20230426-NCI-Christensen
Oomid GApr 26, 2023 at 5:53 pm1h 17min
S
00:00Speaker 1
and legal expert. She is going to provide expert testimony concerning the impact of COVID COVID-19 measures on Canadian military members, which is a group of Canadians. It's probably not talked about enough in this context, especially those coerced into taking the vaccine as well as those who refuse the vaccine. And she's going to give evidence about the abuse of power that she's she's witnessed by the chief of defense staff and the chain of command, which she indicates she will indicate as shocking. So, firstly, Miss Christiansen Welcome to the National assistance inquiry. Thank you for being here today.
Unknown Speaker
Thank you. Okay.
S
00:43Speaker 1
Could you firstly state your full name for the record?
S
00:47Speaker 2
Certainly, it's Catherine Mary Christensen, ca t h e r i n e, Mar, Y C H r i s t e n. Sen. All right.
S
00:57Speaker 1
Are you are you prepared to swear an oath to tell the truth? Yes. Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So help you God? I do. Alright. Ms. Christiansen, I understand that you are a lawyer with several years of representing military members and veterans and that you have special knowledge expert knowledge of the military policies, legal process and procedures. And that in that capacity, you've represented hundreds of military members, and continue to do so who are adversely affected by the ongoing mandate of the Canadian Armed Forces. Is that correct?
Unknown Speaker
That's correct.
S
01:38Speaker 1
You, you've also, you're also the founder of something called the valor Legal Action Center, I know that you have a presentation that you're going to give. But just to set that up, I understand you've you founded this valor Legal Action Center, which is a nonprofit organization, providing access to legal services for members and veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces. Is that right? That's correct. And there's actually a board that's part of this part of valor, if we can call it valor going forward, and that the board accepted the challenge of representing military members facing threats and sanctions related to the COVID-19 mandate implemented by the chief of defense staff in October of 2021. Is that correct? That's correct. All right. And this is kind of an interesting point, and I think would be unknown to most people. And that is that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are actually prohibited from speaking negatively about the Canadian Armed Forces. And that no war about the chain of command and the Government of Canada. That is correct. And so they're effectively censored or gagged, from telling the Canadian public about what has happened and continues to happen within the ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Unknown Speaker
That's great. Fortunately, I'm not in the chain of command. So.
S
03:02Speaker 1
Right. And this is where you come in. Yes. All right. So with that, I know that you have a presentation. Are you prepared to enter into that now?
S
03:11Speaker 2
Yes, I am. All right, please do so. First of all, I'd like to apologize to the commissioners, because I know that my brief was about 1000 pages. So I apologize for the reading. But that's just the small tip of the iceberg. Actually,
Unknown Speaker
I read it too, and there's no need for an apology.
S
03:26Speaker 2
Thank you. Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to appear on behalf of Canadian Armed Forces military members and veterans that were affected by the COVID 19 policies brought in by the current Chief of Defence Staff General Wayne air. A few housekeeping matters before I begin, my clients have signed releases allowing me to testify today. As I said, I'm not in the chain of command and the code of service discipline does not apply to me, which is allowing me to speak on behalf of currently serving members and newly released veterans. The documents in support of my brief and my presentations today are all publicly available or were received through access to information and privacy requests. And I currently represent almost 360 men and women who proudly wore the uniform of Canada. There are 1000s More that my team and I have spoken to over the past two years. I am a lawyer from St. Albert, Alberta. I was a registered nurse before I went to law school. In law school while taking military law from two jag officers. I identified that military members needed legal services which recognize their unique circumstances and way of life. My professors encouraged me to pursue a legal career associated with the Canadian military, as I understood it so well for a civilian. Upon being called to the bar, I hung my own shingle and began my representation of members and veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces. I wouldn't trade my practice for any other clients. I'm honored to stand with these men and women who have served and can continue to serve Canada. By the fall of 2021, I was keenly and personally aware of the pressure to vaccinate to keep a hard one career. I also knew from years and our courts that any attempt to question vaccination policy was going to be a big challenge. Despite the court being our last bastion of democracy to hold government overreach to account. In October 2021, I was approached by hundreds of Canadian Armed Forces members about the directive from the Chief of Defence Staff mandating the injections, I was fully prepared to tell them that it was likely to be in Afghanistan of fights. And then I began to be told the stories of what was happening in the ranks of what commanding officers were doing to their own people. These members asked me to bring my skill set and knowledge to their fight, and I couldn't let them stand alone. If there's one thing that the best of the Canadian military is known for, is taking on a tough fight, while undermanned, under gunned, and under equipped telling this dedicated group that what needed to be done in the face of adversity was all they needed. We got organized, we created teams, we equipped for the legal skirmishes, and we prep for small advances and setbacks. The members and veterans who voiced concerns about a mandated COVID-19 vaccination program are an outstanding group of people. They're highly decorated, they're exceptionally trained and experienced, and they have a moral code that has withstood the ultimate test of just following orders mentality that was supposed to die after World War Two, I would put my life into the hands of any one of them. They are the finest Canada has to offer. And they've been sacrificed on a political altar. Our military members were used to set an example for the population of Canada for a 100% vaccination rate come hell or high water. Let's be clear, the directives from the Chief of Defence Staff were not about stopping the spread or mitigating risk to the ranks or operational effectiveness. The chief of defense staff stated the purpose what is to show quote, leadership, unquote, to Canadians. That's not the purpose of our armed forces. Nor should it be the two chief of chiefs of defense staff, ahead of this current serving chief of defense staff did not bring in a mandate. The documentation shows they were very aware it could not be done, and no doubt understood the risks of a medical treatment, decimating the entire Canadian military, if something went wrong. Setting up these men and women to be guinea pigs for an experimental medical treatment, and then hiding the damage from it would be a war crime if it was done to prisoners of war. It certainly was a war crime in World War Two, yet general air get it to his own people, and he thinks he's untouchable to answer for it. A military with leaders who see themselves above the law is a dangerous thing. History teaches us that and it's a lesson not to be forgotten. And this experiment has gone wrong. A weakened military already suffering from not enough people in the ranks, then lost 1000s More to the mandate and likely 1000s More to come who were permanently damaged from the injections, the count will only rise as time moves forward. And what happens to those who followed the orders and took the injections and are now permanently disabled. Veterans Affairs Canada is telling them no, not service related. Once again, veterans will face a procedural system that fails them and are forced them forced to go to the court for deserved compensation. Is it any wonder that the Canadian Armed Forces is has a significantly accelerated recruitment problem under the current leadership? Why have the people of Canada not heard what Canadian Armed Forces did to some of their best people in the name of COVID-19. As has been said, it's because members of the Canadian Armed Forces are gagged from speaking out by their own Queen's regulations and orders. The Armed Forces haven't caught up to call them kings during regulations and orders yet. They can't speak out, which made them the perfect population to control. The Chief of Defence Staff has shown that he is willing to sacrifice the entire military and their families under his command for political gain. Indeed, he received a promotion immediately after the mandate was brought in. Vice Admiral top she was promoted to Commander of the Navy after he forced a third booster mandate on the Royal Canadian Navy. There are political these are political appointments for a job well done at the expense of the members. They are expected to lead and whose well being should be paramount for them to protect In Canada, it should be noted that we have an additional check for our military that no one even thinks about. Soldiers, sailors and air crew do not serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. In this case, Justin Trudeau. He has no power over our military. They serve at the pleasure of the king of Canada. Technically, the king can turn the military on the government or the police. Keep in mind, the king has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister, or dissolve parliament through the Governor General. His Majesty is the last line of defense. To King Charles, I would say your Canadian military is in deep distress, and your troops need you to intervene before it is too late for Canada. The Oath of Service upholds the mission of the Canadian Armed Forces, quote, to defend our country its interests and values while contributing to international peace and security, unquote, as well as just as assist in times of true emergency, such as extensive flooding, or forest fires. It is a myth that putting on a uniform for military service strips a member of all rights of a citizen and removes bodily autonomy. Members who understood they were still Canadian citizens with high legal protections were vilified by an ignorant and misinformed chain of command, who pushed an agenda that all legal avenues are closed to the member when the oath is taken. This is categorically not true. The chief of defense staff under the National Defense Act Section 126, can order members of the Canadian Armed Forces to receive a vaccination. Yet general air chose not to use this legislative power to implement the COVID-19 mandate. Instead, he issued directive one in October 2021, which was poorly written and did not follow the Canadian Armed Forces own policies. Chaos ensued with implementation as each commanding officer put their own interpretation on what was to be done. Yes, you heard that correctly. The chief of defense staff failed to produce a force wide directive that could be acted on in one clear manner. So then we had directive two, which addressed some blatant errors of Canadian Armed Forces policy and directive one. Still not clear enough, though, and we ended up with directive two amended and which was issued, thrown into this mix was an aide memoire regarding remedial measures leading to what is called a five F release. And then the chaplain General's direction on religious accommodations trying to justify why nobody was going to get a religious accommodation, no matter how sincere their belief,
S
12:49Speaker 2
remedial measures or punishments were being handed out before accommodation requests Could he be applied for or granted, there was no intention to allow for religious or medical reasons to not take the injections. The right to refuse did not exist in the Canadian Armed Forces according to the chain of command. By the time directive three came out just over a year later in 2022. The carnage and inconsistencies were blatant. Make no mistake, directive three did not remove the mandate from the Canadian Armed Forces. The mandate still exists even as the rest of the world's militaries have been removing their mandates. The chain of command can order troops into situations potentially fatal, or have life changing risks. That is without question. However, the presence of COVID-19 was not one of a deadly battle of bullets and missiles against an enemy on a battlefield. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces were at very low risk from the virus, as demonstrated, for example by their service in high outbreak environments, like nursing homes with zero Canadian Armed Forces fatalities. To date, there has been no COVID-19 death in the Canadian Armed Forces. The true damage to the Canadian Armed Forces has come from the injections themselves. The consequences of an experimental gene therapy and the mandate COVID-19 did not decimate the Canadian Armed Forces. The leadership did it from within what has been the cost of COVID-19 mandates on the Canadian Armed Forces. I could quote you the statistics that the Government of Canada would like you to have to say those are inaccurate is a diplomatic evasion from the reality. From a financial perspective, the cost to the Canadian taxpayer is estimated to be at least $3 billion in lost training, experience and expertise. Plus there have been significant administrative cost in place to implement the mandate and its consequences. The cost to members and their families add to that Total years of service gone, benefits gone, pensions gone or reduced. Injured members denied earned benefits of a medical release, denied unemployment insurance benefits and blocked from some forms of employment due to the release category of five F. The true cost in dollars may never be fully known. Institutionally, the Canadian Armed Forces have lost people. 1000s of people are pouring out of the service since 2020. And they are not being replaced by new recruits. Where few recruits do join who's left to train them. It isn't generals and admirals who train the ranks. It's the noncommissioned officers and the junior officers and their ranks have been essentially wiped out. Some of the finest battle experienced members were driven out of the Canadian Armed Forces when they need them the most. The media has covered the gamut gutted state of our military ranks, where even the best sound bite from the defense officials cannot hide the sad state of our military. How do I even begin to explain the human cost of COVID-19 mandates on people and family of Canadian Armed Forces? Do I talk about a young soldier made to stand in the bitter cold of a Canadian winter for three months while his fellow troops taunted him? Do I talk about pregnant women in uniform hounded in their homes and charged with a wall after being hospitalized? Even while the leadership had a policy to not vaccinate a pregnant member with any vaccine? Do I talk about young healthy people wanting nothing more than to serve their country being driven out and told they were morally weak and no better than alcoholics drug addicts rapists and domestic violence abusers? Do I talk about previously healthy men and women now facing medical emergencies and injuries that has left them disabled for life? Do I talk about the member who was only weeks from a full pension after 35 years of service, including multiple deployments without a single blemish on her record, who lost it all while her husband was dying of cancer? Do I talk about the shunning and rejection of some of our finest snipers and special operations soldiers that the Canadian Armed Forces was only too happy to brag about to the media a few years ago, and now discard like yesterday's garbage. Do I talk about the young women who have been sexually assaulted, but stayed in uniform to find only to find senior leadership forcing them into yet another physical assault? To quote one of them. Being forced to take this into my body by a superior officer was like being raped over a desk at basic basic training all over again. Do I talk about the jeering taunts of noncommissioned officers bragging about coercing another member into taking the shot? Got another one boys? Do I talk about chaplains who are punished punished for trying to speak up for the religious beliefs of their members? Do I talk about young mothers who desperately need their careers who are terrified that they have put their babies at risk just so they don't lose their place in the ranks? Do I talk about the chaplain now denied his role as a chaplain as punishment? for standing up for his his people? whose family in Poland were victims of the Nazis and who could not stomach the coercion and forced experiments on unwilling bodies? Do I talk about the doctors who asked how to report vaccine injuries and were ordered not to report or stay silent or to report the symptoms as something else other than a vaccine injury. Do I talk about PILOTs already isolated from their peers who were denied attending the funeral of a close colleague after his suicide even though the funeral home had no restrictions in place? Do I talk about members who have gave who have given 2025 3035 years of their life to the Canadian Armed Forces and were denied to depart with dignity ceremony like their peers? Do I talk about the commanding officer whose staff were told to leave a room if he entered it? Thereby handcuffing his ability to lead? And finally, do I talk about the vindictive postings now being handed out as punishment for those who somehow managed to avoid the purge? The list goes on and their voices have been silenced until today. Canada needs to know that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces did not let Canada down. All they wanted was to serve in order to protect the freedom and rights that Canadians hold dear and their predecessors fought for in the past. The blame lies in the current leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces. The Chief of Defence Staff, the surgeon general the chaplains Admiral and the Judge Advocate General, who determined there was nothing wrong with offering the Canadian military up to a medical experiment with no value to operational readiness, and with a cost the members have only started to pay. The members affected by the mandate tried to use the process is open to them. They file they have filed 1000s of grievances, that will all end up on the desk of the chief of defense staff as the final authority. What are the chances of fairness when the one giving the order is the one who decides if it was reasonable or not. The Ombudsman's office which has no power to hold the chain of command to account has refused to even speak to anyone concerning the mandate. There is a covenant between the chain of command and the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, that those in command will look out for the well being of those who serve under them. That if ordered to surrender their life, the member does so knowing that that was a just cause for the sacrifice. It is the foundation of trust necessary in any chain of command. That trust is gone in the Canadian Armed Forces due to the actions of the senior leadership in reaction to COVID-19. When that trust is gone, there is no military, Canada sits defenseless. I can tell you what what has happened, I can relay their stories. But you should meet some of the candidates best who are subject to the draconian political agenda of the chief of defense stuff. I have a video that will introduce some of these who have stood up to the unlawful order and paid a heavy price. There are some images you will note are blurred to protect those still serving from a guaranteed retaliation, because there is no safe place for unvaccinated members within the ranks of the Canadian Armed forces under the command of General Wayne air.
S
22:05Speaker 3
At the heart of everything we do is our people, you are key for operational effectiveness. And if we are to succeed as an organization, to be the military Canada needs and deserves every member of the Canadian Armed Forces and broader defense team welcomed, supported and powered and inspired to bring their very best to the table each and every day.
S
22:30Speaker 2
You have just heard the Chief of Defence Staff General Wayne air stating that the Canadian Armed Forces are inclusive and progressive. Yet when members stood up for their religious rights, medical rights and human rights, they were met with fury and derision from the chain of command.
S
22:48Speaker 3
So I'm not going to talk specifics about about this one case. What I will tell you, we have absolutely no time for those that do not hold the values of the army and the Canadian Armed Forces and the values of Canada, close to their heart. So the values of diversity, inclusion, respect for others, a teamwork. That's that's who Canada is, that's who we are protected. And those that do not embrace those values, those that do not protect those values have no place in this organization. So when we find out that there is a pace, we act decisively, we don't act rationally. Because another one of our values is respect for the rule of law. And due process is, is part of that
S
23:30Speaker 2
in October of 2021. The Canadian Armed Forces brought in compulsory COVID-19 injections. What followed was chaos, uncountable losses, and the decimation of what little morale there had been in the ranks, despised by their own leadership. After exemplary careers voluntarily serving Canada, they have taken a stand and paid the price. Let me introduce you to the men and women, the Chief of Defence Staff says are unsuitable for further service in the Canadian Armed Forces, the ones whose moral code said no to an unlawful order, and continue to step up a fight for free Canada and my choice was taken away from me. I did not want to leave. I gave everything to the military. I made it my life and they threw me away like I was nothing when I gave everything
S
24:53Speaker 2
I just had to get my second shot. I feel abused and violated or Help you can use me as an example of what they still do to people who comply, it doesn't stop the hatred.
S
26:05Speaker 2
My EKG looked normal, but I insisted on a cardiac MRI which was able to confirm the myocarditis.
S
26:35Speaker 2
I was in an explosion at Comox and two days later, they were disciplining me for the COVID mandate. They didn't care that I had a first traumatic brain injury and that I was still trying to comprehend what had happened.
S
28:11Speaker 2
There are men in uniform downstairs demanding I sign papers. My family is terrified. What do I do?
S
29:04Speaker 2
This upcoming meeting with the left tenant Colonel feels really threatening to me. Is there anything I need to be worried about or prepared for? I was terrified for my safety yesterday.
S
30:25Speaker 2
What I see more are people who walk on eggshells, who seem like they regret, they followed an order in haste, I now feel the consequences of a broken trust.
S
31:20Speaker 2
I have asked military members and veterans what they would do to repair the damage and the Canadian Armed Forces. I receive pages of ideas from noncommissioned members and officer ranks, really productive, positive ideas, because there was no fear of consequences for speaking up. It is unfortunate that there is so little faith and trust in their own chain of command that the chief of defense stuff cannot do the same. For the purposes of this inquiry, here are their top changes. Bring in an Office of the Inspector General grievances and remedial measures moved to this office outside of the chain of command, which has shown their willingness to abuse authority during COVID-19. Set up explicit and hard timelines for each stage of the grievance process with penalties for chain of commands, chains of command that do not adhere to them. Currently, as a note, it can take anywhere from four to 10 years for grievance system to get a final decision before we can have it sent for judicial review. Power to investigate the inspector general would have the power to investigate and lay charges of any rank, including the chief of defense stuff. The inspector general's authority over the chief of defense staff would remain if there was proven wrongdoing. This precedent has already been set with the revamping of the current military justice system. The second suggestion is to strengthen whistleblower legislation. Under the Canadian Armed Forces disclosure process, the Chief of Defence Staff has designated the chief Review Services as the proper authority for purposes under the Queen's regulations and an orders but who's the property authority if the seat Chief of Defence Staff is the one behind the wrongdoing? Third, comprehensive health care for all Canadian Armed Forces members regardless of the component or sub component and class of service for life, with the ability to have full access to outside specialists for the care of vaccine injury. Number four, the members I've spoken to want an apology. They want an apology from the Government of Canada. They want an apology for the Chief of Defence Staff. They want one from the Surgeon General, Chaplain general, the Judge Advocate General and every commanding officer and regimental Sergeant Major who pushed the mandate. Fifth, mandatory injury injury or illness reporting, tracking and investigation with explicit timelines with serious penalty, penalties for chains of command the neglect to the required steps. Six mandatory training for all commanding officers prior to assuming command. They should be able to review and test policy knowledge from the National Defense Act through all of the necessary policy various administrative and health services instructions, they should have instruction on procedural fairness, they should have instruction on safety and risk management. And there should be a transparency of directions and comments. Sorry, directions and commands. backchannel orders shall be deemed to be unlawful. For example, accommodations were offered or supposedly offered but in reality they were done. Were denying them all. Seven review the National Defense Act and remove section 126. It's too vague and not used when it should be. It is bad law. Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans should not have to sue to have bad law removed. Ah revise the chaplain service chaplains Service badly failed members of faith. Each religion should answer to its own while respecting the long standing duty to help all members as best they can be achieved under emergency or Battlefield circumstances. Nine implement a robust safety officer cadre at every level within the Canadian Armed Forces and Concur conclusion to paraphrase Robert Kennedy, Jr. Why do I choose to fight for those nobody else wants to, because that's who needs fighting for the members and veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces who love what they did in service to Canada deserve no less than to be heard. Thank you. This concludes my presentation. I'm now prepared to take questions.
S
35:43Speaker 1
Thank you, Ms. Christiansen? That is a shocking and compelling and simultaneously, heart wrenching and heartwarming presentation. I thank you for providing that. I understand that you're prepared to have your presentation and and the other exhibits marked in this proceeding entered into this. Thank you for that. I have one arising question. Before I hand you over to the panel, I'm sure eager to ask you some questions. I had the pleasure. I have the pleasure of representing many Canadians who, although not in the armed forces were subjected to vaccine mandates through the operation of federal orders. And of course, they have this in common with the members whom you represent. It was very clear in that case that there was a directing mind in Ottawa behind, for example, the Minister of Transport order, which required everyone who is in the public service in those industries to be vaccinated. You mentioned at the outset of your presentation, this historical and legal and indeed constitutional distinction, mine of distinction between the Prime Minister and his cabinet and direction of the armed forces. However, based upon what you've learned, based upon what we've seen in your presentation, do you do you have reason to believe to suspect or indeed to conclude that there is a political direct in mind? In other words, that this vaccine, Matt, it is actually coming from the same source as, for example, the Ministry of Transport or or the other federal such orders directing other people in the public service, the Federal Public Service to be vaccinated?
S
37:35Speaker 2
Yes, I do. I have no doubt in my mind that this came from the Prime Minister's Office. Part of the evidence or the support to that belief is that we seem to have a real trend where General Vance was chief of defense staff when vaccines first emerged, he didn't bring in a mandate. And as you recall, he was removed under the cloud of a sexual misconduct allegation. Admiral McDonald then took his place. Within a few weeks, he was under a cloud of suspicion for sexual misconduct, because I've seen his briefing note, and it's clearly states that he could not bring in a mandate. General Fortin was in charge of vaccine rollout in Canada. I suspect that he also said you couldn't bring out a mandate, which, through the sworn testimony from the Pickford hearings, the prime minister's office was clear that this was coming from that from the prime minister who was angry at being heckled and demanded that a mandate be brought in that sworn testimony from his office. So then we get general Fortin accused of sexual misconduct. We then have general Air Command is acting CDs at the time. He is given a briefing note from general kudu that you can't do this, basically. And General kudu was then accused of sexual misconduct. There's a real pattern there. And then he brings in the vaccine mandate, he goes from being Acting Chief of defense staff to full chief of defense staff and gets a promotion. I see as a reward for being obedient to higher powers.
S
39:28Speaker 1
So that answer sort of flies in the face of what the Prime Minister said publicly yesterday that he never forced anyone.
S
39:34Speaker 2
Yeah, vaccinated. Yeah, no. Well, then he shouldn't have had his office provide emails in sworn affidavits to Mr. Wilson, who represented Brian Pickford and parties in that lawsuit, because that is filed evidence with federal court, that indeed, it was a direction from the Prime Minister's Office and then they were struggling to justify bringing in a mandate.
S
39:55Speaker 1
Thank you. Before I hand you over the panel. The last thing I'm going to do is I want to share quotation that was part of your presentation to the panel from our late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, who said that no institution should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support. Not to mention those who don't. Thank you. So I hand you how hand you now over to the panel, I'm sure they have questions who would like to go first?
S
40:26Speaker 4
Go ahead. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. I must say, I'm not very familiar with the all of the administration of the army and so on. So I get a little confused about who's in charge in the end, because you mentioned that it's not the Prime Minister, like what I understand from the States is the President's is the chief of the army. So we can call, you can send the order and it's in our system. It's not the Prime Minister, it's the governor or the king or the queen. But in reality, if I understand how it would work by based on incentive, the army gets the budget from the government, right? Yes. So there is a potential, at least to incentivize people in the chain of command to follow what the government seems to want.
S
41:25Speaker 2
Correct. By the time you're getting to the level of that senior command, wherever you've got chief of defense staff, commander of the army commander of the Navy and commander of the Air Force, we're talking about politicians. At that level, they may wear a uniform, but they're politicians, and the Department of Defense Department, Department of National Defense does have influence with the politicians that these officers are. And so I suspect that there are lots of meetings that go on between either the assistant assistant deputy minister or the minister, Minister herself, between these senior levels. And whether they comply or not, it's kind of up to them, because the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, ultimately is the king.
S
42:15Speaker 4
So it's independent from the government. To some extent,
S
42:18Speaker 2
yes. And this is why public service mandates or anytime for public service policies are not applicable to the Canadian Armed Forces, members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not actually have what we would understand to be a contract of employment with the government, they serve at the grace of His Majesty the King. And which is why it is they are actually completely independent. And they have a completely different applicable legal system that applies to them, as well as the general legal system for a Canadian citizen. So they've got two systems working from a legal perspective.
S
43:02Speaker 4
So are you aware of other situations in history where vaccine were mandated for the military forces?
S
43:10Speaker 2
Yeah, so they did bring in when it was still what they told were voluntary. The only vaccine they were giving them was Maderna.
S
43:18Speaker 4
I'm talking about but previous vaccine
S
43:21Speaker 2
in previous vaccine, yes. So under Section 126 of the National Defense Act, they can indeed order the members to have a vaccine. The caveat being that if they do not take the vaccine, and they have a reasonable, not excused, but a reason not to take it, they would be charged under Section 126. They would go to court martial, and then an independent decision maker, a judge would then decide if they had a reasonable excuse not to take the vaccine. This time, they didn't use section 126. I believe they didn't do it, because I don't think that someone with a sincere religious belief that wanted an accommodation, I think they would have been successful challenge that in a courtroom, and they couldn't risk having success in a courtroom turning down their mandate. So instead, they they circumvented that whole court martial legal system of failing to they they've quoted she's changed the command have said to people, you're not following a lawful order. But a directive is not an order. And how I best explain this is an order is take that hill, a directive is this is how we're going to take the hill. So in a sense, they were never ordered to have a mandate, even though that's how the chain of command interpreted that directive that this is an order and you must follow. So that's that's to be determined. And of course,
Unknown Speaker
coercion per se on the incentive.
S
45:00Speaker 2
Well, I would like to say that there was no coercion. But there was coercion. Definitely. Yeah.
S
45:07Speaker 4
My other question has to do, we've heard from other experts in the commission that it's very difficult to assess the actual level of vaccine injury in the population, because the system is doesn't seems to be able to do a proper monitoring. There's all kinds of obstacle. I guess that in the armed force, they must have had the reasonably good medical system in place that would track the health of the of the people. So they gathered data that would allow to follow on typical issues where there were the health that could actually eventually be linked to Vax injury,
S
45:55Speaker 2
you would like to think that first of all, the medical system is another system that needs revision in the Canadian Armed Forces. However, I have military doctors who provide sworn evidence that they were told not to report vaccine injuries or they were if they asked how they were told, just be quiet. They were told to diagnose them as other things such as Guillain Barre Syndrome. When young men were collapsing in the shower after injections, oh, you've got Guillain Barre Syndrome will release you on a medical release it they were vaccine injured, it would have been an ideal group. And I think they did not track them on purpose, because they would have very quickly shown what was happening to an 18 to 45 group that were the most affected by vaccine injuries that showed up really quickly. The official statistics right now being issued for vaccine injuries in the Canadian Armed Forces. I can tell you, I have more people in my files with vaccine injuries than are officially listed as vaccine injured. The other thing I can tell you is that the best comparison I can make is to the population of the United States military. They seem to have had more recording of vaccine injuries. There was a base surgeon in Alabama who completely grounded all of her pilots because they were dropping dead in the sky from being vaccinated.
S
47:20Speaker 4
So are we aware of any of incidences in the armed force where people were actually killed by the virus following vaccination?
S
47:28Speaker 2
I'm waiting for, for some of that information I know of of healthy young men who died in their sleep, but I'm the are not releasing the autopsy results.
S
47:39Speaker 4
So is there a chance with the current level of data gathering that we could actually, in the future, investigate what happened and find out exactly what was the extent of the issue?
S
47:52Speaker 2
I believe so I only in the last few weeks, have I gotten someone to have doctors confirmed that they were even vaccine injured? And put that in writing? who is a member of the armed forces? My last question was the first time in three years.
S
48:10Speaker 4
Do you think that the level of vaccine injury in the armed force was similar to the general population? More or less? Do you have any?
S
48:18Speaker 2
I think it was more, I think it was more because of the age group that we're dealing with, of the Canadian Armed Forces. But the vaccine injuries are high at that age. Thank you.
S
48:39Speaker 5
Good morning. Good morning, and thank you for your testimony. Over the course of the the committee hearings, one of the themes that I've been hearing over and over and over again, is that the fundamental tenants, the fundamental beliefs of our society are, have been attacked. And I'll give you some examples from previous witnesses. In the medical profession, we seem to have abandoned the the tenant of informed consent. In other words, they didn't tell their patients prior to having them take an injection, what the consequences might be. Also, in the medical profession, the sanctity of the doctor patient relationship has been attacked because the government has stuck between the two. The doctors are no longer able to or directed not to report injuries to discuss honestly with their patients with their side effects where we see the same thing in our justice system. Where the equality of the very, very in my understanding the very basic understanding in our justice system is that there's equal already under the law. So in other words, whether you're Ken Drysdale or where you the government, you have equal standing before the courts and they're supposed to rule equally. Now, what I think you've described here is also an basic attack on the fundamental fundamental footings of our military and that is that the members must trust the commanding officers, because if you have mistrust between the members and the commanding officers, why would they follow an order? Can you comment on on on that or other observations with regard to the fundamental tenants in our society that you may have seen?
S
50:45Speaker 2
Yeah, I absolutely agree with you that once that trust is broken, you can't have a military. Because what we're, what I'm hearing from the ranks is that we don't trust them anymore. They they weren't looking out for us, they didn't stand up for us when they should have. And even the ones who tried to protect members as best they could, didn't in the end. And there was an encouragement to humiliate abuse people who didn't necessarily want to comply. And then at the same time, we get directive three comes out last fall, and anyone who didn't manage to be released under the first directives, I was told to come back to work. And if I told you that they entered unfriendly territory, by not having the vaccine but still being allowed to come back to work. There was a lot of resentment there, because there were so many members of the Canadian Armed Forces who opted to take the vaccine because they needed their job, or they were close to a pension. Or they couldn't get promoted, they couldn't deploy. So now they, those people who complied, have even less trust in the chain of command, because why should they? Now why should I follow an order because now you've got allowed people to come back who you say didn't follow an order. It's a mess. When I say chaos, I mean, there was chaos. On the informed consent issue. That isn't near and dear to my heart, having been a registered nurse for 22 years before I went to law school. I have dealt with angry surgeons being called out to redo teaching with a patient before they would sign a consent for surgery because the patient told me they didn't quite know what was going on. And when I went to law school, I did independent legal research in informed consent. So I can tell you that there is no such thing as informed consent in this entire COVID-19 episode. There is not a single definition, legal, medical, moral otherwise, that said, anybody truly had informed consent. And I think the more and more documentation that's being revealed by the pharmaceutical companies reinforces that they knew things that they didn't tell people. The the general consensus for me is I was as a lawyer, I was horrified by what happened during the COVID, 19 years. I was always taught that bodily autonomy was was sacrosanct as as was described this morning, that people had the right to say that they didn't do anything medically, unless they wanted to that they had the right to be fully informed of what was happening. And there was none of that. We lost, we did lose our rights, and my own profession of law, which is supposed to be the ones that stand up and say, do not do what we are doing, like hold on a minute, we have a constitution, you cannot do this. I know when I tried for an injunction that I was beating my head against the wall. We were basically told we'll go use the grievance process. Sure, we'll use a grievance process. And then 10 years when the chief of defense staff who made the order decides that he made a good order, then we can go to the court. But the other thing was that the stories that I heard from members who approached me in October 2021, had actually gone to some other lawyers, a few of them. They were told, Don't call my office, again, don't come near my office. They wanted nothing to do with them. And as a lawyer, I can tell you that there are cases that I may not want to take, and there are diplomatic ways of saying you're not going to take the case. I don't practice that kind of law. I don't Should I my practice is too busy. I can't, you don't have to turn people away in a way that makes them sound like they're criminals or lesser citizens. So I was highly offended for my own profession that that was the response people were getting. They were asking fair questions, they were asking for legal advice, whether you gave them positive or negative advice is, isn't the point. The point is, you won't even talk to these people, you won't even let them in your office. Yeah, so I was, I was very disappointed in my own profession, for turning people away who wanted to challenge it. Our American friends are much better at challenging their government, they've had about 200 years more practice. And they just keep challenging, even when things go wrong in the court, they just bring another case. And they just keep going. And I think Canadian lawyers need to wake up and start sticking up for this constitution. I took constitutional law for a year, I never imagined I was going to have to use constitutional law in what I was doing. But thank goodness, I did. And I had a great professor, because all of a sudden, all those cases and the concepts of our Constitution are very, very important.
S
56:17Speaker 5
If I understand you, and your testimony earlier, you said that the Canadian Armed Forces brought in the mandates in October, was it of 2021? Yes. So that's two years ago. Do you have any idea how many members have either quit, been thrown out, retired early, or any, in any other way been removed from operational ranks?
S
56:47Speaker 2
I can tell you my best guess, just from how many have talked to me, or I've heard through the grapevine that there's a very, very good chain of communication in the armed forces and veterans community, I would estimate anywhere between three and 5000 people were lost. And when you've got a military as small as ours, we're talking a huge hit. If you were a business, and you lost 10 to 15% of your people in one fell swoop, you'd be out of business. And, truthfully, in my opinion, the Canadian military right now is is out of business. We couldn't mount a defense of our own country, let alone send people to a NATO involved conflict right now.
S
57:32Speaker 5
Well, I want to try to put that in perspective, from my own understanding. So that you believe that the numbers were somewhere between three and 4000 members, which is about 10% of the operational force. Do you have any idea how many people we lost out of operational readiness when we participated in the in the Afghanistan war for 20 years?
S
57:59Speaker 2
I believe it was 53. Deaths is Afghanistan.
S
58:03Speaker 5
So let me let me understand that. So after 20 years or so of, of operations, military operations in Afghanistan, against the death of an identified foreign enemy, we lost 60 or so 57 people in 1020 years, and then we self inflicted three to 4000 are essentially operational casualties to our military ourselves.
S
58:30Speaker 2
Yes. Yeah, we decimated our military with this, we we are already undermanned badly, we should have close to 100,000 Regular force and reserve force people. That's about the size of the military that Canada says that it needs. And from speaking to sources, we're down to about 40,000 people right now.
S
58:55Speaker 5
So our self inflicted damage to her Canadian Armed Forces was more than Afghanistan.
Unknown Speaker
Way more by 1000s. More,
S
59:05Speaker 5
I want to I can't imagine you know this answer. How far back in our military past do we have to go before we find a comparable hit on our Canadian Armed Forces, right? Operational personnel at a guess World
Unknown Speaker
War Two?
S
59:26Speaker 5
What civilian or judicial overview is there of these command decisions?
S
59:34Speaker 2
Well, we can go into the federal court and challenge sometimes we can do what's called a judicial review, or we can actually bring a claim. Interestingly enough, I was in federal court in February, not on a matter related to the vaccine mandate, but I had the crown, stand up and say to the justice, in matters of military matters, that court has no jurisdiction over the chief of defense stuff. The the look on the justices face was priceless to me. Because our rule of law which you heard the chief of defense staff saying he follows the rule of law means no one is not is no one is outside the law. Certainly even our King is under Rule of Law. And for the Crown to have this position, that anything that Chief of defense staff is we can't he can't doesn't have to answer to our courts for it is something that I look forward to challenging.
S
01:00:39Speaker 5
Can you make a brief comment about the availability of justice to the regular Canadian when it comes to these organizations? And I'm, I want to talk a little bit about or I'm going to preface that with I read a report recently, that the RCMP were involved in action, I think it was over 10 789 10 years ago, and that the Commission investigate, it finally came up with recommendations. And essentially RCMP said, Nope, all of the recommendations. So. And when I look at the civil courts in Canada, for instance, if your employer forced a mandate on on an individual, the ability for that individual to access justice is almost impossible, given the financial realities and the time periods. Have you gone? Any suggestions for us on that?
S
01:01:36Speaker 2
Well, the access to justice issue is huge. And especially if you're going to take on the Government of Canada, because one of their favorite strategies is to run you out of money. Over the years, because my practice has been military and veteran, I have seen things that are very concerning about the Canadian Armed Forces, but usually it was one or two people. And when it's one or two people, it can be written off as bad apples or people with issues. But when I had hundreds of people come to me in October 2021, with this going on, that was like, wait a minute, they've got to pay attention now. And I happen to have listened to an American lawyer who did constitutional and government challenges all the time. And I had written to him and said, How do you fund this? Like, how do you constantly take on the government and being able to have the staff and the people that you need to do it, and he said, nonprofit. And this is why I created valor Legal Action Center. And we run on donations. And this is so that these people can bring these challenges forward, because there's a long road to go holding another commission, we've had a commission on the sexual misconduct issue. We've had a commission on the grievance system that doesn't that it's four inches thick, I believe it was in my brief it 400 And some pages, Justice fish did. So the grievance system is completely broken. I honestly think that we need to use the American model of an inspector general that goes outside of the chain of command, and allows for more answers from people. And it would also allow challenges to some of these commands or some of these policies without requiring people to come up with half a million dollars to challenge the government.
S
01:03:34Speaker 5
My last question, there's a popular saying that that army runs on its stomach. I don't believe that, oh, this army
Unknown Speaker
doesn't because apparently they're not feeding their troops.
S
01:03:47Speaker 5
Well, what I believe is that, in my experience, and I've had fairly extensive experience with the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Armed Forces runs on honor. Yes, it, it runs on a belief in the higher purpose. And it runs on the trust and the chain of command. You we've talked, you and I've talked together about three to 4000 essentially casualties from the Canadian Armed Forces due to these mandates. Can you talk a little bit about the effect that these mandates have had on these basic fundamentals of honor, higher, higher purpose and trust and command?
S
01:04:33Speaker 2
I agree with you on the honor. And this is why I did say that I would trust my life with any one of these people. I know I'm sitting here with a big green wall behind me of people who are so happy that we're able to talk about this. Without question, we lost the cream of the crop of the Canadian Armed Forces with this mandate. These were the people who who are willing to stand up and say, This is not a lawful order, you cannot do this. And I'm not going to follow this order we used to have in the military, what was called a strategic Corporal. and Canada is well known throughout the world, for having the people on the ground, who could think for themselves and THINK, THINK ways out of situations. And quite often with a good outcome, the Americans can tend to have a reputation for shoot first and ask questions later, the our military did not have that reputation. They were known for, they could be in a firefight with a group one minute and the next minute act as peacekeepers and and move on. There was a reason the people of Afghanistan didn't want the Canadians to leave, because the reputation of our troops. So I would say like, morale was already bad. I already knew from talking to so many people, because I only do military. So I get lots of information from all kinds of sources all the time, I already knew morale was bad. And then this happened, and it's pretty much destroyed. i And it almost is to the point where we need to start over. Because we don't have the trust to change. People don't trust orders anymore. People see the command as being against them. Like if I step out of line, I'm going to be gone. And the fact that they chose to use what's called a five F, I've referred to that. That's a release category that was only made honorable. Not so long ago, there were less people serving that remember five F as a dishonorable discharge. It has implications you can't have a job in the public service. If you've been released five F. If you decide you want to go back in you can't get in unless the chief of defense staff allows you. And if you've had a five F, what are the chances weigh in air is going to let people who were five back in not, it's not going to happen. So the fact that they choose choose or chose that one, when they could have chosen a medical or medical release, or didn't fit the requirements of service because you weren't vaccinated, completely different categories, completely different connotations to it. And there were people who voluntarily voluntarily released to avoid that five F stigma that was going to be handed down to them.
Unknown Speaker
Thank you very much. You're welcome.
S
01:07:46Speaker 6
Good morning. Good morning. When you refer to the fairness among federal institutions, are you aware of any examples whereby a Veterans Affairs employee coming to the end of their career lost their personal pension because of a personal and autonomous decision to be faxed?
S
01:08:04Speaker 2
So, do I know of anyone a veteran who lost
Unknown Speaker
Veterans Affairs employee?
S
01:08:10Speaker 2
No, I'm not aware of anyone in Veterans Affairs. In fact, it's looking like because Veterans Affairs is refusing to cover vaccine injury as a service related injury that has to then go through a system of the veteran applies, they're denied, it goes to an appeal. And if that's denied, then they can come to me and then within two years, we can bring it to the federal court for judicial review. The reality is, is that the judicial reviews tend to go in the government's favor. But in my opinion, if they took Maderna as ordered, that's a service related injury, and there should be no question that they're covered for life for any medical care that they need.
S
01:08:58Speaker 6
And my second question, it is my understanding that both religious and medical accommodation are tenants of our democracy. So given your testimony and testimony of others prior to you, where do we stand now? Or is this just another example of the duty to accommodate being trampled by our federal government? Charter?
S
01:09:18Speaker 2
Yeah, I believe the duty to accommodate was trampled. Certainly, the case law coming out of the Supreme Court of Canada was completely ignored, about commendations. There has been some suggestion that anyone with the rank of colonel and above was allowed an accommodation. The Public Service employees had high percentages of accommodations granted, there are hardly any accommodations in the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, it was rare, and it usually happened within those first few weeks of the mandate coming in, and then they were done. I have lots of people who Who, in sworn affidavits will say that their chaplains said yes, their religion was sincere, they were sincere in their belief and should be accommodated only to be turned down by the chain of command and said, No, we're not going to accommodate you. That happened to a Catholic priest who was a chaplain, he was told his belief wasn't sincere enough to get a religious accommodation now of a chaplain, who's a priest who's in uniform isn't an example of someone with sincere religious belief. Nobody was going to get an accommodation in that case.
S
01:10:34Speaker 6
And my final question has to do with educating the public on the responsibilities and duties of the head of state. So as I understand that, the king, king, queen, queen, king, soon to be king has the right to dissolve parliament, Parliament and dismiss dismiss the pm but how can this be done with when the Governor General, for example, is appointed by the PM? I'll be at I believe, through a nomination process. But ultimately, the final decision rests with the pm How do we change that?
S
01:11:05Speaker 2
That's a good question. Honestly, our governor general does need to become more politically independent, because they are the last result of let the legislative branch because laws don't become laws in Canada until the governor general signs on behalf of the King just show how politicized that office has become. When one governor general was dismissed rather quickly, because she had abused her staff. The temporary Governor General they brought in was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So for several months, Canada had the chief of joke Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in charge of our judicial branch was also in charge of our legislative branch. And nobody said anything. And I'm going what? This can't happen. How did this happen? But it was a political appointment, obviously. So do I think our judicial branch also needs revamping? Yes, I do agree that we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. And it does need to be held to account. I was very pleased to hear the justice in Manitoba saying that he was disappointed in his fellow fellows of the judiciary that did not step up and say, hold on. We don't follow judicial notice, just because the government says it was true. So that's a good question. How do we remove the Governor General's position from being political? Do we have a king that could do that? I don't know. Because he has the power to refuse the recommendation for who's going to be governor general and say no, that person cannot be Governor General, is going to be this person. I mean, at one time, the monarch would usually have son in law, or a son would be appointed Governor General, rather than a political suggestion.
Unknown Speaker
Thank you very much. You're welcome.
S
01:13:19Speaker 7
Good morning, and thank you so much for being here today. I've heard both yourself and Mr. Gray earlier this morning speak about this rule where service members are unable to criticize the chain of command or the armed services. And I'm just wondering, what's the source of that rule? What are your thoughts on that? And whether you have any recommendations on whether there need to be any particular exceptions to it or whether it is a good rule to have in place?
S
01:13:49Speaker 2
I do I think it's a good rule. No, because I think it's been abused. This is where the suggestion came from to improve whistleblower legislation. I think that would would help people feel protected to bring forward issues that should be brought forward. The problem is, is if the issues brought forward or is anyone going to do anything about it, because that's a chronic problem, and not just in the military. But it is part of their code of service discipline, National Defense Act, where you cannot, as a serving member cannot speak out against the government or the Canadian Armed Forces themselves. I have had someone who is a client of mine posted an interview that I did, without comment, good or bad on social media site, and they threatened to charge him and with a service offense for speaking negatively about the Canadian Armed Forces, even though the opinion was mine and he didn't say good or bad about it. That's the vindictiveness that is in the chain of command right now, to come after people. I'm sure. There'll be watching to see if anyone posts My testimony today. As part of that, I would call it a witch hunt.
S
01:15:17Speaker 7
And is it applicable only when they are members of the service? What about after they've been discharged, when they're
S
01:15:23Speaker 2
a veteran, they are allowed to speak out, and you're getting more and more veterans speaking out? Certainly veterans for freedom is becoming more vocal since the convoy and starting to voice opinions. So that's hopeful as well. The challenge can be that if they don't know what's currently going on, if they happen to lose touch with people who are serving, but the the other reality is, is that right now, the only chance they have of challenging anything is to hire lawyers. And lawyers are expensive. The trying to challenge something in a court is an expensive enterprise. Even if the lawyers do IT pro bono, there's still a lot of costs involved. And it's effectively if it wasn't policy that was closing their mouths. cost would be a factor as well. Thank you.
S
01:16:18Speaker 1
Listen, I want to thank you for your passionate advocacy on behalf of members of our Canadian military. As a colleague, I have to say I share your lament about the lack of response from members of our profession, but I know they're very grateful. All the move heard this, not the least of whom was a very distinguished retired colonel, who's here today and he was going to testify later in this proceeding. Thank you very much for your testimony.
S
01:16:46Speaker 2
Thank you for giving me the opportunity and thank you from the members and veterans that are silently all standing behind me
Get automatic meeting notes
00:0000:00