible—a Bible he still carries to this day. He was also instrumental in facilitating communications between the Freedom Convoy truckers and governing authorities. For his efforts, he received two arrest warrants, a $10,000 fine, and his bank accounts were frozen.

Witness Richard Abbot, a member of the tactical unit and SWAT team, confirmed these incidents were not just in the public eye but within the police ranks as well. Officers who refused to disclose their vaccination status were subject to segregation and the “Shame Room.” The latter was the workspace designated for the unvaccinated. Even though officers worked side-by-side in shared vehicles and physical spaces, management continued to mandate irrational policies. It was acceptable for officers to work together side-by-side throughout their shifts but not to break bread at the same table.

As a lawyer, Leighton Grey had the pleasure of representing Grace Life Church, and their struggle with Alberta Health Services (AHS) investigators to understand the law. He said the same AHS employees were given extraordinary powers but had no understanding of how to wield them. Further, Mr. Grey testified the health services investigator had the authority to summon police and make arrests, which eventually led to the imprisonment of Pastor James Coates.

Mr. Grey further explained that section 176 of the Criminal Code essentially prevents the disruption of worship services. And, as Mr. Gircys explained, the protocols and procedures that should have been followed for forensic investigations, were not. It is imperative for police investigators to collect physical, documentary, and testimonial evidence before reaching conclusions. This did not happen in the churches cited here. Therefore, the RCMP who accompanied AHS to Grace Life Church failed in a similar manner as the Ottawa police. The police officers did not understand their oath and Constitution, for if these officers had, they would also have known their actions violated both the Constitution and their oath, plus section 176 of the Criminal Code.

Nevertheless, as Mr. Grey admitted, the entire Grace Life Church incident was an international

embarrassment. Bruce Pardy, professor of law at Queen‘s University, seconded Mr. Leighton‘s testimony concerning the law. He reiterated that Canada‘s legal system is based upon the separation of the state into three different branches: the legislature; the executive, or administration; and the judiciary, or courts. The rationale for these branches being separate is to prevent too much power from being concentrated in any one branch or person.

Everything other than the elected legislature and the courts falls under administration. This means the administration is not authorized to act without the legislature passing a statute authorizing the action. Under this umbrella, it‘s then the job of the courts to enforce the legislation. The emerging issue, as Mr. Pardy stated, is that the legislatures are no longer passing statutes that contain rules for the administration to follow (as the framers of the country did with the British North America Act). Instead, the legislatures are passing statutes which delegate rule-making authority to the administration. Lawyer John Carpay, in his testimony, concurred. He presented a long list of substantive issues and recommendations for the legislative branch level to address.

But what has happened over time is that the administration and not the courts or elected officials have become the experts. To change this direction, the people of Canada must challenge the premise that our government officials have the expertise and authority to tell us what to do in the name of the public good.

The Honourable Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge. He weighed into the discussion, reaffirming the mediatory nature of the courts to stand between the government and citizens. He was disappointed with the response of the courts to health mandates. He observed tremendous hardship for people. It did not help that the judges accepted the prevailing narrative of governments and health authorities. He pointed to some of the health mandates which, he said, were particularly unreasonable. Moreover, if the courts were simply going to accept any government order as truth, then what was the purpose of the courts?

When the pandemic was first announced, Mr. Giesbrecht began comparing traditional pandemic policies to COVID responses in Sweden. He teamed up with another NCI witness (retired Lieutenant Colonel David Redman) who was experienced in emergency planning. He said it was like Canada was doing practically the opposite of what the planned emergency response called for. When the two compared Sweden‘s COVID response to Canada‘s, Sweden‘s hands-off measures appeared to be doing much better.

He had hoped that by investigating public policy in Sweden, some form of reasonable, objective discussion would emerge. Mr. Giesbrecht was surprised at the hostile reaction he received from mainstream media. He said the media, including the New York Times, wrote a scathing account about Sweden and how people were dropping like flies. This was not true. He questioned the idea that anyone taking a different view to lockdown mandates (beyond conformity and compliance) was discouraged. He noticed people were increasingly becoming divided.

He gave his opinion on how the courts handled COVID, concerning common law and the Charter. At first, he was surprised and disappointed with how the courts responded to the challenges of citizens and lockdowns. The public expect judges to stand between them and government overreach. Generally, this did not happen. The judicial response seemed to predominantly side with the government narrative. That is, if governments and public health make some sort of proclamation, then who are the judges to question them? He believed what the judges did by deferring decision-making and authoritative powers to health authorities in COVID cases was wrong.

He compared some of the decisions coming out of the United States, where there was a vigorous and lively testing of the rules. He believed this was very helpful from a societal perspective. He raised the example of air travel and masking mandates. The difference between Americans travelling on planes without masks versus Canadians still having to wear them was illogical. For months, Canadians were still required to mask, long after masking rules had been removed in the United States.

Courts south of the border had also struck down several of the most egregious vaccine mandates months before these same mandates were put to rest in Canada. Vaccine mandates caused tremendous hardship for people in terms of adverse reactions, employment, and social interactions. If people thought they could go to court and get the most egregious mandates removed, and obtain a reasonable response to their challenge, this might have helped. It seemed people generally did not think the courts were an option.

The primary issue is that deference is given to health authorities without testing the facts or properly looking into the case. The courts are being too quick to accept whatever decisions are made by governments or health officials, taking what the governments present at face value. The dispute is this: If the court is simply going to accept every decision made by governments, then what role do judges play? Why are courts even needed?

Mr. Giesbrecht cited several examples in Manitoba: the outdoor, drive-in church services where congregants remained under surveillance by a huge police presence, the inability of families to hold funerals and say goodbye to loved ones, going for a hike in a park only to discover the trails were closed, and other rules that were particularly unreasonable. Citizens had a rightful expectation that when they attend court, the judiciary would rightly consider all sides of the story and rule accordingly. Not simply to parrot health authorities. In other words, the public didn‘t expect the judiciary to privilege the government decision. In this context, this would be considered unreasonable.

Still, people rely on the courts to protect their individual liberties from the dictates of governments. He said it appears Canada is not the same country now as it was before the pandemic. He had spent considerable time thinking about these matters. Citizens need to ask themselves if civil liberties are important anymore or if they are happy with government making all the decisions. Conversely, judges must ask whether they played a role and whether, after three years, the courts protected the peoples‘ rights. He expects media and politicians should also ask the same questions.

In a similar context, Mr. Leis said there is a reason Canada has a limited state. It is important because there needs to be room for the working people, which extends beyond Ottawa. He said the government has tentacles everywhere, creating conflicts of interests. He referred to classical liberalism as a cornerstone of Western democracies. Freedom of speech allows Canadians to debate. If censorship is imposed by the state telling the populace what the facts are, even when they are not facts, Canada will not have a future.

This raises yet another question. Will Canada have a future when the courts are closed to the public? As the testimony alluded, the courts were closed. Consequently, there was no avenue for church organizations to file criminal charges against the state for egregious violations of Criminal Code 176. Church congregants were similarly denied an opportunity to address the oppressive actions taken against them by enforcers who swore an oath to uphold the law. There was more than sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. In addition to police reports, health inspector‘s notes, private videos and surveillance records, the documentation proving both health authorities and police officers violated this Criminal Code section was overwhelming. Videos of state authorities entering churches during worship services were also prevalent on social media and in the public square.

This unprovoked attack on Christian churches and citizens should have sounded the alarms within the judiciary. At the very least, there should have been a judicial reconsideration of how these acts of lawlessness against citizens could negatively impact the social fabric, and the judicial responsibility to prevent this from happening. Instead, the judiciary and prosecution teams, for the most part, remained silent. Even when congregants informed enforcement officials that their respective actions violated section 176 of the Criminal Code and that, therefore, the operations were illegal, the perpetrators did not stop. Time after time, police and health inspectors were at the church doors, determined to make an example of churchgoers, as if these people were hardened criminals and not hardworking taxpayers. Outdoor churches were not off the hook either. There, citizens were observed and under state surveillance as well. Those who attended outdoor worship services were identified through police video and vehicle licence plates, and subsequently burdened with outrageous fines.

In one example, the police chief attended an outdoor church service in his private vehicle, and he proceeded to video churchgoers in attendance. No warrant was obtained in advance for violating individual privacy. There was no presumption of innocence. There was no randomness. The police actions were deliberate. The rights and freedoms of every citizen were suddenly diminished. Any long-standing principle or tradition that had served Canada well for almost two centuries was suddenly eradicated.

In comparison, there was no police surveillance or enforcement measures at Costco or Walmart. There were no arrests at the Black Lives Matter rallies, even though people gathered at these, too, during COVID lockdowns. Ultimately, the reverberated state message was clear. Any citizen who did not remain in subjection to the prevailing narratives of the state were in complete violation of these new laws—which were not laws, because these were not based on legal precepts or moral tenets, the supremacy of God or rule of law.

As testified, dictated mandates by appointed health bureaucrats superseded the Charter, the Bill of Rights, and now the Criminal Code, too. Most noticeable, as well, the mandates imposed on citizens were not equally applied to those in authority. There emerged instead a two-tier system between the authorities that govern and the citizens being governed. So much for the rule of law. But this leads to further questions in relation to democracy. Is this what lawlessness looks like? When state officials sworn to uphold the law can choose to violate it without legal consequences? That because the courts were closed to the public, the laws that have ordered Canadian society since its democratic foundation no longer matter?

Again, when the respective pillars in Canada were initially established, it was understood that an individual‘s faith and convictions, and their respective religious institutions, are not under man‘s laws. Why? Because the Lord has written His spiritual laws in people‘s hearts. Every individual knows what is right and wrong. Further, from the New Testament, Jesus summarized all the Old Testament commandments into two. That is, love the Lord with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength, and love one another. Therefore, worshipping God is not contrary to the law, for it is embedded in the hearts and minds of the people.

Further, the greatest love story ever told is even more profound because even though men and women transgressed the laws (because we can‘t possibly keep them), the Lord Jesus changed the ordinance completely in order to establish a brand-new law: the law of love. This isn‘t a competition. From the very beginning, the Lord God wanted to walk in the cool of the afternoon with His people. When His people just didn‘t get it, He made a way where there was no way. He stepped down from glory so that each and every one of His beloved creation could have abundant life in Him. The rebellious will not hear the Word of the Lord. But for those who hear His call, we need to understand that God dealt with humanity before the law was given—in the time of Abraham—wherein we were saved by faith. His plan, even before the foundation of the earth was established, was to fulfil the law once and for all. This Jesus did through the shedding of His own blood.

In this context then, where there is no law, there is no transgression. The law was simply to point us to the Lord Jesus, and when we meet Him face to face, heart to heart, the sins that He paid for are taken away. The bottom line, then, is this. Believers in the Lord Jesus no longer need a grocery list of do‘s and don‘ts telling them how to live. Because the hearts of believers are in Christ. His righteousness dwelling within, showing and enabling believers how to live. Apostle Paul summarized this best when he said, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.“

Therefore, on its own standing, the Bible supersedes the laws of men. As law-abiding citizens, Christians are responsible to a higher authority—this same Master that this entire nation is founded upon—the supremacy of God. As Apostle Paul reminds, the letter of the law kills but the Spirit gives life. In this new era, the Lord did something that hasn‘t been done before. He called us into a different life wherein there is liberty and freedom for one and all. Not just so people simply cope or chore away day to day in the mundane but that each and every man and woman has a higher calling that is glorious.

Pastor James Coates from Grace Life Church understood the difference between man‘s law and God‘s and, as such, was willing to stand on his convictions and faith to ensure God-given rights continued to be honoured by the state. As a Bible-believing church, the congregants also believed in their scriptural obligation to continue meeting in person. This led to the decision to open in spite of health restrictions. Pastor Coates was ticketed and arrested in February 2021. He was given strict bail conditions. If he were to accept the conditions imposed, he would be breaking his promise to God. If he did not, he would be in contempt of court for holding church services. For the latter, he could face criminal charges. Mr. Coates refused to bow to the dictates of government bodies. The question for him was: who is God--the state or Jesus Christ? For his response, he remained in jail for 35 days. Even though he was not a flight risk, he was placed in shackles on both his feet and hands. Eventually, there was a satisfactory resolution reached on the bail conditions. The Crown released him and Grace Life Church continued to meet.

In March 2021, the church building was seized. A triple-fence with 24-hour surveillance was installed by the state. It was shocking and unprecedented for this to happen in Canada. The Grace Life congregation went underground. Legal counsel James Kitchen met with the church every week to determine how a church of 500 to 800 people could continue meeting while evading the authorities.

Mr. Kitchen was a member of the Law Society of Alberta. He practiced constitutional, administrative, and criminal law. He fundamentally believed the law was unjust and it was his moral and ethical duty to help the church end the unjust law. The church found locations in the middle of nowhere to meet. He recalled how the church was being sought out by authorities. When they had met twice in a row in the same location, a van with a canine unit showed up at that same location the third Sunday. The church had already switched locations, so they were not there.

Another example was Pastor Tim Stephens from Fairview Baptist Church in Calgary. The congregation met in a mountain provincial park beside the city of Calgary. The pastor preached from a tent. There were reports a helicopter was circling around, watching the congregation. Mr. Kitchen reminded the audience that as a nation we cannot forget the persecution of these churches. The measures taken were unjust and motivated by a public health or health crisis. The constitutional structure, Canada designed to protect citizens and their freedoms, was failing.

Mr. Kitchen was in attendance both times Mr. Stephens was arrested. Both arrests were in front of his children. An hour before Pastor Stephens‘ second arrest, the police called Mr. Kitchen to let him know their intent. There was no obligation to call him. Mr. Kitchen immediately called Sheila Gunn Reid from Rebel News, who had a cameraman in Calgary. Rebel was able to deploy them just in time to film the arrest. He said there are other churches facing similar consequences.

Pastors Tracy and Rodney from the church of the Vine in Edmonton prevented a public health inspector from coming into the sanctuary during worship service. As a more charismatic church, they believe church services are a sacred and divine time where the Spirit of the Lord is present. Having someone attend strictly to gather information and observe, with the intent of shutting the church was seen to be disruptive. Ideologically and spiritually, such a government official was an enemy. The church was right. Subsequently, the church was ticketed for obstruction.

During the trial, Mr. Kitchen argued it was a breach of section 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This section guarantees religious freedoms. The prosecutor applied to the court to not allow Mr. Kitchen to argue that religious rights were violated, declaring that this would amount to wasting the court‘s time. Mr. Kitchen did not expect the court to agree with the Crown. Mr. Kitchen was going to be in court the week following the NCI testimony. He was appealing this court‘s decision. He said it should have shown how hollow and meaningless section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter had become that freedom of religion could not be argued in a court of law anymore.

Mr. Kitchen explained the importance in caring deeply about what happened in these cases. Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with freedom of religion. If the nation does not keep freedom of religion, it will not respect a citizen‘s right to protest either. He further explained, these transgressions of the law don‘t just apply to Christians. Atheists would not be permitted to speak either if Christians can‘t retain their freedom of religion. He reaffirmed these democratic rights are interwoven fundamental freedoms so we cannot keep one and discard the other. It is for this reason all Canadians must care about what is happening to Christians during COVID lockdowns.

There were similar considerations in other provincial jurisdictions. For example, when the province of Ontario moved to a five-tier coloured system, the COVID measures varied, depending on which region one lived. Toronto, for example, was a red zone, which meant total lockdown for residents. Mr. Mack pointed to the hypocrisy that existed between COVID measures for churches and big box stores. By the beginning of 2021, pockets of resistance were beginning to emerge. A couple of pastors were arrested and fined for speaking out publicly. Most churches at this time remained closed.

It was almost a year later before he saw the church fight back. An archbishop appealed to the Premier of Ontario to allow churches to open for Easter. The archbishop‘s request was turned down. He was not sure if the three churches he was involved in (including a mega church with 5,000 congregants) had corresponded with governments. But he did say that as a consequence of government mandates, the gathering numbers for churches had decreased across the country. Many within society had given up on the church community entirely because of everything that happened. He noted that independent churches seemed to do better. Nevertheless, some churches were forced to close and sell their buildings and assets.

When the churches were finally permitted to open again, congregants were required to wear masks, social distance, and be vaccinated. The unvaccinated had to sit in more secluded seating areas, away from congregants. It‘s also important to observe that even after all COVID mandates were lifted, some religious institutions continued to enforce masking and social distancing measures within the church buildings. Who made the decision within the churches? Mr. Mack said that in the three churches he was involved in, there was a church committee that decided how the mandates applied to the church. These committees would also correspond with the congregants, ensuring that all three churches followed COVID measures.

In terms of impact, many believers said there was a loss. Many congregants lost touch with friends. Contributing to the church community failed to happen. Whereas pre-COVID, maintaining regular worship and devotions was integral to family connections and/or social interactions, now there was a loss. The Freedom Convoy provided some optimism. When Mr. Gircys attended the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa, he saw more hugs than at an Italian wedding. The crowds were peaceful, positive, and joyful. He did not see violence or concerns. He said CBC lied about the Convoy. Mainstream media reports contributed to the emergence of a police state. The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) admitted the intel was inconsistent with what the media and government were proclaiming.

Instead, the police accepted a single side of the narrative, even when counter information was available. In the end, police departments caved to political pressure and interference. This, he said, is why police agencies should always remain at arm‘s length and separate from politicians. He further explained that police officers are just ordinary people who are capable of great violence if they are lied to or led to believe they personally could be in grave danger. There was political pressure and interference.

Mr. Grey‘s testimony alluded to a report commissioned by the Alberta Government. It was intended to determine from a psychological perspective what language and methods could coerce Albertans to comply with the vaccination mandates and lockdown restrictions. He said the number of unknown deaths has increased seven times since the vaccines rolled out. Witness Jody McPhee‘s father could certainly have been considered one of the seven-fold statistics.

The determination of religious exemptions of religious exemptions coupled with employment termination has led Ms. McPhee to navigate through the court system, along with several thousand others. Mr. Grey said employers, governments, and unions conspired together to force favourable outcomes. Although Ms. McPhee did not specifically address her faith beyond experiencing a lack of compassion from authorities, it can be said her personal convictions and beliefs contributed to her job loss, particularly given the reference to Christ in her termination letter.

Mr. Tissen offered additional insight into possible government motivations. He received considerable support from friends, but he and his family also experienced a lot of hate too. It was all part of the government‘s tactic to divide humanity. He said if the government had the resources to send that many officers to a church, or by extension, to his home, why couldn‘t these same funds be used to check in on people and ask how they are coping, and, as well, to allow citizens to use their own judgment and common sense when it came to the potential risks associated with COVID.

He spoke of how his three children were traumatized from witnessing their father‘s arrest and the multiple times police officers came to the house to hand out tickets: not just one officer. Sometimes, there were as many as five officers at the door. He saw one of his children peering into the police station to see if they could see their father. He said the entire incident was heart-wrenching. Beyond the church, the private school associated with the church was also greatly affected. There were no end-of-year ceremonies for students or family picnics.

He too saw the hypocrisy of government policies that allowed big-box store parking lots to be full, while church parking lots were arbitrarily closed by RCMP. He noted the congregation is made up of peaceful, law-abiding Christians who were prevented from peaceful assembly and worship. Mr. Tissen cited the car rally event for the farmers in India as an example. Unlike the church gathering, no one in attendance was fined or in trouble for organizing these events. There was also the group of solidarity protesters raising aboriginal political concerns who were not targeted by RCMP either.

Mr. Tissen did not point to these groups to raise contention but rather as a point of comparison, showing the inequalities in how consequences for contravening COVID dictates were applied. He reaffirmed that neither he nor the congregation were being rebellious for the sake of being rebellious. He believed churches are instrumental in supporting individual‘s faith journey in addition to spiritual support.

Conclusions

When asked his opinion on church closures, Mr. Mack suggested more resistance from the church as a collective might have changed the societal outcome. Sadly, many have given up on attending church because of everything that happened. While some churches attempted to resist and hold services, they were fined. He recalled seeing videos of police physically removing and arresting pastors from the few churches that stayed open. These actions by governments against their own citizens in Canada caught international attention.

What was the reasoning? Canada is now contravening freedom of religion because it no longer adheres to or has a desire to understand Christian principles. How far is this going to go? Retired OPP officer Mr. Gircys probed a little deeper. He asked, how are we going to be treated if the lies continue, knowing that police officers are ordinary men and women? There is nothing in the police training that would inform officers differently. He concluded by saying what happened with COVID needs to be exposed. The idea that the pandemic was so dangerous that it justified all these public policy decisions is what he names the “Great Lie.”

Mr. Gircys believes the lies are endless. But to keep the regime going, there must be more lies. When this happens, it is an indication of a totalitarian regime. If you control healthcare and can censor people, if you control education that indoctrinates, if you restrict movement as in fifteen-minute cities, and many more examples too numerous to cite, this is the ideal foundation for totalitarianism. Add a fear-based pandemic into the mix, and the result is a police state. Besides, when media works in collusion with government, it is collusion at its best and yet another indicator that all is not well within Canada‘s parliamentary democracy.

But there is a way out. Mr. Gircys offered a number of recommendations. First, he believes Canada needs to establish a nationwide COVID-19 forensic task force, vetted by the judiciary and one that is completely independent of government. He said it must also have the authority to issue arrest warrants.

Mr. Gircys provided a rationale for a task force. He said a task force could investigate the failings of the police community during the pandemic. For example, the police failed to adhere to the plan. He said that in policing, there is a plan for everything. Police don‘t decide to wing it because the circumstance this time is a pandemic, and they are scared.

He said the police failed to understand the information. Instead, they accepted a single narrative from government and the media and would not accept any counter information. He knew firsthand that concise detailed reports were submitted to the various authorities and agencies, but no one listened. In addition, the police failed to understand their Oath even though section 52.1 of the Charter states: “The Constitution of Canada is the Supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”

It was difficult for Mr. Gircys to witness situations where the police were heavy-handed. In his opinion, the officers were not only ill informed but were provided with false and misleading information. He watched the behaviour of the officers. The police had to have believed there was a serious threat against them or there was a very real possibility they could be harmed. Mr. Gircys repeated that all his observations were consistently inconsistent with what media was saying, which is why he believes the officers had to be given false and misleading information—in order to do what the police officers did.

Still, even if the officers perceived there would be violence, professional and personal opinion should have changed when they saw there was no threat. Continuously, the same peaceful response should have caused the officers to question, particularly when the circumstances the officers witnessed were church women singing, children playing, and men ministering to the congregants. Yet, another question: At what point does one‘s conscience kick in? At what point did the officers realize the information they were given wasn‘t true?

Is there a valid explanation? Mr. Gircys heard one officer say during a debrief that the information came from something he watched on CBC. However, Mr. Gircys walked the perimeter of the Trucker Convoy in Ottawa for three weeks and the joy-filled atmosphere never changed. Clearly, the violence came from the police officers. It appears a new contingent of officers were brought in, and it‘s very likely these new police officers were primed with various forms of intel, including that they might be dealing with crazy people.

There were other concerns. Lawyers reported the courts were making decisions that found Charter rights and freedoms were not violated, so the Charter could not be used as a legal defence. As such, there was no opportunity to question the discrepancies between restricted gathering numbers for churches and the number of customers permitted in big box stores, even when the square footage in both the church and the stores were equivalent in size. It is for this reason witness Mr. Woodstock started a petition. He thought if churches met in the big box stores, that would solve the issue.

Certainly, the restrictions placed on religion, and more specifically, the Christian faith during COVID, was a concern for members of the public. Many who did not consider themselves to be religiously inclined before COVID started attending. Mr. Tissen said many came to the church who would not normally have ventured in. There seems to be an awakening around why churches were being targeted by governments. Many of these new attendees equated COVID health mandates with gross government overreach.

However, the persecution of Grace Life Church led to heightened awareness of these types of actions across Canada. Legally, Grace Life Church is part of the Ingram case, which is still before the court. Once a judicial decision is made other court actions will follow. A fine of $1200 is the worst-case scenario facing Pastor Coates personally, but the church could end up owing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the state. This is the same state or nation which was established under the Supremacy of God and rule of law. This is the same state in which the framers of Canada‘s Constitution decided, by making churches a pillar, that governments had no authority over religious organizations.

In terms of legal recourse, Pastor Coates is contesting the violation of his right to believe under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other lawyers testified. Mr. Kitchen reaffirmed Mr. Pardy‘s testimony. That is, the Canadian government is set up intentionally to divide power so that the legislative, executive, and judicial systems are separate. The courts are the third branch of government. Each branch polices the others so that no one branch can become too powerful. For a long time, this constitutional structure functioned well. However, in March of 2020, the legislative and the judicial branches were shut down. All power coalesced into the executive branch. Now unelected Public Health Officers ruled. He went on to say that power corrupts. Thus, it would have been the job of the judicial branch to exert controls over the executive branch. However, as the public and church congregants are well aware, the doors to the courts were closed.

When reinstated, the courts now saw their role as enabling government, which allowed governments to act in an arbitrary and oppressive manner for the greater good. Mr. Kitchen observed judges who were afraid for their personal safety throughout the COVID years. He had hoped that judges would recognize that there must be some personal sacrifice attached to their high-level positions. And that attached to the duty and obligation to serve their country, there is an understanding it may involve some personal risk.

Mr. Kitchen knew for himself that he would never wear a mask but watched judges act fearfully. He suspects that judges too are consumers of mainstream media. Judges are appointed by politicians who share their political views. He pointed out that the legal profession over the last 25 years has mostly shifted to the left. Mr. Kitchen observed that judges with a lot of experience dealing with complex Charter issues were not ruling on COVID cases.

The questions then are this: Why are there so few judges ruling against government restrictions? What happened to judicial independence, and the duty to ensure people‘s constitutional rights and freedoms are protected? Specifically, the public wanted answers regarding human rights, the harms caused by masking, vaccine mandates and exemptions, general COVID restrictions, and the enormity of fines for worshipping God. Perhaps, the judges who may have formerly ruled in favour of personal freedoms are being prevented from presiding over these cases now. It also appears that chief justices were taking many of the restriction-related COVID cases. This, in and of itself, led to many of the rulings being pro-government and pro-health restrictions.

Another dilemma that emerged is the regulatory capture of professional colleges. Examples of these include the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, as well as the regulatory bodies for accountants and lawyers. Similar to the three arms of government, it is imperative that regulatory bodies have independence from the government as well. Indeed, the purpose of these colleges is to resist and criticize government policies while also protecting the public interest. When regulatory bodies choose to wholly support government and criticize and/or remove licensing from their professional members, the message being sent to the public is not only pro-government, but the move is towards tyranny.

Mootness in the legal arena is similarly a concern. Courts don‘t want to waste their time on academic debates. Rather, courts want to act on real issues. This leads to the appearance of judges using mootness to help governments promote their actions. In this context, if governments enact a law, it takes lawyers time to launch a challenge, file the court documents, and schedule a hearing date. Then, just before the hearing, government removes the law. Everyone affected by the newly imposed law (yet now removed) is now left with substantial legal costs. The case has not been heard, so therefore, no time was spent in court arguing the merits of the case. Beyond the lack of discourse and constructive debate, there is no recourse either because the respective government has removed the law in question. This happened many times during COVID. In essence, the government could impose tyrannical laws, pull the law before a hearing, and then call any action against government as moot. This means no one could hold the government accountable.

But governments could then reinstate that law or something equally as unconstitutional later. Mr. Kitchen recommended that some judges could be elected to overcome the problems associated with political appointments. He suggested that judges who rule provincially should be appointed provincially. Through the election process, it is more likely that judges will reflect the views and values of the province. Mr. Kitchen estimated that conservative judges are now outnumbered eight to one in Canada. He also pointed out that often, judges with left-leaning opinions are not always tolerant of their colleagues‘ conservative voices.

Mr. Kitchen said it has taken a quarter of a century to arrive where the judicial system is now. It will likely take just as long for the system to recalibrate back to adherence to the rule of law and the Charter. He believes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been rendered useless. To change this, the Charter may require amending or maybe even be discarded. Before the Charter, very strong decisions had been made by conservative judges in favour of human rights.

Now, with the Charter, those rulings are rare. At the very least, section 1 (which allows the judiciary to limit an individual‘s Charter rights) must be discarded. Mr. Kitchen believes that a moral society can engage in self-government and subsequently live more freely with more equality. Interestingly, the founders of Canada discussed self-government in their deliberations as well, so this might be a discussion worth pursuing in the days ahead. Regarding judicial appointments, it‘s a well-established fact that political and bureaucratic favouritism can occur, and this becomes especially problematic when it‘s seen as nepotism within the context of good governance. Indeed, laws are only as good as the people who enforce them and live by them.

The ethical challenges weave a deeper thread. Imagine how morally bankrupt one has to be to insist that someone submit to an experimental injection or be fired from their job. To prevent these types of actions by the state from taking place in the future, Mr. Kitchen recommended that Canadians stop consuming corrupt mainstream media and seek more truthful alternate news and information sources.

Mr. Pardy suggested new legislation around delegation of parliamentary and legislative responsibility would be a good beginning. He added the Charter likely needs to be revised, since it has been shown to be inadequate. He also called for more transparency in the public service. Mr. Leis went further, saying it is atrocious what has happened and that it was by design that so much information was withheld from the public. He was equally disturbed by a law profession that did not ensure the rightful application of the law. Jordan B. Peterson considered how public opinion was manipulated to justify the imposition of restrictions on citizens‘ basic human and constitutionally protected rights.

To counter the conflicting protocols, Mr. Allard cited the insightful example he used to persuade a school principal not to impose mask-wearing protocols on his daughter. He said if his daughter was to be segregated from classmates in the school, then students from every other minority group should also be segregated. Rightly, the principal understood the analogy and the human rights consequences of such a move. Canada‘s forefathers had similarly referred to society taking care of its minorities as well, and in so doing, humanity would be all the better for it.

Francois Amalega took a different approach. A resident of Québec, he immigrated to Canada in 2012. When COVID began, he understood the stakes were high. In Canada, the government was trying to take the place of God, but any government posing as a small “g“ god would be void of all hope. He believed withdrawing religion from the public square is not the answer.

A mathematician by profession, Mr. Amalega observed the contradictory rules and how the uncertainty was creating anxiety. He said things did not fit. He taught his college students to think critically, and yet the pandemic narrative did not align with the COVID data and statistics. The analogy he used was the government is building the plane, while Canada is flying it. The only conclusion he could reach was governments were lying to Canadians. Instead of protecting citizens, he said they were trying to destroy the social fabric. Not willing to concede, Mr. Amalega began publishing on social media. His Facebook account was constrained. Nevertheless, he kept on going—refusing to wear a mask at the College or in public places. He said by pursuing peaceful civil disobedience, he was fighting the good fight of faith for all Canadians. For not complying to mask mandates at work, he was suspended for three days and later two weeks. The College offered a compromise. They did not want to see him leave. Mr. Amalega resigned, saying he made the choice.

He used the extra time he had on his hands to protest. There was no violence. Every protest he attended was peaceful. The time came for Mr. Amalega to protest inside the police station. He told the police he was looking for freedom again, which was locked up in the police station. By now, he had received numerous tickets and was jailed four times for refusing to wear a mask. He was unsure how many nights in total he spent in jail. One of the mask fines was for showing up in court to fight his fine for not wearing a mask. Another time, Mr. Amalega was held in prison for over three months for being within 300 feet of Premier Legault, who showed up unexpectedly at the protest. Premier Legault allegedly regularly violated 8 p.m. curfews.

When interviewed, he told the media he had won. He referred to the various ways prisoners were treated. He wants to know which judge signed his arrest warrant because to him, that judge is the biggest criminal of all time. Mr. Amalega drew the comparison that if he is condemned, then the judge too is condemned. We are all accountable for our actions and this includes judges.

He understood COVID-19 as a medical story whereby people would say anything as if it were the truth even when there was no proof. Everything is opaque. He said when citizens don‘t respond to intimidation and fight for justice, becoming more vocal about the wrongs governments are committing, the people win. And by extension, this nation and all the citizens within Canada will win.

The question was asked: Where does Mr. Amalega get his inner strength? He said it is his belief in God that keeps him motivated to keep standing for what is right. He explained human authority is a gift of God, but like Canada‘s founders, he maintained human authority is also beholden to God. Why is this testimony so critical? Because one man believed in standing firmly for his personal convictions, for truth, and for those who cannot stand. In total, he received $98,000 in fines. He had hoped to reach $100,000 before testifying at the NCI. Nevertheless, the point was made. Being a person grounded in faith, standing boldly against unlawful mandates, may come with a personal cost, but the tangible benefits for the good of society going forward are long-lasting.

Is there a spiritual climate change needed in Canada? He responded by saying that when he first arrived in Québec, the topics of politics and religion were forbidden topics, but these are the most important topics within a society. Even non-believers are an important subject. He said it is not good for only one religion to dominate, but to withdraw religion altogether from society is not good either. Why? Because religion offers hope. Government does not offer hope.

Regardless of how one perceives Mr. Amalega‘s actions, his sincere, deeply heartfelt testimony is confirmation that COVID is all about a spiritual struggle. The upside, and Mr. Amalega‘s message is, when people band together and stand solid on their convictions, the truth shall prevail.

At the end of the day, Mr. Amalega‘s insights might prompt churches to require that Canada restore the democratic pillars which have blessed this nation over time. There can be no disorder within a democracy. This means federal and provincial governments cannot abdicate their electoral responsibilities to the public by appointing bureaucrats from health agencies to rule in their stead. When the law of the land is broken, because rulers have decided to act outside the citizens who promote good works, society breaks down. Jesus calls those responsible for social upheaval workers of iniquity because they have rejected the Lord‘s overriding law of love in the New Testament.

With regard to citizens‘ lack of access to courts during COVID, there was no standing for ordinary citizens to bring criminal charges against police and state authorities. In earlier times, Jesus stepped up, becoming a mediator between God and man. But who stepped in for hardworking Canadian citizens during COVID? This question requires a response. Because at the end of the day, closed courts essentially gave employees of the state a licence to do whatever they wanted to do. And what happened? state officials chose to disrupt the peaceful order of society and the worship of the Lord in church services by actions that were unlawful.

The final point: churches are pillars that are not answerable to man-made governments. This foundation was established historically by the founders of this great nation and in Canada‘s Constitution. The questions the founders reckoned with will need to be asked once again. In other words, can we enact laws that can infuse life into our nation? Because if the most knowledgeable and wise individuals could discover a law that could bestow life, then Jesus‘ sacrifice would have been meaningless. However, on the cross, Jesus exhibited the highest form of love in the universe, and this love represents the Life and Light for our great nation.

May every church understand what it took for each of these witnesses to come forward and boldly stand. The overarching message is that we all, churches included, continue to shine His light brightly.

Recommendations

1. Recognition of all religions, including the Body of Christ Church, by all levels of government is paramount in a free and democratic society and must be afforded all protections and shields guaranteed under the Criminal Code, the Constitution Act, 1867, the Bill of Rights, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

2. Churches do not require the permission of governments to open or close. However, when churches decided to respond favourably to the governments‘ call—two weeks to flatten the curve—these same churches must also have had the decision-making authority to reopen when projected COVID death and illness numbers don‘t come to fruition.

3. Revisions of the Emergencies Act. In May 2020, the launching of the Emergencies Act granted Cabinet powers to evacuate people and remove personal property from any specific area, acquire property, direct any person or any class of persons to render essential services, regulate distribution and availability of essential goods, services, and resources, authorize emergency payments, establish shelters and hospitals, and impose criminal sanctions. Moreover, the Act allows the federal government to essentially nationalize parts of the economy wherever it thinks it‘s necessary, including Cabinet assuming the control, restoration, and maintenance of public utilities and services to ensure the wellbeing of Canadians.

Later, citizens witnessed governments creating travel passes to curtail movement under the Emergencies Act. There needs to be parliamentary and legislative revisions to the Emergencies Act in an effort to reduce the unprecedented sweeping powers of the federal government over provincial jurisdictions and the citizenry and the unbridled discretion of authorities and powers administering new criminal laws without established opportunities for redress.

1. All governments should be required to provide full disclosure of all the relevant data that led to the declaration of emergency measures, the degree of parliamentary oversight, the dialogue regarding the risks and legitimacy of the lockdowns, and how temporariness was factored into the invoking of the Act.

2. Governments and public sector employees by virtue of public funding must remain neutral. Freedom of religion is a protected right that supersedes the authority and actions of governments. Public policy can neither be discriminatory in how the law is applied. For example, all churches regardless of the number of congregants, the square footage of the building, or the ability for each individual church to accommodate citizens within the boundaries of ever-changing COVID restrictions were painted with the same brush. On its face, the essential and non-essential list of organizations afforded carte blanche government approval appears discriminatory, and therefore, should be challenged under human rights legislation.

3. Remedy discriminatory conduct through mandatory education programs. For example, the duty to accommodate is a legal concept that aims to ensure every citizen has equal access to benefits, services, and opportunities. In the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the duty to accommodate refers to the principle that individuals and groups should not be treated unfairly or denied opportunities because of their personal characteristics or religious beliefs. In fact, the duty to accommodate places a duty on all employers and service providers, including governments and institutions, to make reasonable adjustments to the policies and practices without unnecessarily imposing hardship on the legitimate interests of a workplace.

Throughout COVID, legitimate questions were ignored. Yet, discretionary discriminatory actions were evident, imposing undue hardship on those who requested religious accommodation. Therefore, mandatory religious education courses for all public sector employees to ensure citizens are not discriminated against for religious practices and beliefs would send a much-needed message to public sector employees who discriminately targeted men and women of faith.

1. Going forward, there must be a clear, evidence-based rationale for locking down citizens and society. And subsequently, when the Emergencies Act is revoked, there must be ample opportunities for redress, public conversations, and debate in the public square that will counter future restrictions on the citizenry.

Criminal Code section 176 must be retained.

1. Every individual has an inherent right to end-of-life, spiritual and/or pastoral care or God at bedside services that align with their specific faith. Therefore, all publicly funded institutions, including hospitals, and long-term care facilities must comply.

2. Courts must accept deeply held beliefs for religious convictions and respect that not every citizen, when writing an affidavit to support their views, is familiar with conveying the breadth and depth of their convictions in a manner that would overwhelmingly influence the Court.

3. The presumption of innocence must be adhered to in all judicial proceedings occurring in every province and territory but Québec, where the latter operates under civil law. From the evidence, it appears prosecutors have too much influence on how the court uses its time. For example, the statement that constitutional arguments are a waste of court time and, therefore, should not be heard is not acceptable. Again, if a citizen‘s constitutional rights have been violated by virtue of their personal beliefs, thoughts, opinions, or expression, the actions of governments must be called into account, or else the law is being brought into disrepute.

4. Bail conditions must be reasonable and fair and cannot prevent an individual from performing their employment duties and responsibilities. This includes pastoral service within a religious context.

5. Separation of courts,  the separation of courts from the public service.

6. Regarding procedural fairness and natural justice, it‘s time for a comprehensive national dialogue to take place involving the church and Canadians who firmly believe the church is foundational and necessary for the social and economic wellbeing within communities. The church is uniquely qualified and capable of making decisions that impact the social fabric.

7. The prevailing belief that there is a higher spiritual accountability in this life which determines our individual standing for eternal life cannot and should not be negated by government or judiciary.

8. Churches and citizens are encouraged to create a public policy watch for any legislation that potentially negates the rights and freedoms of faith groups. The attempt to silence religious speech over the last three years should not go unnoticed.