7.5.10 Canada‘s Vaccine Adverse Reactions Reporting System 7.5.10 Canada‘s Vaccine Adverse Reactions Reporting System Introduction A robust vaccine adverse reaction reporting system in Canada is crucial to ensure the ongoing safety and efficacy of vaccines. The need for it was particularly acute during the COVID-19 pandemic since the pharmaceutical industry developed an injection that utilized novel technologies. The basis of these injections was the mRNA technology, which had never before been deployed within the general population. As well, the development and testing of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 injections were completed in less than one year, which is exceptionally rapid for a new type of medical treatment. The normal period of time for the development and testing of new biological drugs and vaccines is between five and ten years. Furthermore, within that one year time period, not only was the scientific development of the vaccine completed but so was the development of the requisite mass manufacturing processes and facilities. According to witnesses, a truncated testing of the laboratory-produced vaccines was carried out over a limited two-month test period, and no testing was carried out on the final product from the manufacturing facilities. The requirement for the manufacturers to demonstrate objective proof of the safety and efficacy of the new product was waived by the Interim Authorization Order. On September 16, 2021, the Minister of Health issued an Interim Order Respecting the Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs for Use in Relation to COVID-19. This Interim Order exempted the COVID-19 vaccines from Health Canada‘s normal review and approval process. According to Dr. Peter McCullough, given the characteristics and functions of the mRNA vaccines, they should be classified as biologics, necessitating a significantly greater in-depth testing protocol than traditional vaccines due to the risk of adverse effects. The Canadian public was never made aware of these issues. On December 9, 2020, the Government of Canada issued a press release concerning Health Canada‘s authorization of the first COVID-19 genetic vaccine. Here are relevant excerpts from it: Thanks to advances in science and technology, and an unprecedented level of global cooperation, today, Canada reached a critical milestone in its fight against COVID-19 with the authorization of the first COVID-19 genetic vaccine. Health Canada received Pfizer‘s submission on October 9, 2020 and after a thorough, independent review of the evidence, Health Canada has determined that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine meets the Department‘s stringent safety, efficacy and quality requirements for use in Canada. As part of its continued commitment to openness and transparency, Health Canada is publishing a number of documents related to this decision, including a high-level summary of the evidence that Health Canada reviewed to support the authorization of the vaccine. More detailed information will be available in the coming weeks, including a detailed scientific summary and the full clinical trial data package. The press release goes on to insist that Canadians can feel confident that the review process was rigorous and that we have strong monitoring systems in place. Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada will closely monitor the safety of the vaccine once it is on the market and will not hesitate to take action if any safety concerns are identified. This section of the report examines the statement by the Government of Canada that they had “strong monitoring systems in place.“ Testimony Concerning Canada‘s Vaccine Adverse Reactions Reporting System Although the discussion of this subject by its very nature is convoluted, it is not necessarily complex. To properly understand the issues surrounding Canada‘s vaccine adverse reactions reporting system, one must first understand why such a system was necessary in the case of the COVID-19 injections. What follows is a discussion of the COVID-19 injections, the process by which they were approved, the evolving definitions used to justify their use, a description of the system that Health Canada told Canadians was in place, and a discussion of the actual system that was in place as described by witness testimony. In the normal course of events, it is imperative that a rigorous reporting system be available to monitor the safety of any drug administered to the general population. The “normal course of events“ would have included years of laboratory development; peer-reviewed, independent testing; monitoring of any and all adverse events in the various test groups over a number of years to guard against unknown long-term effects; and the proper classification of the new treatment based on the way it acts on and effects the body. Historically, this process takes between 5–10 years, and sometimes more, depending on the nature of the treatment being evaluated. The safety and efficacy of any treatment must be proven to regulators based on a cost–risk–benefit analysis carried out on objective and independent evaluations prior to its approval for use. These conditions were not met in the case of the COVID-19 injections. The COVID-19 injections were exempted from the normal requirement of their objective proof of safety and efficacy, even though these mRNA-type injections had never before been used in the general population. In addition, regulatrs classified these treatments in such a way that they required less stringent criteria for their approval despite their novelty. Witnesses testified that these injections should have been classified as a biologic treatment rather than a simple vaccine as well as that the actual definition of a vaccine was revised to include these new and unproven experimental injections. The primary difference between a biologic and a traditional vaccine lies in their composition, manufacturing process, and mechanism of action. What follows is a breakdown of the distinction between them. Biologics: Biologics are medicinal products derived from living organisms such as proteins, nucleic acids, cells, or tissues. They can include monoclonal antibodies, recombinant proteins, hormones, growth factors, and gene therapies. Biologics are manufactured using complex and highly regulated processes that involve living organisms or their components. These processes often require advanced biotechnology techniques, such as cell culture, recombinant DNA technology, or gene expression systems. Biologics typically act by targeting specific molecules, receptors, or pathways in the body. They can modulate the immune system, inhibit or enhance specific cellular functions, or replace deficient proteins or cells. The mRNA injections have all of these characteristics and therefore should have been treated and approved as biologics instead of as vaccines. Traditional Vaccine: Traditional vaccines are typically composed of weakened or inactivated forms of infectious agents, such as viruses or bacteria, or specific components derived from these pathogens. They may also contain adjuvants or additives to enhance the immune response. Traditional vaccines are produced using well-established techniques, including viral or bacterial propagation, inactivation, attenuation, or extraction of specific components. Some vaccines are also produced using recombinant DNA technology. The CDC previously had defined a vaccine as A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol. Key Differences: Biologics are more complex in structure and have much more complex manufacturing processes compared to traditional vaccines. Biologics often target specific molecules, pathways, or cells in the body, whereas vaccines primarily focus on generating an immune response against specific pathogens. Compared to vaccines, biologics have a broader range of therapeutic applications beyond infectious diseases, which include treatments for cancer, autoimmune disorders, and genetic diseases. Vaccines, in contrast, primarily focus on preventing or treating infectious diseases. Before the COVID-19 injections, biologics and vaccines followed distinct, separate regulatory pathways. Biologics are typically regulated as biological products, while vaccines have specific regulatory guidelines and requirements. Vaccine Definition Changed In the years leading up to the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC changed the definitions of immunization , vaccination and vaccine multiple times. Here is a comparison of some of the changes in these definitions. Traditional Definition of a Vaccine: The traditional definition of a vaccine referred to a substance that contains weakened or inactivated forms of pathogens (viruses or bacteria) or specific components derived from them. The primary goal of traditional vaccines was to stimulate the immune system, leading to the production of antibodies and the development of immunological memory. This immune response provided protection against subsequent exposure to the actual infectious agent, thereby preventing disease. In July 2014, the CDC provided the following definition of immunization , vaccination , and vaccine : Immunization: The process by which a person or animal becomes protected against a disease. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation . Vaccination: Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease. Vaccine: A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol. Revised Definition of a Vaccine: The current definition of vaccine encompasses a broad range of technologies and mechanisms. It includes traditional vaccines as well as a variety of new, experimental treatments, which have no relation to what or how traditional vaccines are developed or affect the body. Presenting them to the public under the familiar and widely trusted definition of vaccine disguises their true experimental nature. Experimental vaccine platforms in the revised definition include Viral Vector Vaccines: These use a modified “harmless“ virus (the vector) to deliver genetic material from the target pathogen into cells, triggering an immune response. mRNA Vaccines: These introduce a small piece of genetic material (messenger RNA) that encodes the production of a specific viral protein. This mRNA is taken up by cells, which then produce the viral protein, triggering an immune response. Protein Subunit Vaccines: These contain specific proteins derived from the target pathogen, rather than the whole pathogen. These proteins can, by themselves, elicit an immune response. DNA Vaccines: These introduce a small piece of DNA that encodes the production of specific proteins from a targeted pathogen. The cells take up the DNA and produce the viral protein, initiating an immune response. Vector-based DNA/RNA Vaccines: These combine elements of Viral Vector and DNA/RNA technologies to deliver genetic material into cells for protein production and immune stimulation. The new, revised definition includes various technologies that trigger an immune response, generate immunological memory, and thereby confer protection against specific pathogens. It includes treatments and delivery methods that are new and experimental and had never before been used on the general population, at least in theory. At the time these treatments were introduced to the general public, there had been no long-term studies to determine the risk they posed. During the pandemic, the CDC changed and revised the definition of these terms on the fly, adjusting the definition of vaccine in order to include the COVID-19 injections, thereby justifying their introduction despite the lack of long-term safety data. To illustrate how relevant definitions have changed, the CDC provided the following definition of immunization , vaccination and vaccine in July 2014: Immunization: The process by which a person or animal becomes protected against a disease. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation. Vaccination: Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease. Vaccine: A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth, and by aerosol. From May 16, 2018 to September 1, 2021 the CDC used the following definition for immunity , vaccine , vaccination and immunization : Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected. Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person‘s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose. Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease. Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation . This was later revised to the following: Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected. Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body‘s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose. Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease. Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation . Rather than ensuring that a novel treatment could satisfy the definition of what a vaccine can do, the CDC adjusted the definition of vaccine , tailoring it to suit new technologies developed and promoted by the pharmaceutical industry, which the CDC is supposed to regulate. The definition of these terms was revised dozens of times between 2014 and 2023. The revised definitions have blurred the lines between biologics and vaccines. Drugs that can now be called vaccines, like those based on viral vectors or mRNA technology, exhibit characteristics of both traditional vaccines and biologics. The distinction lies in their composition, manufacturing, and mechanism of action. The above discussion demonstrates how the process that led to the manufacture and development of the COVID-19 vaccines was unlike any drug development or approval process ever before undertaken. The COVID-19 vaccines were based on novel technologies, which had never been used in the general population before; the process of development and testing was shortened from 5–10 years to a year or less; the key requirements of the approval process related to safety and efficacy were set aside; long term testing on population groups approximating the general population were never done; and the very definition of what the drugs were and supposed to do, kept changing. These and many other issues contributed to an unprecedented level of risk and uncertainty with these new drugs. The need to have a robust safety monitoring system was extreme. Safety issues related to the development, manufacturing, and distribution of prescription drugs can arise from various technological, manufacturing, and distribution factors. Here are some key areas where safety concerns may arise: Technological Issues: Formulation and Stability: Inadequate understanding of the drug‘s chemical properties or formulation can lead to stability issues, resulting in reduced efficacy or potential safety risks. Drug–Device Interactions: If a drug requires specialized delivery devices or technologies, compatibility issues between the drug and the device can arise, affecting drug effectiveness and patient safety. Nanotechnology and Biologics: Advancements in nanotechnology and biologics have introduced complex manufacturing processes and potential safety concerns due to their unique characteristics and potential interactions with the human body. Manufacturing Issues: Contamination and Cross-Contamination: Improper handling or contamination during the manufacturing process can introduce impurities, foreign substances, or microbial contaminants, compromising the drug‘s safety and quality. Quality Control and Assurance: Insufficient quality control measures or inadequate adherence to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) can lead to inconsistencies in drug potency, purity, or dosage, posing risks to patients. Scale-up Challenges: Transitioning from laboratory-scale production to commercial-scale manufacturing may introduce unforeseen safety issues if the process is not properly optimized or validated. Distribution Issues: Counterfeit Drugs: Illegitimate or counterfeit drugs can enter the distribution chain, potentially lacking active ingredients, containing harmful substances, or having incorrect labelling, leading to patient harm. Storage and Transportation: Inadequate storage conditions, temperature excursions, or mishandling during transportation can compromise drug integrity and efficacy, impacting patient safety. Supply Chain Integrity: Complex global supply chains increase the risk of drug diversion, unauthorized tampering, or substitution, compromising the safety and authenticity of the medication. Post-Marketing Surveillance: Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR): Even after thorough premarket clinical trials, some adverse reactions may only emerge once a drug is widely used. Robust post-marketing surveillance systems are crucial for detecting and monitoring ADRs to ensure timely intervention and patient safety. Labelling and Risk Communication: Inaccurate or insufficient drug labelling, which include warnings, contraindications, and precautions, can lead to improper use, misunderstandings, or increased safety risks for patients and healthcare providers. To address these safety issues, regulatory bodies like Health Canada are tasked with establishing and enforcing stringent regulations and guidelines. Pharmaceutical companies are also responsible for implementing quality management systems, conducting thorough risk assessments, and continuously monitoring and improving their manufacturing processes to ensure drug safety. Collaborative efforts between regulatory agencies, manufacturers, healthcare professionals, and the public are essential to minimize safety risks associated with prescription drugs and ensure the highest possible level of patient safety throughout the drug development, manufacturing, and distribution lifecycle. The most important part of a safety monitoring system must engage areas of society which will be subjected to the new drug. This includes patients, healthcare providers, pharmacies, regulators, and the manufacturers themselves. Following are the goals of a functioning adverse events monitoring system: Safety Monitoring: Vaccines undergo testing before they are approved for public use, but monitoring their safety post-approval is equally important. A reporting system allows healthcare professionals and individuals to report any adverse reactions they observe after vaccination. By collecting and analyzing this data, health authorities can identify potential safety concerns, evaluate the risks versus benefits, and take necessary actions to protect the population. Early Detection of all Side Effects: In a completely new drug based on a never-before-implemented technology utilizing a highly complex manufacturings process, it is impossible to predict before-hand exactly what level and types of adverse events may occur in the diverse general population. A comprehensive reporting system helps identify and investigate all side effects that may not have been detected during the initial clinical trials due to limited sample sizes. Early detection enables swift responses, which includes further investigation, changes in vaccination strategies, or updates to vaccine recommendations. This is especially important for COVID-19 injections as no mid-term or long-term testing was carried out prior to approval for use in the general population. Building Public Trust: Transparent and effective monitoring of vaccine adverse reactions helps build public trust in vaccination programs. When people have confidence that their concerns are being acknowledged, investigated, and acted upon, they are more likely to participate in adverse events reporting efforts. A robust reporting system assures the public that their safety is a priority and that the healthcare system is committed to addressing any potential risks associated with vaccines. Data-driven Decision Making: Accurate and timely reporting of adverse reactions provides valuable data for decision-making processes. Health authorities can analyze the reported cases to understand the characteristics of adverse reactions, such as their frequency, severity, demographics, and potential risk factors. This data can inform vaccine recommendations, guide public health policies, and support regulatory decisions regarding vaccine safety. Continuous Vaccine Improvement: A reporting system facilitates continuous monitoring and improvement of vaccines. By collecting information on adverse reactions, health authorities can identify patterns, assess the effectiveness of existing vaccines, and guide the development of future vaccines. This knowledge helps researchers and manufacturers make necessary adjustments to vaccines to enhance their safety profiles and minimize potential side effects. Global Collaboration: Adverse reaction reporting systems also contribute to international collaboration and information sharing. By participating in global networks, Canada can share its data and benefit from the experiences and knowledge of other countries. This collaboration strengthens global vaccine safety monitoring efforts and enables the identification of potential adverse events that may be specific to certain populations or regions. The need for a robust vaccine adverse reaction reporting system in Canada is essential for monitoring vaccine safety, detecting all side effects, building public trust, making data-driven decisions, improving vaccines, and facilitating global collaboration. It serves as a critical tool in ensuring the ongoing success of vaccination programs and protecting the health of the population. What the Adverse Events Monitoring System was Supposed to Be In Canada, vaccine safety monitoring is supposed to be conducted through various mechanisms and systems. Below are some key components of vaccine safety monitoring in Canada: Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System (CAEFISS): CAEFISS is also known as the Canadian Immunization Monitoring Program. Active (IMPACT) is a national surveillance program for monitoring adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) in children. It collects AEFI data from 12 pediatric tertiary care centres across Canada and analyzes the data to identify patterns, trends, and potential safety signals related to vaccines. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) United States: VAERS is a national passive surveillance system that allows healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public to voluntarily report adverse events following immunization. It serves as an important tool for detecting and monitoring potential safety concerns associated with vaccines. Provincial and Territorial Vaccine Safety Surveillance: Each Canadian province and territory has its own vaccine safety surveillance system, which monitor and investigate adverse events related to vaccines administered within their jurisdictions. These systems contribute to the overall vaccine safety monitoring efforts in Canada. Vaccine Safety Research and Studies: Canadian researchers conduct studies and research projects to investigate vaccine safety concerns, assess the effectiveness of vaccines, and monitor long-term safety outcomes. These studies often involve collaborations with academic institutions, healthcare providers, and government agencies. Collaboration with International Vaccine Safety Networks: Canada actively participates in international collaborations and networks, such as the World Health Organization‘s Global Vaccine Safety Initiative and the Vaccine Safety Datalink in the United States. These collaborations facilitate the exchange of information, including the sharing of best practices, and joint investigations of vaccine safety issues. Regulatory Oversight and Post-Market Surveillance: Health Canada, the federal regulatory agency, oversees the approval and ongoing monitoring of vaccines. Health Canada conducts post-market surveillance activities to monitor the safety of vaccines after they are approved and distributed. It collaborates with provincial and territorial health authorities, healthcare professionals, and other stakeholders to ensure comprehensive vaccine safety monitoring. Adverse Event Following Immunization (AEFI) Reporting: Healthcare providers are responsible for reporting any adverse events following immunization to the local public health authorities or relevant surveillance systems. Timely and accurate reporting of AEFIs is crucial for monitoring and investigating potential safety concerns. Through these mechanisms, Health Canada claims to ensure continuous vaccine safety monitoring, early detection of potential adverse events, and prompt response to emerging safety concerns. Health Canada also claims that their regular data analysis, collaboration, research, and regulatory oversight play significant roles in maintaining a robust vaccine safety monitoring system in the country. The system described above, certainly sounds like the robust safety monitoring system that Health Canada reassured Canadians that they had in place to protect Canadians. The reality of the system on the ground, as described by the testimony of witnesses, was that of a broken, impossible to use system, with gate-keepers who prevented accurate and timely reporting of adverse events. The Broken Monitoring System Canadians Got The entire adverse events reporting and monitoring system has a fatal flaw: it relies only on reports of adverse events received by healthcare professionals. Furthermore, these reports were discouraged, hindered, and rejected by local public health officers, and healthcare professionals were punished for reporting adverse events. Patient Reporting of Adverse Events Patients are not able to directly report adverse events to the CAEFISS reporting system. These reports must be funnelled through the healthcare providers. According to Health Canada: CAEFISS reports are submitted by public health authorities in provinces and territories, who in turn receive them from local public health units. Provincial and territorial authorities also receive reports from federal authorities that provide immunization within their jurisdiction, including: the RCMP, Indigenous Services Canada, and Correctional Service Canada. Most of these reports are generated by nurses, physicians, or pharmacists who provide immunizations or who care for individuals with AEFIs. AEFIs received by National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are reported directly to PHAC. Several witnesses testified that healthcare providers would outright deny or even refuse to consider claims of adverse reactions. Concerns from patients related to adverse reactions were played down or dismissed by doctors, despite the fact that since the mRNA vaccines were a new technology, healthcare professionals could never have known, for certain, what issues might present in patients. Based on the incredibly fast and unique method that was used to approve both the vaccines and their manufacturing processes, it was highly possible that even if the basic technology of these novel vaccines was safe, any variety of adverse events might occur as a result of the manufacturing, distribution, handling, or injection of these drugs. It is unbelievable that healthcare workers would simply dismiss patient claims when considering the dozens of mechanisms and potential issues with these drugs. Some witnesses reported that when they had experienced an adverse reaction to the injection, their own doctors told them they would not report it as an adverse reaction due to fear of reprisal or ridicule. Nurse Angela Taylor described how she had experienced a severe reaction to the COVID-19 Injection. Doctors not only refused to report the event but also tried to coerce her into taking a 2nd and 3rd injection. Kristin Ditzel experienced a severe reaction to the injection within 25 minutes of receiving the shot but was told her reaction was not due to the vaccine.. Healthcare Workers Reporting of Adverse Events Many physicians testified that they had been prevented from or punished for reporting adverse reactions to the COVID-19 injections. Dr. Patrick Phillips testified that he had reported five adverse events due to vaccine and the public health officer had rejected all of them, without explanation. A complaint to the regulator against Dr. Phillips was made due to the submission of these adverse event reports. The public health officer did not actually see any of the patients. Dr. Patrick Provost testified that none of his five vaccine adverse events (VAES) to the mRNA-LPN injection were reported by his treating endocrinologist. One reaction was an exacerbation of his type-1 diabetes that he managed to control himself by fine-tuning his insulin dosing. Not only did his endocrinologist refuse to the report his VAEs, but he also refused to provide him an exemption for his second dose, arguing that the issue with complication of his type-1 diabetes was now under control with proper dosing of insulin. When Patrick managed to find a healthcare worker who reported his VAEs to the INSPQ (Institut national de santé publique du Québec), he was told by a nurse from the INSPQ, that some of his VAEs were not going to be recorded as they happened six weeks after vaccination, which is the accepted window for traditional vaccines. Dr. Provost then did a large retrospective analysis of VAEs as monitored by patients‘ modifications to their drug prescriptions. In his study, published in the peer-reviewed journal IJVTPR (International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research) on January 2023, he discovered that the six weeks’ window is too short as 75 per cent of VAEs occurred after six weeks In a second study published in IJVTPR, based on two cases studies of unreported VAEs, he identified up to 40 obstacles of reporting VAEs properly. He also showed that underreporting of VAEs is really the blind spot of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Dr. Provost said that we knew before the COVID-19 vaccination that the underreporting factor was at least 10, but we now realized that it‘s more than 40–100. Dr. Dion Davidson testified that he had difficulty trying to fill out the online form to report to the adverse events reporting system. He indicated that making a report would take upwards of 45 minutes to do, so most healthcare workers would not do it. Testimony from first responders detailed that the type of calls for help changed significantly once the vaccines were rolled out to the public and that no reporting of those events as adverse reactions to the COVID-19 injections was carried out. Dr. Chong Wong testified that he told one of his patients that she should not take any more COVID-19 injections, after she developed blood-clots following the first injection. The patient had been contacted by and told by the public health nurse to take the second shot despite the adverse reaction. The public health nurse had not actually seen the patient or Doctor Wong prior to her giving this advice to the patient. Dr. Gregory Chan further stated that as of May 2021, he and his colleagues could not use the federal reporting system, so he started to use the Alberta provincial system, Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI). Dr. Gregory Chan testified that he could not navigate the provincial reporting site and could not actually make reports on the website. He finally printed the forms and filled them out manually. He had made 56 reports of adverse reactions due to the COVID-19 injections. He reported that of the 56 reports, he received no acknowledgment from public health on approximately half of them; of the second half of the 56 reports, six were accepted into the system, six were rejected, and nine have not been addressed. Of the 28 reports acknowledged by Alberta Health, public health advised 16 of them to get the next injection, despite not having actually seen any of these patients. Dr. Chan reviewed the online criteria systems as set out by Alberta Health and confirmed his 56 reports qualified as adverse reactions as defined by the website. Dr. Chan further testified that as of May 2021, he and his colleagues could not use the federal reporting system. He reported that five months into the rollout of the vaccines, the CAEFISS system was frustrating as it went from link to link resulting in him having to print off a form to complete by hand. Dr. Justin Chin testified that both patients and doctors were failing to identify adverse events caused by COVID-19 vaccinations. Nurse Serena Steven experienced a severe adverse reaction within one hour of receiving the injection, was sent home from the emergency room, and no report of the adverse event was made by medical staff. Dr. Charles Hoffe noticed significant issues in his patients and sent a private email to 18 of his colleagues questioning if any of them were seeing any of these issues. One of these 18 doctors sent the email to the regional health authorities, who called him in for a meeting; he was told that he was putting patients at risk by questioning the injections. A complaint was filed with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and he was told not to discuss any of this with any of his colleagues. He was directed to pose any future questions to the public health officer. Dr. Hoffe noted significant neurological issues in his long-time patients, so he sent a letter to the medical health officer asking for assistance. There was no response, and his letter was forwarded by the public health officer to the College of Physicians and Surgeons as a new complaint against him. Dr. Hoffe was referred to a vaccine safety specialist who claimed that Dr. Hoffe's observations were incorrect, although she had not seen any of his patients. He was told he should make an adverse reactions report but that these reports would not trigger an investigation. Dr. Rene Lavigueur testified that if he told the truth about adverse reactions, he was in conflict with public health and at risk of losing his licence. He said he was being forced to simply follow orders. He filled out 16 adverse events reports, but everyone else was too afraid to do it or to even speak about it. He had patients come to him to say their regular doctor had refused to report their adverse events. Dr. Lavigueur stated that the public health officials were evaluating the reports of COVID-19 vaccine injuries based on checklists that that had been developed with regard to traditional vaccine reactions, failing to understand that COVID-19 injections were not traditional vaccines. Conclusions Based on the high level of risk associated with the development, manufacture, and distribution of the novel COVID-19 injections, it was extremely important that any reporting system was designed to collect and examine all reports of alleged vaccine injuries. Such a system would have to be open to everyone who is affected by the vaccines, including patients, and the system would have to be readily available and easy to interact with. Healthcare professionals should have been encouraged to report their findings, and all reports should have been entered into the overall system without filtering by frontline staff or public health officials. The adverse events reporting system, with the exception of the pediatric system, is not only based on a passive reporting model, but healthcare providers were also actively being discouraged from making these reports. Some physicians were reprimanded by their regulators, and others lost their jobs or lost their licence for reporting adverse events. The system utilized to report adverse events due to COVID-19 injections has failed for a wide range of reasons: some are functional shortcomings in the system; other reasons include willful dismissal of the data and an unwillingness to acknowledge that the initial expectations and analysis were in error. More specifically the problems include: Underreporting: Like many passive surveillance systems, the adverse event reporting system relies on healthcare professionals voluntarily reporting AEFIs. Underreporting remains a challenge, leading to potential gaps in data and an incomplete understanding of vaccine safety profiles. Based on the testimony of many witnesses, doctors were actively discouraged and punished for reporting adverse events. Representativeness: The data collected by the system primarily came from a very limited number of healthcare professionals who had the courage to report. This data cannot be expected to fully capture adverse events experienced by the broader population. Data Quality and Standardization: Ensuring consistent data collection methods and standardized reporting is essential to improve data quality and comparability. Efforts should be made to streamline data collection and harmonize reporting practices across different sites. Vaccine Hesitancy and Misinformation: Instead of listening to what doctors and patients were reporting, public health officials decided to categorize many of these injuries as being related to vaccine hesitancy and misinformation, which impacted reporting rates and the overall perception of vaccine safety. Timeliness: Prompt reporting and analysis of AEFIs are crucial for timely identification and response to potential safety concerns. Ensuring efficient data collection, analysis, and dissemination of findings is needed to address delays and improve the timeliness of vaccine safety monitoring. Recommendations To improve the vaccine adverse reactions reporting system, several recommendations must be considered: A. Enhance Healthcare Provider Education and Awareness: Provide comprehensive education and training to healthcare providers on the importance of adverse event reporting, including the recognition and reporting of vaccine-related adverse events. Streamline the reporting process to make it more user-friendly and efficient. Provide mandatory ongoing education of public health officials to provide insights into the risks associated with novel drug implementation so that they understand the difference between traditional vaccine-type medications and new biologic medications. Ensure that on the release of any new drug that all parties involved with the administration or monitoring are fully aware of the actual nature of the drugs under consideration. Some of the shortfalls in the system during COVID-19 had to do with a lack of understanding concerning the nature of these injections. Provide re-education for colleges of physicians and surgeons across Canada on the principle behind procedures required and the importance of the adverse event monitoring system. B. Promote Public Awareness and Engagement: Launch public awareness campaigns to educate the general public about the importance of reporting vaccine adverse events. Provide accessible information on how and where to report adverse events, emphasizing the role individuals play in vaccine safety monitoring. Provide a portal through which patients can directly report their alleged vaccine injuries to the system. Encourage vaccine recipients and caregivers to report any adverse events they observe following vaccination. C. Improve Reporting Infrastructure: Develop user-friendly online reporting platforms or mobile applications to simplify and streamline the reporting process for healthcare providers and the public. Ensure reporting mechanisms are easily accessible, with clear instructions and options for reporting adverse events, including user-friendly interfaces and multilingual support. D. Implement Active Surveillance Systems: Augment passive surveillance systems with active surveillance components to actively identify and monitor adverse events, especially rare or serious events that may be missed through passive reporting alone. Augment passive surveillance systems with active surveillance components to actively identify and monitor patient complaints and trends or patterns of patient complaints following a drug rollout. Implement proactive strategies, such as automated electronic health record data mining, to identify potential safety signals and conduct targeted investigations. E. Strengthen Collaboration and Data Sharing: Foster collaboration between different stakeholders, including healthcare providers, public health agencies, vaccine manufacturers, and research institutions, to facilitate seamless data sharing and exchange of information. Immediately end the practice of public health officials directly contacting patients and advising them to undertake medical procedures contrary to the attending physician‘s instructions. Enhance integration between national and international vaccine safety networks to leverage collective expertise, share best practices, and collaborate on investigations of global vaccine safety concerns. F. Ensure Timely Analysis and Communication of Findings: Prioritize timely analysis of reported adverse events to identify potential safety signals promptly. Ensure that those evaluating the data are capable of recognizing and analyzing the data, despite their professional biases. Ensure clear and transparent communication of findings to healthcare providers, the public, and other relevant stakeholders, while considering the balance between timely communication and the need for thorough investigation. G. Continuous Evaluation and Improvement: Regularly assess the performance and effectiveness of the reporting system, including feedback from healthcare providers, the public, and other stakeholders, to identify areas for improvement. Incorporate advancements in technology and data analytics to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of adverse event reporting and analysis. By implementing these recommendations, the vaccine adverse reporting system can become more robust, efficient, and responsive, leading to improved vaccine safety monitoring and better protection of public health. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

Approval of Covid-19 Vaccines was virtually guaranteed under the Interim Order Interim Authorization of Covid-19 Vaccine Introduction The Commission received detailed information about the procedure through which "approval" for COVID-19 vaccines was granted in Canada. According to the testimony, the conventional evaluation and endorsement process for the COVID-19 vaccines was not adhered to by the Canadian Government. Instead, a new process was established whereby Health Canada "authorized" the Covid-19 vaccines under an Interim Order (which was later adopted as a permanent regulation). It is important to understand that the Covid-19 vaccines were never approved under the traditional approval process for drugs in Canada. Under the alternative authorization process, the necessity to establish the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines through an objective manner appears to have been set aside. Objectively and independently proving the safety and efficacy of any new drug before its introduction into the market is an essential cornerstone of responsible healthcare and public safety. This rigorous requirement serves as a critical safeguard for individuals' well- being, ensuring that potential risks are thoroughly assessed and weighed against the benefits. This principle becomes even more pivotal when the drug is intended for widespread use across all segments of the population. The blanket use of a drug, especially one like the Covid-19 vaccines, necessitates an unassailable foundation of evidence. Rigorous testing, transparent evaluation, and independent verification of safety and efficacy are fundamental to instilling trust among both healthcare professionals and the general public. This approach ensures that medical interventions are based on the most accurate and reliable information available. In the context of a global health crisis, these principles are vital to ensuring that public health measures are not only effective but also respectful of individuals' rights and dignity. It is imperative that all drugs proposed to be released to the public be objectively and independently proven to be both safe and effective. It is for this reason that strict proof of safety and efficacy have been required by our drug approval regulations. The need to prove both safety and efficacy take on particular importance for drugs intended for the entire population, including children and pregnant women. This approach forms the bedrock of responsible medical practice and contributes to a society that values health, science, and the dignity of each person. Testimony Concerning Interim Authorization of Covid-19 Vaccines The following vaccines were authorized by Health Canada under the Interim Order: Pfizer-BioNTech on December 9, 2020 for ages 16 and older, and May 5, 2021 for ages 12-15; Moderna on December 23, 2020 for ages 18 and over and August 27, 2021 for ages 12-17; AstraZeneca on February 26, 2021 for ages 18 and older, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) on March 5, 2021 for ages 18 and older. The Commission received testimony from two key witnesses, Shawn Buckley and Deanna McLeod, regarding the procedure through which the authorization of Covid-19 vaccines took place in Canada. The initial authorization of all Covid-19 vaccines was provided under a temporary, Interim Order, which exempted them from the traditional regulations that demand manufacturers to demonstrate objective evidence of safety and effectiveness. The result was that while chief medical officers across the country repeatedly assured Canadians that the Covid-19 vaccines were "safe and effective" - the general Canadian population had no understanding that their authorization process had not required objective proof of safety nor efficacy. Shawn Buckley The Political Approval of the Covid Vaccine: A Constitutional Lawyer's Perspective The normal regulatory process for approving a new drug in Canada is set out in Division 8 of Canada's Food and Drug Regulations (the "Regulations”). To receive approval for a new drug in Canada, the Regulations require evidence of both the drug's safety and effectiveness be demonstrated to the Minister of Health. Once evidence of safety and efficacy is provided, the Minister considers whether the benefits outweigh the risks. If evidence of safety and effectiveness has been provided that shows the benefits outweigh the risk, the Minister may grant market approval of a new drug. These first steps of demonstrating safety and effectiveness, before approval, are essential to ensuring that Canadians are not exposed to unknown risks in the name of unknown effectiveness. The Federal Government’s creation of the Interim Order required Health Canada to approve the Covid-19 vaccines without proof of either safety or of efficacy which resulted in millions of Canadians taking a new drug whose safety and effectiveness could not be known. The unfortunate result of authorizing the Covid-19 vaccines through the Interim Order (instead of under the traditional approval process under the Regulations) was revealed through NCI testimony – many Canadians were injured or killed, while at the same time the Covid-19 vaccine was revealed not to be effective in preventing infection and transmission nor reducing the severity of illness. The benefit of hindsight demonstrates clearly why the traditional tests under the Regulations are needed for all new drug approvals, and why Canada should not authorize drugs under Interim Orders, even in cases of public health emergencies. The Traditional Drug Approval Process The requirements that must be met to approve a new drug in Canada are found in C.08.002(2) of the Regulations. Of particular importance are high requirements for proof of both safety and efficacy. These are found as follows: C.08.002(2) A new drug submission shall contain sufficient information and material to enable the Minister to assess the safety and effectiveness of the new drug, including the following: detailed reports of the tests made to establish the safety of the new drug for the purpose and under the conditions of use recommended; substantial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of the new drug for the purpose and under the conditions of use recommended[.] Under the traditional approval process in the Regulations the first step is to establish the safety profile of the new drug and demonstrate to the Minister of Health that the drug is safe for use in the human population. The second step is to establish the new drug’s benefit profile, in other words, is it effective, does it work. The third step, although not specifically included in the regulation, is to evaluate the Risk / Benefit profile for the drug. In other words, the regulatory review has to establish that the benefits of using the drug outweigh the risk of using the drug. One cannot satisfy the requirement for a risk/benefit analysis without a complete understanding of the drug's safety and benefit profile. Interim Order: Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs in Relation to COVID-19 Instead of following the Regulations, on September 16, 2021, the Minister of Health made an Interim Order exempting all Covid-19 drugs (including Covid-19 vaccines) from the normal review and approval process. The Interim Order was made under section 30.1 of the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-27, which permits the Minister of Health to make an interim order that overrides normal regulations. The section reads: 30.1 (1) The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment. The term “significant risk” is not defined in the Act, nor is there any proportionality built into this section. Thus, there do not appear to be any legislative safeguards or guidelines for when this power to override is used by the Minister of Health. Under this broad power, the Minister made the Interim Order which, rather than requiring significant evidence of safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines as mandatory requirements for approval, only required the vaccine manufacturers to provide: 3(1) … sufficient information and material to enable the Minister to determine whether to issue the authorization, including … (o) the known information in relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of the drug. By letting the Minister make a decision based on "known information" about safety and effectiveness, this allowed the Covid-19 vaccines to be authorized in advance of actual knowledge about their safety or effectiveness. The Interim Order attempted to make up for this by having manufacturers promise to do more follow-up research as follows: 3(2) If, at the time an application is initially submitted to the Minister, the applicant is unable to provide information or material referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(g) to (k) and (m) to (o) or that information or material is incomplete, the applicant must include in the initial part of the application a plan as to how and when they will provide the Minister with the missing information or material. However, as will be discussed further below, the Interim Order also prevented the Minister from revoking authorization once given, meaning that the Minister was absolved of the responsibility to protect the public if subsequent safety problems were discovered in the Covid-19 vaccines. It is vital to recognize that when the Interim Order was issued, the Minister of Health at the time had attended Lakehead University, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts, and had received a Master of Public Administration from the University of Victoria. To our understanding, the minister possessed no medical training credentials that we would consider pertinent to making the required determinations under the regulations. Approval of Covid-19 Vaccines was virtually guaranteed under the Interim Order Remarkably, the Interim Order effectively required Health Canada to authorize a Covid-19 vaccine for use in the Canadian population even in the absence of detailed evidence of safety and substantial evidence of efficacy. Section 5 of the Interim Order provides: The Minister must issue an authorization in respect of a Covid-19 drug if the following requirements are met: the applicant has submitted an application to the Minister that meets the requirements set out in subsection 3(1) or 4(2); the applicant has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13(2); and the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to Covid-19. The test set out in (c) above is startling when compared to the traditional test for new drugs under the Regulations. Under the traditional test, evidence of safety and efficacy must be proven. Under the Interim Order, there only needs to be "evidence to support the conclusion" that the benefits outweigh the risks. This does not mean the Minister (i.e., Health Canada) has to be convinced and actually reach the conclusion. If the test was to convince Health Canada, the test would read: the Minister has sufficient evidence to conclude The difference in language is important. Under this test, it appears that a vaccine would have to be authorized as long as there was sufficient evidence to support an argument that the benefits outweighed the risks. In addition, the risk versus benefit test need not be robust, as the Minister is to "have regard" for the "uncertainties" of the benefits and risks. It is not clear how the Minister is expected to perform a risk versus benefit analysis when there is insufficient safety and efficacy evidence to determine true risks versus benefits. It is even more unclear how to perform a risk versus benefit analysis while "having regard to the uncertainties" of the risks versus benefits. Ultimately, the Interim Order reveals that the Minister's priority was the "necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to Covid-19." The problem, of course, is that under this test, the government placed its perceived "urgent public health need" ahead of safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines. This appears to be what the Government of Canada actually did. Regardless of whether the need for a drug is urgent, this cannot override a proper assessment of safety, particularly when Canadians are under the impression that a drug has been proven safe. The NCI was not made aware of any public health authority in Canada cautioning Canadians that the vaccines had been authorized without the traditional need to prove their safety. Instead, the Government of Canada was under enormous pressure in the media to secure vaccines and make them available to Canadians. In response, it placed orders for millions of doses from the manufacturers. This placed the Government in a conflict of interest because it had purchased and imported unapproved vaccines while it waited for itself to approve the vaccines. The Interim Order appears to have been designed to ensure that the vaccines would have no problem in receiving authorization. As indicated above, in the traditional drug approval process, chances are not taken. If there is uncertainty about either safety or efficacy, the drug is not approved. There must be strict objective evidence of both safety and efficacy. It must also be objectively clear that the benefits outweigh the risks before a new drug is approved. It can only be objectively clear that the benefits of a drug outweigh the risks when the benefits and risks are objectively known. The test for Covid-19 vaccines abandoned this need for objective certainty. Instead of requiring objective proof of: safety; efficacy, and benefit outweighing risk. The Covid-19 vaccines were authorized under a subjective test which mandated that authorization must be granted if an argument could be made to support the conclusion that the benefits outweighed the risk. The question arises: what if there was evidence that went both ways? In other words, what if there was evidence that pointed towards greater benefits, but there was also evidence that pointed towards risks? Under the Interim Order, it seems the Minister must then take into account the subjective factors of: uncertainty and the urgent public health need for a vaccine. This cannot be an appropriate standard for approving a drug that the Government intends to administer to the entire population. It is difficult to conceive of a less-scientific test for drug authorization than that found in the Interim Order. The Interim Order also ensured that the authorization of a Covid-19 vaccine could not be revoked: due to evidence the vaccine was unsafe or not-effective; due to assessments the benefits did not outweigh the risks. This resulted from the fact that once a vaccine was authorized under the Interim Order, most of the Regulations did not apply, including C.08.006. This particular regulation is the safeguard that allows the Minister of Health to cancel a drug’s market authorization if evidence is uncovered that the drug is not safe. Instead, the Interim Order contained its own vague safeguards allowing for cancellation only in a few limited circumstances. The exclusion of the Minister’s normal powers to revoke authorization, and the reliance on more restricted revocation powers under the Interim Order means that Canadians could not have confidence that the Covid-19 vaccines would be pulled from the market if there was evidence that they were not safe. This situation persisted for roughly a year. Were the Covid-19 Vaccines Approved Without Safety or Efficacy Proof? In addition to the Interim Order, Health Canada created a document called "Guidance for market authorization requirements for Covid-19 vaccines." This document is intended to provide guidance to pharmaceutical companies applying for market authorization. As it must, it follows the new subjective test for the vaccines. For example, the current version includes: About market authorizations for a Covid-19 vaccine Health Canada will grant authorizations only if we determine that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh its potential risks. We will base our decision on the evidence provided on the vaccine's safety, quality and efficacy. For vaccines relying on the modified requirements in C.08.002 (2.1) of the Food and Drug Regulations, the risk- benefit analysis weighs the uncertainties about a potential vaccine against the public health need for a vaccine at the time of the decision. Modified requirements for Covid-19 drugs make it possible for initial authorization, based on early data, while the manufacturer continues working on developing a vaccine. We will use terms and conditions to manage uncertainties or risk mitigation measures related to the vaccine in the context of public health. The NCI heard testimony that the Health Canada employee who authorized all of the Covid-19 vaccines swore an Affidavit for a lawsuit for Federal Court File No. T-145-22 in which she described the basis of Health Canada's authorization of the Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. Instead of setting out the evidence relied on in support of the authorization, she simply parrots the words of the test. In the case of Pfizer/ BioNTech, she stated that Health Canada reviewed "quality (chemistry and manufacturing), non-clinical (pharmacology and toxicology), and clinical (immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy) information" and then concluded that "the evidence supports the conclusion that the benefits associated with the Pfizer.BioNTech COVID.19 Vaccine outweigh the risks, having regard to a shorter term (median of 2 months) follow up of safety and efficacy at authorization, and the necessity of addressing the urgent public need related to COVID.19." In the case of Moderna, she stated similarly that: "the evidence supported the conclusion that the benefits associated with the Moderna COVID.19 Vaccine outweighed the risks, having regard to a shorter term (median of 2 months) follow up of safety and efficacy at authorization, and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID.19." Notably, what she does not cite in support of the vaccine authorization is: objective proof of safety; objective proof of efficacy, and objective proof that the benefits outweigh the risks. Based on testimony to the NCI, and without further evidence from Health Canada, we cannot conclude that Health Canada properly evaluated the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines before authorization. To the contrary, the authorization of the vaccines appears to have been all but pre-assured by the creation of the Interim Order. The Interim Order Has Become Permanent The Interim Order can only last for a maximum of one year. The Interim Order, therefore, was replaced on March 18, 2021, with permanent regulations that codify the subjective authorization test discussed above. The only notable change between the test in the Interim Order and the new permanent regulation is that the "public health need" that needs to be addressed is no longer described as urgent. Recall that the Interim Order required an examination of risks and benefits, while: “having regard to “the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to Covid-19" Now the test simply requires Health Canada to give consideration to “the public health need related to Covid-19.” Thus, under the permanent test, Health Canada no longer has to be swayed by urgency, but simply by the public health need related to Covid-19. In this way, it seems that so long as Covid-19 is a circulating virus, Health Canada must authorize any vaccine for which there is an argument to support the conclusion that its benefits outweigh its risks. In effect, we fear that there will never be a need for Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers to prove safety or efficacy of their products. On a positive note, the NCI heard that the Minister's ability to revoke authorization of Covid-19 vaccines is now subject to the same regular rules as other drugs that are approved for the market. It does beg the question, however, of why was that particular rule modified for Covid-19 vaccines in the first place? Conflict of Interests for the Approval of Experimental Vaccines Canada normally prohibits drugs from being imported into Canada unless they have been approved by Health Canada for use in humans. Despite this, the Interim Order allowed unapproved and unauthorized Covid-19 vaccines to be imported into Canada as long as the Canadian Government was the purchaser. This was called pre-positioning in the Interim Order, and later in the Regulations codifying the Interim Order. The rationale was to assist Canada in expediting its response to the perceived Covid-19 crisis, by pre-purchasing and distributing the vaccines so they would be ready as soon as they were authorized. However, this created a tremendous conflict of interest. Once the vaccines were purchased, imported and ready for distribution, the Government of Canada would have suffered significant political blowback if it was unable to authorize them. Thus, it needed to authorize the Covid-19 vaccines, and it needed to do it quickly. The Government of Canada essentially put itself in charge of authorizing a drug that it had spent millions of public dollars on, had promised publicly on many occasions, and that it wanted to administer to every Canadian citizen. The authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines was all but guaranteed. The Government of Canada ordered the vaccines, imported them, created new regulations to authorize them, and then took significant measures to convince and coerce every Canadian to take multiple doses. The political stakes were high, and the federal government had every motivation to get the vaccines authorized, regardless of their actual efficacy or safety. There was no opportunity for sober second thought. There was no impartial oversight. The entire authorization process appears to have been "gamed" for one result, and one result only: authorization of vaccines for every Canadian, including children. Once the federal Government made mass-vaccination its priority, it should no longer have been solely responsible for their authorization. Timing of the Interim Order The timing of the Interim Order is also curious and coincident. Notably, the September 16, 2020 Interim Order was created just two weeks before AstraZeneca's authorization application was filed with Health Canada, and just three weeks before Pfizer filed on October 8, 2020. Since the authorization applications were made under the Interim Order, they would have been structured to meet the requirements of the Interim Order. Perhaps an authorization application is a standard document, however, the NCI suspects that it would be difficult for a company to prepare a detailed authorization application without knowing what the authorization requirements were going to be. For this reason, there are further questions that need to be answered about how the applications could have been filed so quickly in a manner that satisfied the subjective test, and whether there was participation in creating, or knowledge of the contents of, the test in advance. Phase Three Trial Data Alleged Manipulation of Data Deana McLeod Insights into Covid Vaccine Approval and Trials Deana McLeod's testimony has raised important concerns about the means and methods used in testing Covid-19 vaccines. Her testimony primarily centred on potential conflicts of interest and biases within the teams responsible for conducting and reporting Phase Three test data, which was submitted to Health Canada. Additionally, McLeod shed light on Pfizer's historical legal issues and the broader issue of potential conflicts of interest within the regulatory and approval sector. Her testimony echoed Mr. Shawn Buckley's prior statement that objective tests demonstrating safety and efficacy were omitted from these products. Financial incentives at various stages of the testing and authorization process were also discussed, prompting the need for a thorough examination of motivations. McLeod's testimony serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency, objectivity, and independence in the testing and approval of medical products, especially when it concerns a global health crisis. The potential for conflicts of interest and biases within such a critical process can erode public trust and compromise the credibility of the regulatory framework. The reference to Pfizer's past legal issues underscores the necessity for scrutinizing the track record of pharmaceutical companies involved in the development of vaccines or drugs. The public has a right to be informed about any potential historical shortcomings or ethical concerns that might impact the reliability of the products in question. The removal of objective safety and efficacy tests from the products raises alarming questions about the standards applied to these vaccines. Rigorous testing is the cornerstone of any vaccine's credibility and the foundation of public trust. Omitting such tests potentially undermines the credibility of the entire testing and approval process. The mention of financial motivations at various levels of testing and approval emphasizes the need for greater transparency and accountability within the industry. The potential for financial incentives to influence decision-making is a cause for concern and demands further investigation to ensure that public health is prioritized over financial gain. Lastly, the allusion to Statistics Canada data provided during the testimony highlights the need for comprehensive, reliable, and complete data when assessing the impact of any medical intervention. It is crucial to base decisions on thorough and unbiased information to ensure the well-being of the population. In conclusion, Deana McLeod's testimony raises vital questions about the processes, motivations, and ethics involved in Covid-19 vaccine testing and authorization. This testimony underscores the necessity for transparent, objective, and unbiased approaches in these critical endeavours. The concerns raised must prompt a broader discussion about regulatory practices, industry accountability, and the integrity of medical interventions in the interest of public health and safety. Conclusions There appeared to be a disconnect between Health Canada messaging concerning vaccine approval and the actual test used for authorization. As indicated above, safety, efficacy and whether the benefits of the vaccines outweighed the risks did not need to be proven under the Interim Authorization process employed by Health Canada. Despite the novel nature of the vaccines – in particular those using mRNA – the pharmaceutical companies did not have to objectively prove their safety and efficacy. It should be noted that the special authorization process created under the Interim Order was not mandatory, and pharmaceutical companies still had the option to apply for approval under the regular test which required objective proof of safety, efficacy and cost/ benefit. The pharmaceutical companies did not choose to objectively prove safety, efficacy and cost/benefit. They chose to apply under the Interim Order test, and regulators did not require it of them. Of great concern is the disconnect between Health Canada's public messaging about the Covid-19 vaccines as safe and effective when the regulatory authorization process clearly does not require these be objectively demonstrated. Health Canada continues to message to the public that the regular drug approval requirements of safety and efficacy were met. For example, at the top of Health Canada’s website page for the Pfizer vaccine, Health Canada states: All Covid-19 vaccines authorized in Canada are proven safe, effective and of high quality [emphasis in the original]. Recommendations Newly implemented revisions to the Food and Drug Regulations related to the authorization of Covid-19 vaccines must be rescinded as they permanently exempt Covid-19 vaccines from the requirements to objectively prove the Safety or Efficacy as required under the Food and Drug Regulations. The current use of Covid-19 vaccines in Canada that were authorized under the revised provisions of the Interim Order and the newly revised Food and Drug Regulations, should be stopped immediately. A full judicial investigation of the process under which the Covid-19 vaccinations were authorized in Canada must be carried out. Criminal liability, if discovered, may be dealt with under existing Canadian law. All documentation concerning the authorization process and information provided to the regulatory agencies by the manufacturers should be made publicly available. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

4.2 Child Trafficking 4.2 Child Trafficking Introduction Child trafficking is the illegal recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of children for the purpose of exploitation, which may include forced labour, sexual exploitation, illegal adoption, or involvement in criminal activities. It involves the use of coercion, deception, or abuse of power to remove children from their families or communities and place them in exploitative situations where their basic rights and freedoms are violated. Child trafficking is recognized as a serious violation of human rights and is often carried out by organized criminal networks that prey on vulnerable children, including those living in poverty, displaced by conflict, or lacking adequate protection and support systems. Child trafficking is a pervasive issue that exploits vulnerable populations worldwide, including within Canada. Witnesses at the Vancouver NCI hearings provided harrowing testimony on the systemic failures that enable trafficking networks to thrive, highlighting gaps in child protective services, societal awareness, and international collaboration. Traffickers target children in precarious situations, including those in foster care or from marginalized communities such as Indigenous populations, exploiting them for labor, sexual abuse, or other illicit activities. Testimonies underscored the need for preventative measures, robust interagency cooperation, and enhanced trauma-informed care to combat trafficking effectively. Discussion of Witness Testimonies Leigh Dundas Overview of Testimony Leigh Dundas, a prominent human rights attorney and anti-trafficking advocate, provided powerful testimony at the Vancouver NCI hearings. Drawing on her extensive experience in combating human trafficking on both domestic and international fronts, Dundas detailed the systemic, organized nature of child trafficking networks and the vulnerabilities in societal structures that enable these networks to thrive. Her testimony offered a stark overview of the scale and sophistication of child trafficking operations, emphasizing the urgent need for comprehensive strategies to combat this pervasive issue. Key Points of Testimony Organized Nature of Trafficking Networks Dundas described child trafficking as a highly organized, profit-driven industry comparable to drug and arms trafficking. Structure and Sophistication: Traffickers operate with a level of organization akin to multinational corporations, employing recruiters, enforcers, transporters, and managers to sustain their operations. She highlighted how these networks use advanced logistics, including encrypted communications and falsified documents, to evade law enforcement. Worldwide human trafficking is a $150 Billion dollar per year industry, and it is estimated that 40 million people are being trafficked. In Canada it is estimated that 17,000 people are being trafficked. Human trafficking is the most rapidly growing criminal enterprise worldwide. Most people who are trafficked in Canada are trafficked by someone they know. Many of the girls who are trafficked (one third) are runaways. Branding and Control: Traffickers often tattoo or barcode victims to mark them as “property,” dehumanizing them and ensuring control. Dundas noted that this branding reinforces psychological manipulation, making it harder for victims to escape or seek help. Economic Incentives: Unlike drugs or weapons, trafficked children can be exploited repeatedly, making trafficking a highly lucrative enterprise. Dundas cited trafficking’s status as a multi-billion-dollar industry, incentivizing criminal networks to expand and innovate. Systemic Vulnerabilities Enabling Trafficking Dundas identified critical gaps in societal and institutional structures that traffickers exploit. Child Protective Services (CPS): Traffickers often target children in CPS care, particularly those in group homes or foster placements. Dundas detailed how the lack of security and oversight in these settings creates opportunities for traffickers to recruit or re-traffic children. • Transnational Operations: Canada’s status as a first world nation with major transport hubs makes it a source, transit point, and destination for trafficked children. Traffickers use legitimate businesses, such as shipping companies and airlines, to facilitate the movement of victims across borders. Technology and Social Media: Traffickers increasingly use social media platforms to groom and recruit children, exploiting their desire for connection or financial support. Encrypted messaging apps and the dark web provide traffickers with tools to coordinate operations and evade detection. Erosion of Parental Rights The erosion of parental rights is a significant risk to children being trafficked. In the majority of instances, no one is more concerned with the welfare of a child than their parents. Trafficking’s Psychological and Physical Toll on Children Dundas emphasized the severe and long lasting harm inflicted on trafficked children. Psychological Manipulation: Traffickers employ grooming tactics to build trust and dependency, breaking down children’s sense of autonomy and self-worth. Many victims develop PTSD, depression, and anxiety as a result of prolonged abuse and exploitation. Physical Consequences: Children endure repeated physical abuse, malnutrition, and exposure to sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Survivors often face chronic health issues due to the harsh conditions they endure while trafficked. Role of Transnational Trafficking Networks Dundas detailed the global reach of trafficking networks and their reliance on international routes and partnerships. Cross-Border Movement: Victims are moved across countries as easily as goods, with traffickers exploiting gaps in border security and customs enforcement. She highlighted cases where traffickers use legitimate shipping channels to transport children, underscoring the need for enhanced oversight. International Collaboration: Dundas called for stronger partnerships between Canadian authorities and international organizations like INTERPOL to disrupt trafficking routes and networks. Leigh Dundas’ testimony revealed the systemic and organized nature of child trafficking, highlighting critical vulnerabilities that allow traffickers to operate with impunity. By addressing these gaps through enhanced law enforcement, technological regulation, and survivor centred policies, Canada can take meaningful steps to dismantle trafficking networks and protect its most vulnerable populations. Carmel Pelly Overview of Testimony Carmel Pelly is a survivor of childhood abuse and trafficking, whose testimony during the NCI Vancouver Hearings of the National Citizens Inquiry shed light on the darkest corners of exploitation and systemic failures in child protection. Growing up in a fractured family, Carmel fell victim to a network of traffickers who exploited her vulnerabilities. Her experiences included severe physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, as well as coerced drug addiction and body modifications. Her sexual abuse started at the age of 6. By the age of 15, Carmel was being trafficked, experiencing unimaginable physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. She described being manipulated and coerced by her traffickers, who used threats and psychological control to isolate and exploit her. Pelly recounted how her traffickers forcibly introduced her to drugs, using addiction as a method of control and compliance. Substances were administered regularly to manipulate her behaviour and create dependency, leaving her physically and psychologically trapped. Over time, the combination of addiction and trauma severely impacted her health. Her traffickers also coerced her into undergoing body modifications, as a means of increasing her value as a trafficked commodity. One of the most heartbreaking aspects of her testimony was her description of a forced abortion arranged by her traffickers, an event that left a profound and lasting emotional scar. She described the abortion as an act of violence and control, stripping her of autonomy over her body and deepening her trauma. After years of abuse, Carmel eventually broke free from the trafficking network, but the effects of her forced drug use have persisted. Her current physical condition reflects the long-term damage caused by years of substance abuse and malnutrition. She has experienced ongoing health complications, including weakened organ function and chronic pain, as a result of the abuse her body endured. Despite the toll, Carmel has shown remarkable resilience, channeling her strength into recovery and advocacy work. At 44 years old, Pelly is a wife, mother, entrepreneur, and author. She operates a counselling service and works as a certified life coach, specializing in addiction recovery, trauma care, and supporting survivors of abuse and trafficking. Her professional work is informed by her personal experiences, enabling her to connect deeply with those she helps. Pelly’s advocacy extends beyond individual recovery. She campaigns for systemic reform in Canada’s child protection systems, emphasizing the need for trauma informed care, stringent oversight, and survivor centred policies. Her testimony at the NCI Vancouver Hearings highlighted the urgent need to address the conditions that enable trafficking and abuse, offering a powerful message of hope and resilience for survivors. Key Points of Testimony Psychological and Emotional Impact of Trafficking Pelly provided a survivor’s perspective on the profound psychological and emotional toll of trafficking. Trauma and Isolation: She described the long-term psychological effects of being trafficked, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety. The constant fear and manipulation by traffickers create a pervasive sense of helplessness, making it difficult for survivors to trust others or reintegrate into society. The psychological damage that results from child sexual abuse often leads to substance abuse. Substance abuse is often used to numb the feelings related to the abuse. Loss of Childhood: Pelly spoke about the loss of innocence and normalcy that trafficked children experience, often feeling robbed of the fundamental joys of childhood. She emphasized the importance of creating environments that restore a sense of safety and belonging. She said that she missed having an adult in her life that she could talk to and rely upon. Role of Community and Family in Recovery Pelly underscored the importance of supportive networks in helping survivors rebuild their lives. Faith and Spiritual Strength: She shared how her faith played a crucial role in her recovery, providing hope and purpose in the face of overwhelming trauma. Pelly advocated for integrating spiritual and emotional support into recovery programs for trafficked children. Family and Community Support: The presence of empathetic and consistent support networks can help survivors heal and regain their sense of self-worth. She called for community based programs that involve families in the healing process, fostering resilience and connection. Survivor-Centred Solutions Pelly advocated for systemic changes that prioritize the voices and needs of survivors: Trauma-Informed Policies: She called for comprehensive training for CPS staff and law enforcement on recognizing and addressing the trauma experienced by trafficked children. Policies should be designed to minimize re-traumatization during interventions, investigations, and care. Long-Term Support Services: Pelly emphasized the need for ongoing support, including mental health care, education, and vocational training, to help survivors rebuild their lives. She highlighted the importance of safe housing and stability as foundational elements of recovery. Carmel Pelly’s testimony offered a deeply personal and comprehensive critique of the systemic failures that contribute to child trafficking and re-trafficking in Canada. Her insights underscored the urgent need for reforms in CPS, including enhanced oversight, trauma-informed care, and survivor-centred recovery programs. By addressing these systemic gaps and fostering supportive environments, Canada can begin to dismantle the structures that enable child trafficking and empower survivors to reclaim their lives. Discussion and Analysis of Issues Raised by Witnesses Organized Nature of Trafficking Networks Child trafficking networks are structured, profit-driven operations that treat the exploitation of children as a lucrative industry. Testimonies from witnesses at the Vancouver NCI hearings provided an in-depth look at how these networks operate, their tactics, and the challenges in dismantling their operations. Scope and Scale of Trafficking Networks Leigh Dundas described child trafficking as one of the fastest-growing criminal enterprises globally, second only to drug trafficking. She noted that traffickers often exploit gaps in legal and social systems to sustain their operations. Trafficking networks are not limited to marginalized or impoverished regions; they permeate urban, rural, and international landscapes. • Profitability: Unlike drugs or weapons, trafficked children can be exploited repeatedly, making them a highly profitable commodity. Witnesses emphasized that some traffickers earn millions annually, incentivizing the perpetuation of this heinous industry. Global Reach: Trafficking networks operate across borders, often relying on legitimate businesses, such as shipping companies, hotels, and airlines, to facilitate the movement of victims. Canada’s location as a first world country with major transport hubs makes it both a source and transit point for trafficked children. Sophistication of Operations Witnesses, including Dundas, highlighted the organized and systematic tactics traffickers use to control their victims and evade detection. Recruitment Strategies: Traffickers prey on vulnerable children, including those in foster care, Indigenous communities, and low-income families. They often use grooming techniques, building trust with their targets before exploiting them. Social media platforms have become a common recruitment tool, with traffickers posing as peers or benefactors to lure children. Branding and Tracking Victims: Dundas provided shocking examples of traffickers tattooing or barcoding children to mark them as “property.” This practice is part of a broader strategy to dehumanize and control victims, reducing their likelihood of seeking help. • Coordination and Resourcefulness: Trafficking networks often have hierarchical structures, including recruiters, transporters, enforcers, and controllers. Some networks use sophisticated logistics, including falsified documents, encrypted communications, and bribery of officials, to evade detection. Technology as a Tool for Traffickers Testimonies emphasized the increasing role of technology in facilitating trafficking operations. Dark Web Activity: Traffickers use the dark web to buy, sell, and trade children, often bypassing traditional law enforcement mechanisms. Encrypted communication tools allow traffickers to operate anonymously and coordinate their activities globally. Exploitation via Social Media: Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat are used to groom potential victims. Live-streamed abuse is an emerging form of exploitation, allowing traffickers to profit from online viewers in real time. Ties to Organized Crime Dundas linked child trafficking to broader organized crime operations, including drug and weapon smuggling. Integration with Criminal Enterprises: Trafficking often intersects with other illicit activities, making it difficult to isolate and dismantle these operations. Organized crime groups use trafficking as a diversification strategy to maximize profits while reducing reliance on any single illegal activity. Corruption and Complicity: Some witnesses discussed the role of corrupt officials in enabling trafficking networks. Bribery, intimidation, and blackmail are used to secure cooperation from law enforcement, border control, and other authorities. Challenges in Combating Organized Trafficking Witnesses highlighted significant barriers to addressing the organized nature of trafficking networks: Jurisdictional Fragmentation: Trafficking often involves multiple jurisdictions, complicating efforts to investigate and prosecute perpetrators. Insufficient coordination among national and international agencies hinders effective responses. Lack of Resources: Law enforcement agencies are often underfunded and understaffed, limiting their ability to combat trafficking effectively. Specialized training on identifying and dismantling trafficking networks is lacking. Victim Identification and Support: Trafficked children are often hidden in plain sight, making it challenging to identify and rescue them. Fear, trauma, and language barriers prevent victims from seeking help. The organized nature of child trafficking networks underscores the complexity of this crisis. Addressing it requires a multi-faceted approach that includes enhanced law enforcement capabilities, international collaboration, technological innovation, and community engagement. Witness testimonies revealed the urgent need to disrupt these networks and prioritize the safety and recovery of trafficked children. Role of Child Protective Services in Re-Trafficking Child Protective Services (CPS) is tasked with safeguarding children from abuse, neglect, and exploitation. However, testimonies from the Vancouver NCI hearings revealed systemic vulnerabilities within CPS that contribute to the re-trafficking of children. Witnesses, including Carmel Pelly, highlighted how gaps in oversight, inadequate resources, and systemic neglect allow traffickers to exploit the very systems designed to protect children. Systemic Vulnerabilities in CPS Lack of Oversight in Group Homes Group homes are intended to provide temporary care and support for children removed from unsafe environments. However, testimonies revealed the following issues: Targeted Exploitation by Traffickers: Pelly described how traffickers often loiter outside group homes, targeting vulnerable children with promises of safety, belonging, or financial support. The lack of security measures, such as restricted access or surveillance, allows traffickers to establish contact with children in these facilities. High Turnover and Undertrained Staff: Group homes often suffer from high staff turnover and insufficient training, leading to inconsistent care and weak supervision. These gaps create opportunities for traffickers to exploit children without detection. Foster Care System Failures The foster care system is another critical area where systemic weaknesses contribute to re-trafficking: Inadequate Screening of Foster Families: Pelly testified about instances where foster families exploited children placed in their care, treating them as commodities rather than individuals in need of safety and support. Insufficient background checks and lack of continuous monitoring allow unsuitable caregivers to enter the system. Frequent Relocations: Children in foster care often face frequent relocations, which disrupt their sense of stability and increase their susceptibility to exploitation. Pelly noted that unstable placements undermine children’s ability to form trusting relationships, leaving them more vulnerable to traffickers. Limited Trauma Informed Care One of the critical systemic issues highlighted in the testimonies at the Vancouver NCI hearings was the lack of trauma informed care within child protective services (CPS). Many children entering CPS have endured severe abuse, neglect, or exploitation, leaving them deeply traumatized. Yet, the system often fails to address their emotional and psychological needs adequately, leaving them vulnerable to re-trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Understanding Trauma Informed Care Trauma-informed care (TIC) is an approach that prioritizes understanding, recognizing, and responding to the effects of trauma. It seeks to create environments that foster trust, safety, and emotional healing. Key principles include: Safety : Ensuring physical and emotional safety for children. Trustworthiness : Building and maintaining trust with caregivers and professionals. Empowerment : Helping children regain a sense of control and self-efficacy. Collaboration : Involving children and families in decision-making processes. Cultural Sensitivity : Recognizing and respecting cultural, racial, and gender-specific needs. Witnesses emphasized that many CPS systems lack these foundational elements, perpetuating cycles of trauma rather than breaking them. Failures in Addressing Emotional Needs Lack of Specialized Training Undertrained Staff: CPS staff and foster parents often lack the training necessary to recognize and address the signs of trauma in children. Witnesses noted that without proper understanding, caregivers may misinterpret trauma-related behaviours, such as withdrawal, aggression, or hyper-vigilance, as defiance or disobedience. This lack of awareness can lead to punitive responses, further alienating children and exacerbating their trauma. • Inconsistent Application: Even when trauma informed practices are introduced, they are often inconsistently applied due to insufficient resources or staff turnover. Inadequate Mental Health Services Limited Access to Therapy: Witnesses reported that many children in CPS do not have consistent access to therapy or counselling. When services are available, they may not be tailored to the unique needs of trafficked or abused children, such as addressing PTSD or complex trauma. High Caseloads for Providers: Mental health professionals serving CPS often handle large caseloads, limiting the time they can spend with each child. This lack of personalized attention prevents the development of meaningful therapeutic relationships. Secondary Trauma Induced by the System Disruptive Placements Frequent Relocations: Witnesses like Carmel Pelly described how frequent moves between group homes or foster placements cause additional emotional harm to children. Each relocation disrupts relationships and reinforces feelings of instability and abandonment, making it harder for children to heal from their initial trauma. Institutional Settings: Group homes often lack the warmth and individual attention that children need to feel safe and valued. Witnesses highlighted how impersonal environments in group settings can perpetuate feelings of isolation and mistrust. Insensitivity During Interventions Re-traumatization During Investigations: Interviews and investigations involving trafficked or abused children are often conducted in ways that re-traumatize them. Witnesses noted that repeated questioning or impersonal interactions with law enforcement or CPS staff can reinforce feelings of helplessness. Lack of Survivor-Centred Practices: The system frequently prioritizes procedural efficiency over the emotional well-being of the child, neglecting the importance of survivor-centred approaches. The Ripple Effect of Neglecting Trauma Failing to address trauma has far-reaching consequences for children in CPS: Behavioural and Emotional Challenges: Untreated trauma often manifests as anger, fear, or self-destructive behaviour, leading to disciplinary actions rather than supportive interventions. Vulnerability to Exploitation: Traumatized children are more susceptible to manipulation by traffickers or other exploiters who promise safety, love, or financial stability. Intergenerational Trauma: Without effective intervention, the impact of trauma can persist across generations, as unresolved issues affect children’s ability to form healthy relationships and parent effectively in the future. The lack of trauma informed care in CPS perpetuates harm rather than healing for many vulnerable children. Addressing this gap requires a systemic commitment to understanding and addressing trauma at every level of care. By prioritizing training, mental health resources, stability, and survivor-centred practices, Canada’s CPS system can become a true sanctuary for children in need, reducing the risk of re-trafficking and fostering recovery and resilience. Re-Trafficking Pathways The Vancouver NCI hearings revealed alarming insights into the pathways through which children under the care of Child Protective Services (CPS) are re-trafficked. Despite being placed in systems designed to protect them, systemic failures often leave these children vulnerable to further exploitation. Witnesses, including Carmel Pelly, identified specific mechanisms and vulnerabilities within CPS that traffickers exploit, highlighting the urgent need for systemic reform. Exploitative Foster Homes The foster care system is intended to provide a safe and nurturing environment for children removed from abusive or neglectful homes. However, testimonies revealed significant gaps that allow some foster placements to become sites of further exploitation. Key Issues: Inadequate Screening of Foster Parents: Foster families are sometimes approved without rigorous background checks, allowing individuals with exploitative intentions to gain custody of vulnerable children. Witnesses noted cases where foster parents directly engaged in trafficking or facilitated the exploitation of children for financial gain. Limited Monitoring: Foster homes often lack consistent oversight, with long gaps between evaluations by CPS caseworkers. This lack of accountability enables exploitative behaviour to continue unchecked. Runaway Children from Group Homes Group homes are designed to provide temporary care for children who cannot remain in their family homes. However, these institutional settings often fail to create the sense of security and belonging necessary to retain at-risk children, leading to high rates of runaway incidents. Key Issues: Lack of Security Measures: Witnesses described how traffickers often loiter near group homes, waiting to lure children with promises of love, safety, or material goods. Poorly secured facilities make it easy for children to leave undetected and fall into the hands of traffickers. Emotional Isolation: Children in group homes often feel neglected or unsupported due to high staff turnover and limited individual attention. This emotional void makes them more susceptible to grooming by traffickers who present themselves as protectors or friends. Aging Out of CPS Children who age out of the CPS system at 18 or 19 often find themselves without adequate preparation or resources for independent living, making them highly vulnerable to exploitation. Key Issues: Lack of Transitional Support: Many children aging out of CPS are not provided with housing, employment opportunities, or access to higher education. Without a support network, these youth are at significant risk of homelessness and financial insecurity. Precarious Situations: Traffickers prey on young adults in precarious circumstances, offering false promises of stability, employment, or romantic relationships. Exploitation Within the System In some cases, children are exploited while still within CPS care, either by peers, staff, or external actors who infiltrate the system. Key Issues: Peer-to-Peer Exploitation: Group homes may house children with diverse histories and needs, including those who have been influenced by trafficking networks. Traffickers sometimes use these children to recruit peers within the system. Infiltration by Traffickers: Witnesses shared cases where traffickers posed as foster parents, mentors, or volunteers to gain access to children within CPS. These individuals exploit systemic blind spots, such as limited background checks or insufficient supervision of external personnel. Lack of Reporting Mechanisms Children in CPS often lack safe, accessible ways to report exploitation or seek help, perpetuating cycles of abuse and re-trafficking. Key Issues: Fear of Retaliation: Many children fear retaliation from traffickers or are afraid they won’t be believed if they report abuse. Insufficient Advocacy: Witnesses noted that CPS systems often fail to provide independent advocates for children, leaving them without a trusted adult to confide in. The testimonies at the Vancouver NCI hearings revealed a troubling reality: systemic gaps within CPS create multiple pathways for children to be re-trafficked. By addressing these vulnerabilities through enhanced oversight, security, and support, Canada can disrupt these pathways and protect its most vulnerable children from further exploitation. Psychological and Physical Impact on Trafficked Children Child trafficking inflicts profound psychological and physical harm on victims, with effects that can last a lifetime. Testimonies from the Vancouver NCI hearings revealed the severe toll that trafficking takes on children, emphasizing the need for trauma-informed, survivor centred approaches to care and recovery. Psychological Impact The psychological consequences of trafficking are profound and multifaceted, often rooted in prolonged exposure to fear, manipulation, and abuse. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Triggers and Flashbacks: Trafficked children frequently experience PTSD, characterized by intrusive memories, nightmares, and intense emotional reactions to triggers. Witnesses described children reliving traumatic events, which hinders their ability to focus, learn, or form healthy relationships. Hyper Vigilance and Anxiety: Chronic fear during captivity leads to heightened states of hyper vigilance, making it difficult for children to relax or trust others. Depression and Emotional Numbing Loss of Hope: Many trafficked children develop severe depression, marked by feelings of worthlessness, hopelessness, and disconnection. Emotional numbing, a coping mechanism, often prevents children from expressing their emotions or engaging meaningfully with others. Behavioural and Cognitive Effects Self-Harm and Suicide: Witnesses highlighted the high prevalence of self-harm and suicidal ideation among trafficked children, driven by feelings of helplessness and despair. Cognitive Delays: The stress of trafficking disrupts brain development, affecting memory, attention, and problem-solving abilities. Complex Trauma and Trust Issues Manipulation and Betrayal: Many traffickers use psychological manipulation, such as grooming and gaslighting, to control children, leaving them distrustful of authority figures or caregivers. This erosion of trust makes it challenging for survivors to build healthy relationships, even after escaping trafficking. Physical Impact Trafficked children are subjected to physical conditions that compromise their immediate and long-term health. Physical Abuse and Injuries Physical Violence: Witnesses described traffickers using physical abuse to maintain control, leaving children with injuries such as bruises, fractures, and burns. Chronic pain and mobility issues often result from untreated injuries sustained during captivity. • Sexual Exploitation: Many trafficked children endure repeated sexual abuse, leading to severe physical injuries, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and reproductive health issues. Malnutrition and Neglect Inadequate Nutrition: Trafficked children are frequently denied adequate food and water, resulting in malnutrition, stunted growth, and weakened immune systems. Medical Neglect: Basic medical care is often withheld, leaving children to suffer from untreated illnesses, infections, and chronic conditions. Substance Abuse Forced Drug Use: Traffickers sometimes use drugs to sedate or control children, leading to dependency and addiction. Witnesses noted that trafficked children are often exposed to environments rife with substance abuse, further jeopardizing their health. Long-term Effects The consequences of trafficking extend far beyond the period of captivity, shaping survivors’ health and well-being throughout their lives. Chronic Health Issues Physical Aftereffects: Survivors may suffer from chronic conditions such as fibromyalgia, migraines, and gastrointestinal disorders linked to prolonged stress and physical abuse. Reproductive Health Problems: Survivors of sexual exploitation often face infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), and other reproductive challenges. Psychological Scars Interpersonal Challenges: Survivors often struggle to establish trust and intimacy, complicating relationships with family, friends, and romantic partners. Intergenerational Trauma: Unresolved trauma can affect survivors’ parenting and relationships, perpetuating cycles of dysfunction and abuse. Social and Economic Challenges Education and Employment Barriers: Many survivors lack formal education or job skills, limiting their opportunities for economic independence. Social Stigma: Trafficked children often face judgment and misunderstanding, isolating them from supportive communities. Trauma Informed Recovery Approaches To mitigate the severe psychological and physical impacts of trafficking, witnesses emphasized the importance of survivor-centred recovery programs: Mental Health Support Specialized Therapy: Survivors require access to therapies tailored to their unique needs, such as trauma focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), and art therapy. Peer Support Groups: Witnesses stressed the value of connecting survivors with peers who have similar experiences, fostering a sense of community and understanding. Comprehensive Medical Care Physical Rehabilitation: Survivors need medical care to address injuries, infections, and chronic conditions resulting from their trafficking experiences. Addiction Recovery Services: Programs addressing substance abuse are critical for survivors who were exposed to or forced into drug use during captivity. Safe Housing and Stability Long-Term Shelters: Witnesses advocated for safe, supportive housing environments that provide stability and security for survivors. Educational and Vocational Support: Programs that offer tutoring, skill-building, and job placement services can help survivors rebuild their lives and achieve independence. The psychological and physical impacts of child trafficking are profound and multifaceted, affecting every aspect of a survivor’s life. Testimonies from the Vancouver NCI hearings emphasized the urgent need for trauma-informed, survivor-centred approaches to care and recovery. By addressing the immediate and long-term needs of trafficked children, Canada can begin to break the cycles of exploitation and support survivors in reclaiming their lives. Conclusion The testimonies presented at the Vancouver NCI hearings paint a stark and deeply troubling picture of the child trafficking landscape in Canada. Witnesses underscored the highly organized and profit-driven nature of trafficking networks, which exploit systemic weaknesses across jurisdictions, child protective services, and social institutions. The coordinated operations of traffickers, often functioning with the sophistication of multinational enterprises, prey on vulnerable populations, including children in foster care and group homes, Indigenous youth, and those who have "aged out" of protective systems. The testimonies further revealed that technology, social media, and even complicit actors within protective institutions serve to enable and perpetuate these abuses. The evidence presented points to an urgent and multi-dimensional crisis. Child trafficking is not limited to isolated incidents but is part of a global and interconnected criminal enterprise. The systemic vulnerabilities within Canadian child protection systems, including lapses in CPS oversight, inadequate trauma-informed care, and poor transitional support for aging-out youth, create conditions where trafficked children are continuously re-exploited. The cumulative physical and psychological trauma inflicted on these children is severe, often leaving them with lasting scars that hinder their ability to recover and reintegrate into society. The pressing need for coordinated, survivor-centred reforms in law enforcement, CPS operations, and community support systems is unmistakable and must be treated as a national priority. Recommendations Recommendations to Address Organized Trafficking Networks Enhance Law Enforcement Capabilities: Provide specialized training to law enforcement personnel on identifying trafficking tactics, decoding encrypted communications, and handling victims sensitively. Increase funding for anti-trafficking units to expand investigative and operational capacities. 2. Strengthen International Cooperation: Establish task forces with agencies such as INTERPOL to share intelligence, coordinate cross-border operations, and track trafficking routes. Negotiate bilateral and multilateral agreements to streamline extradition and prosecution of traffickers. 3. Leverage Technology to Fight Trafficking: Develop AI tools to monitor and flag suspicious activities on the dark web and social media platforms. Mandate tech companies to cooperate with law enforcement in identifying and shutting down trafficking operations. 4. Increase Community Awareness: Launch public education campaigns to teach parents, educators, and children how to recognize and respond to grooming and trafficking risks. Encourage reporting of suspected trafficking through confidential hotlines and online platforms. Promote “See Something - Say Something” programs. 5. Support Victims: Create safe houses and long-term rehabilitation programs to help survivors recover from physical and psychological trauma. Develop victim-centred protocols to ensure that rescued children are not re-traumatized during legal proceedings. Recommendations for Trauma-Informed Care in CPS 6. Training and Education Mandatory Trauma Informed Training: Require all CPS staff, foster parents, and group home employees to undergo comprehensive training in trauma-informed care. Ensure training covers recognizing trauma symptoms, de-escalation techniques, and fostering emotional safety. Ongoing Professional Development: Provide regular refresher courses and advanced training to keep staff updated on best practices in trauma care. 7. Expanded Mental Health Services Tailored Therapy Programs: Offer therapy options designed specifically for children who have experienced trafficking or severe abuse. Ensure access to specialized trauma therapists, including those trained in PTSD, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), and art or play therapy. 8. Integrated Mental Health Support: Embed mental health professionals within group homes and foster care settings to provide immediate and consistent support. 9. Foster Stability and Trust: Minimize Placement Disruptions: Limit the number of relocations a child experiences while in CPS care. Develop placement stability plans to ensure children remain in environments where they feel safe and supported. 10. Create Warm, Supportive Environments: Redesign group homes to feel less institutional and more like nurturing family settings. Incorporate activities and spaces that promote healing, such as art rooms, sensory gardens, and quiet areas. 11. Survivor Centred Practices: Trauma Sensitive Investigations: Develop protocols to ensure interviews and investigations are conducted in ways that minimize re-traumatization. Use trained child advocates to accompany children during legal or procedural interactions. 12. Empowerment Through Participation: Involve children in decisions about their care, helping them regain a sense of control over their lives. Recommendations to Address Re-Trafficking Pathways 13. Enhanced Oversight and Screening: Implement rigorous background checks and ongoing monitoring for foster families, group home staff, and volunteers. Conduct unannounced inspections of group homes and foster care placements to ensure compliance with safety standards. 14. Strengthen Security in Group Homes: Introduce physical security measures, such as surveillance cameras and restricted access, to prevent traffickers from targeting group homes. Train staff to identify grooming behaviours and intervene effectively. 15. Create Safe Reporting Channels: Establish anonymous, child-friendly reporting mechanisms for children in CPS to disclose exploitation or concerns. Assign independent child advocates to provide a trusted resource for children in care. 16. Support for Aging-Out Youth: Develop comprehensive transitional programs that include housing, job training, education opportunities, and mentorship. Provide emotional support services to help young adults navigate the challenges of independent living. 17. Trauma-Informed Care and Prevention: Integrate trauma-informed practices across all CPS operations to address underlying vulnerabilities that traffickers exploit. Focus on building resilience and trust with children to reduce their susceptibility to grooming and exploitation. Recommendations to Address Psychological and Physical Impact 18. Expand Trauma-Informed Care: Train medical, legal, and social service professionals to understand and address the unique psychological and physical needs of trafficked children. 19. Develop Specialized Rehabilitation Centres: Establish dedicated facilities offering integrated mental health, medical, and social services tailored to trafficking survivors. 20. Promote Survivor Advocacy: Involve survivors in the design and implementation of recovery programs to ensure they address real-world needs effectively. 21. Strengthen Community Resources: Increase funding for community based initiatives that support survivors and prevent trafficking through education and outreach. Overall Recommendations 22. Enhance Law Enforcement and Oversight: Specialized Anti-Trafficking Units: Establish dedicated units within law enforcement to focus exclusively on human trafficking cases, including advanced training in identifying and dismantling trafficking networks. 23. Border Security: Implement stricter border controls and use AI-driven tools to identify potential trafficking operations. 24. Regulate Technology and Social Media: Monitor Online Activity: Mandate cooperation from social media companies to monitor and report suspicious activity related to trafficking. Combat Dark Web Exploitation: Develop technologies to track and shut down trafficking operations operating through the dark web. 25. Strengthen CPS Security: Improve Group Home Safety: Install surveillance systems and enforce restricted access to prevent traffickers from targeting children in care. Conduct Regular Audits: Increase the frequency of audits for foster care and group homes to identify and address systemic vulnerabilities. 26. Support Survivors: Trauma-Informed Care: Provide survivors with access to specialized therapy, medical care, and education tailored to their recovery needs. Long-Term Housing: Develop safe, stable housing options for survivors to reduce their vulnerability to re-trafficking. 27. Public Awareness Campaigns: Educate Communities: Launch campaigns to teach parents, educators, and children how to recognize and respond to trafficking risks. Encourage Reporting: Promote the use of confidential hotlines and digital platforms to report suspected trafficking activities. These comprehensive recommendations aim to disrupt organized trafficking networks, fortify child protection systems, and ensure survivors receive compassionate, long-term care. By integrating trauma-informed practices, enhancing oversight, leveraging technology, and fostering community awareness, Canada can build a robust, multi-layered response that prioritizes the safety, dignity, and recovery of vulnerable children while actively preventing re-trafficking and exploitation. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

6.4.6 Shedding and Secondary Exposure 6.4.6 Shedding and Secondary Exposure Recommendations The testimonies and the 2023 NCI Report highlight the need for: Immediately Discontinuing Use of mRNA vaccines. Comprehensive Shedding Studies: Conduct detailed studies on the shedding of vaccine-derived materials to understand the full scope and impact of secondary exposure. Transparent Communication: Ensure that information about the risks of shedding and secondary exposure is transparently communicated to the public to support Informed Consent. Regulatory Oversight: Strengthen regulatory oversight to mandate shedding studies for new vaccines and ensure that the results are publicly accessible. Public Health Guidelines: Develop public health guidelines to mitigate the risks associated with shedding, particularly for vulnerable populations. Addressing these concerns is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring that vaccine policies are based on comprehensive scientific evidence, safeguarding both individual and public health. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

7.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

7.2.8 The Effects of Government Pandemic Measures on Faith Communities 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 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 . 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Separation of courts, the separation of courts from the public service. 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. 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. 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. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

1. Executive Summary Intentionally Left Blank Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

3. Independent Commissioners 3. Independent Commissioners Selection of New and Additional Commissioners The Inquiry‘s Commissioners were selected for objectivity, independence, and competence. Commissioner Ken Drysdale was originally selected as the Chair, and continues in this role. Commissioner Drysdale provided direction to the Commission Administrator, Mr. Ted Kuntz, throughout the course of the Regina hearings. Although it was preferable that the original four Commissioners would continue to participate in the 2024 Regina hearings, due to previous time commitments and competing responsibilities, two of the original four commissioners were unable to participate in the Regina hearings. The Commissioners selected to participate in the 2024 Regina hearings as follows: Ken Drysdale, Chair Patricia Robertson Louis Olivier Fontaine Janice Kaikkonen The Commissioners had the power to direct the Inquiry, to decide any procedural or substantive questions that arose, and to produce interim or final reports and recommendations. It was critical that selected Commissioners were, and are seen to be, credible in all regards and in particular that they were, and are, seen to be objective, competent, and trustworthy to Canadians, on whose behalf the Inquiry was being conducted. Given the broad scope of the Inquiry, efforts were made to select Commissioners from various locations across Canada and to include Commissioners who had a broad range of expertise. Suggestions were received from the public and were evaluated, and those most qualified to serve were contacted and invited to a series of interviews with selected members of the Steering Committee. Following that interview process each Commissioner was vetted for perceived conflicts of interest. Commissioners signed a Declaration of Understanding and Neutrality indicating that they accepted the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference and were committed to conclusions and recommendations based solely on witness testimony provided to the Inquiry. The names and biographies of the selected Commissioners have been posted on the Inquiry’s website. Short summaries follow. The Commissioners Following are brief descriptions of the independent Commissioners: Ken Drysdale, Chairperson , brings over 40 years of distinguished experience as a Professional Engineer to his role as Chairperson of the National Citizens Inquiry. Ken has made significant contributions to forensic engineering, where he continues to actively engage in investigations, preparation of expert reports, and providing expert testimony at trials, arbitrations, and mediations. Ken’s leadership is further underscored by his role as co-author of the comprehensive 5,342-page investigative report, Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada . With a wealth of experience in complex engineering projects, business management, and advocacy for democratic rights, Ken Drysdale's extensive career, leadership, and commitment to integrity make him exceptionally qualified to lead the National Citizens Inquiry as its Chairman. Patricia Robertson has a passion for learning something new everyday. She spent five years studying Advanced Level Medical Science at Liverpool University with a specialty in Immunohaemotology (FIMLT), working in the UK at Chester City Hospital’s West Cheshire Maternity and Walsall Manor. She came to Canada in 1976. She worked at the University of Alberta Hospital’s blood bank and also worked as a home care nurse. After challenging the Canadian Exams in 1996, Patricia studied alternative and traditional therapies and began her own practice as a member of the Canadian Remedial Massage and Osteopathic Therapist Association and is a Certified Onsen Therapy Technique Instructor. She currently consults as an invited guest working with a variety of healthcare professionals. Louis Olivier Fontaine After studying health sciences and completing a bachelor’s degree in architecture at Laval University, Louis Olivier Fontaine studied law at the University of Quebec, in Montreal. After becoming a lawyer in 2013, he has practiced in various workplaces and areas of law. Notably he has defended professionals in disciplinary matters and acted as lawyer for the National Citizens Inquiry during the hearings held in Quebec in May 2023. He has been active within the Réinfo Québec collective since the summer of 2021 in the achievement of its mission, which is the dissemination of fair, factual information without conflicts of interest in health and other social issues. Mr. Fontaine recently resigned from the Québec Bar, denouncing the refusal of debate by the courts and the repression exercised by professional orders against all those who question the official narrative surrounding the COVID crisis. Janice Kaikkonen‘s passion is community outreach. She works primarily with vulnerable populations and youth. Academically, she holds degrees in Island Studies (MA), English and Political Science (BA), and Public Administration. Janice has taught in both K–12 and post-secondary education (Faculty of Arts, Education, Journalism, and preMed). Her research specialization involves the intersection of public policy and the social fabric, which has led Janice to pursue a PhD in Theology and Discipleship. Professionally, Janice served as a researcher on the PEI Task Force for Student Achievement, as Coordinator for Canadian Blood Services, and was a contributing member to the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council. At one point, Janice established a transportation service for adults with special needs and owned/operated a summer day camp for youth. In her spare time, Janice enjoys reading and writing and leading workshops on effective communications and media. Commissioners‘ Evaluation of Evidence and Report The National Citizens Inquiry tasked the four independent Commissioners with evaluating the testimonial evidence presented at the public hearings. Following are some of the guiding principles utilized in the evaluation process: Impartiality: The independent Commissioners approached the testimonial evidence with impartiality, ensuring that no biases or preconceived notions influenced their assessment. They considered the credibility and relevance of the evidence without favouring any particular party or agenda. Corroboration: The independent Commissioners sought out corroborating evidence whenever possible. This included documents, photographs, videos, expert opinions, or other witness-testimony that supported or refuted the claims made by the individuals providing testimony. Corroborating evidence strengthens the overall reliability and credibility of the testimonial evidence. Witness Credibility: The independent Commissioners carefully assessed the credibility of each witness who provided testimony. Factors such as consistency, coherence, demeanour, expertise, and potential biases were considered. The Commissioners were also aware of any potential motivations or conflicts of interest that may have impacted witness credibility. Cross Examination: The Inquiry Rules permit interested persons to apply for standing to cross-examine witnesses. For this Hearing no parties applied for this right. Context and Relevance: The independent Commissioners considered the broader context in which the testimonial evidence was presented. This included understanding the background, circumstances, and any relevant historical, social, or cultural factors that may have influenced testimony reliability or interpretation. Assessing the relevance of each piece of evidence to the issues at hand was crucial in determining its probative value. Consistency and Contradictions: The independent Commissioners carefully analyzed any inconsistencies or contradictions within the testimonial evidence. Inconsistencies may have raised doubts about the accuracy or reliability of the testimony, while contradictions may have required further clarification or investigation. Independent Expert Advice: When necessary, the independent Commissioners sought independent expert advice to evaluate complex or technical aspects of the testimonial evidence. Expert opinions provide additional insights and assist in assessing the credibility and reliability of the evidence. Transparency and Documentation: The independent Commissioners maintained transparency throughout the evaluation process by documenting their reasoning and decision-making. This included providing clear and well-reasoned explanations for the weight given to different testimonial evidence and any conclusions drawn. Supplemental Report of the 2024 Regina Hearings Several steps were involved in the process of preparing this Supplemental Report. The following is a general outline of the key elements involved in the preparation. Review of Evidence: Each of the four Commissioners thoroughly reviewed all the evidence presented during the supplemental hearings in Regina. This included testimonies, documents, expert reports, and any other relevant materials. The Commissioners analyzed and evaluated the evidence based on its credibility, relevance, and overall weight. Analysis and Findings: The Commissioners carefully analyzed the evidence to identify key issues, patterns, and relevant facts. They assessed the credibility and reliability of the evidence—considering any corroborating or conflicting information. The Commissioners also consulted legal frameworks, relevant policies, and existing precedents to guide their analysis. Assessing Legal and Ethical Standards: The Commissioners applied relevant legal and ethical standards to the evidence and testimonies presented. This involved considering any applicable laws, regulations, or guidelines governing the subject matter of the supplemental hearings. The Commissioners’ analyses and findings were aligned with these standards. Drafting the Supplemental Report: Based on the analyses and findings, the Commissioners drafted the Supplemental Report. This Supplemental Report includes an introduction, executive summary, methodology, findings of fact, analysis of legal and ethical issues, conclusions, and recommendations. Consultation and Peer Review: Before finalizing the Supplemental Report, the Support Group ensured its accuracy and completeness. Peer review was utilized to help identify any potential biases, errors, or areas that required further clarification. Including Supporting Documentation: The Supplemental Report includes supporting documentation to provide transparency and credibility. This includes URLs, appendices containing relevant exhibits, references to relevant laws, regulations, or policies, and transcripts of testimonies. Review: The Commissioners and Support Group reviewed the draft Supplemental Report for accuracy, consistency, and clarity. Any necessary revisions or edits were made at this stage. The Supplemental Report also underwent internal review by legal advisors and other experts to ensure its integrity. Public Release: Once the Supplemental Report was finalized and approved, it was submitted to the NCI Commission for translation and made available to the public in both official languages of Canada. The Supplemental Report is published on the NCI website and shared with relevant stakeholders. Both electronic and hard copies of the Supplemental Report are made available to the public on the National Citizens Inquiry website. https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/ Implementation and Follow-up: Given the evolving nature of the information and the far-reaching and transformative recommendations and conclusions contained in the Supplemental Report, the Commissioners may be called upon to take part in a process of public education and debate. Although largely a process that will be carried out by the Commission itself, the Commissioners may monitor the progress of distribution and provide follow-up reports or recommendations as necessary. The principles of independence, thoroughness, transparency, and fairness guided the Commissioners’ work in preparing this Supplemental Report. It must be clearly understood that although it has always been the intent of the Commissioners to include testimony from all sides of the debate, during the original 2023 hearings, no public authorities responsible for the planning, design, or implementation of the pandemic measures elected to take part in the supplemental hearings. During the 2024 supplemental hearings in Regina, one current Member of the Saskatchewan Legislature testified. Testimony was invited from representatives of various levels of government across Canada. In order to facilitate schedules, non-judicial subpoenas were issued, and government witnesses were given the option of testifying either in person or via video conference at any of the hearing locations or at another agreeable time. Members of government, regulators, and authorities were subpoenaed to attend and testify. ONE current member of government appeared at the supplemental hearings to testify. The majority of these representatives did not even take the time to respond to the Commission. Concluding Observations on the Process A public inquiry can be an important mechanism for investigating and addressing significant issues of public concern. But only if that inquiry can be shown to be fair and without bias. Canadians no longer believe they can rely on their elected representatives or public institutions to provide an in-depth, fair, and impartial evaluation of how governments handled and reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, media institutions, whose traditional role was to question the actions of government and inform the people in a fair and unbiased manner, failed to question government actions and served instead to simply repeat government and public health messaging without question. At the same time, those media institutions received significant funding from the federal government, perhaps contributing to their reluctance to hold any government to account. The only solution, in these unprecedented times, was to form an independent, citizen-led, citizen-funded, and non-biased commission such as the National Citizens Inquiry to undertake this historic task. The National Citizens Inquiry is paid for and operated by the citizens of Canada. The National Citizens Inquiry is not aligned with any political party. The National Citizens Inquiry was deliberately structured so that the Commissioners were free of influence from any person or source. The National Citizens Inquiry has received no funding from government. The National Citizens Inquiry has received no large corporate funding. The National Citizens Inquiry has received no funding from the pharmaceutical industry. The National Citizens Inquiry is paid for and operated by the citizens of Canada. The National Citizens Inquiry is not aligned with any political party nor does it have a political agenda, except to represent the best interests of Canadians. The Commissioners played a crucial role in ensuring fairness and minimizing bias. The Commissioners were specifically selected from different geographic areas of Canada. The background, training, and experience of the Commissioners is varied and represents different perspectives. Although no human being is truly without certain preconceptions and biases, the diverse nature, experience, and background of the Commissioners helped to recognize those biases and address them so that the overall process and reporting were fair and without prejudice. All internal discussions, meetings, and considerations of the Commissioners were held in private, fully independent of any undue influence from outside sources. Readers of this Supplemental Report should consider several factors when evaluating the fairness and unbiased nature of the National Citizens Inquiry including: Independence: A fair and unbiased public inquiry must be independent from any undue influence or interference, ensuring that the investigators and decision-makers are impartial and free from conflicts of interest. This independence was achieved through the appointment of the independent Commissioners who were provided with sufficient authority and resources. Transparency: The National Citizens Inquiry was transparent, allowing for open access to information, evidence, and proceedings. Transparency is essential to build trust in the Inquiry‘s findings and ensures that the public has a clear understanding of the investigative process and its outcomes. Inclusivity: A fair public inquiry should strive to be inclusive, providing opportunities for all relevant stakeholders, including affected individuals, organizations, and experts, to participate and present their perspectives. Inclusivity helps ensure that diverse voices are heard and that the Inquiry‘s conclusions are well-rounded and comprehensive. Although this inclusivity was extended to all groups, including various levels of government, government representatives elected not to participate. Evidence-Based Approach: A fair and unbiased public inquiry relies on an evidence-based approach where facts, data, and expert analysis form the basis for the Inquiry‘s findings. The collection, analysis, and interpretation of evidence was rigorous and objective, taking into account different sources and viewpoints. Due Process and Fair Procedures: The principles of due process were upheld in the National Citizens Inquiry, ensuring that all parties involved were treated fairly and had an opportunity to present their case, cross examine witnesses, and challenge evidence. Fair procedures, including the right to legal representation, were essential to maintain the integrity of the inquiry process. Report and Recommendations: A fair and unbiased public inquiry concludes with a comprehensive report that presents the findings, analysis, and recommendations based on the evidence and investigations conducted. This Supplemental Report was written in clear and direct language and is accessible to all. The Supplemental Report provides a fair assessment of the issues under investigation, without undue influence or bias. By adhering to these principles, the National Citizens Inquiry demonstrated its commitment to fairness, impartiality, the pursuit of truth, ensured accountability, transparency, and the restoration of public trust in matters of significant public interest. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

5.2 Social Impacts Intentionally Left Blank Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.