The inquiry into Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s use of the Emergencies [War Measures] Act is finally underway. Much has come to light since those tumultuous events in February that suggest the Liberal government’s drastic action was unjustified..This is mostly thanks to the non-legacy media. Time will tell whether the Public Order Emergency Commission will reach the same conclusion..Although the Liberal government is doing all it can to divert attention away from its decisions and whether these were justified and onto the truckers and their various blemishes and missteps, there's reason for cautious optimism.In opening the Public Order Emergency Commission, Justice Paul Rouleau called uncovering the truth “an important goal,” adding “the public has a right to know what happened.”.Rouleau is of course correct. Witnesses at the inquiry, unlike those at parliamentary committees, testify under oath and are required by the Canada Evidence Act to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Still, government and sympathetic witnesses are trying to keep the inquiry’s scope as narrow as possible. Consequently, the public may learn only portions of the whole truth concerning events of which they “have a right to know.”.This dynamic, plus the inquiry’s heavy workload and comparatively tight deadline, reduce the likelihood it will delve into a couple of important truths. While in the public domain, they have not yet attracted the attention they deserve. They are important, however, because they were fundamental to creating the conditions that led to the government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies [War Measures] Act and are indicative of the mindset and character of the people who made it..The first concerns what was known about infection rates among vaccinated people in the early part of the year..Trudeau imposed the cross-border vaccination mandate, effective January 15 of 2022. This became the proximate cause of the Freedom Convoy. At that time, it had been evident for several weeks the fully vaccinated were becoming infected at a greater rate than the unvaccinated, as measured by new daily cases per 100,000 of each group. This was crystal-clear from the graphs published then on the Government of Ontario’s Covid-19 webpages..The phenomenon of collapsing vaccine effectiveness had been reported by at least two papers published in scientific journals, one based on the Ontario data, the other based on Danish data. It had also been conveyed to a wider audience via an article in The Wall Street Journal co-authored by a Nobel laureate in medicine..A detailed original analysis of the Ontario data that was consistent with and expanded upon these reports was subsequently published by C2C Journal. The evaporating effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines had stunning implications. Had North American governments been paying attention — and there is evidence that some other governments, such as those of Denmark and Sweden were very aware — this should have triggered major changes to pandemic management no later than early 2022..For the inquiry’s purposes however, let’s focus on this key fact: These data mean unvaccinated truckers who reluctantly got vaccinated in response to Trudeau’s mandate became more susceptible to COVID-19 infection as they travelled back and forth between Canada and the U.S. This would increase the likelihood new cases would be imported into Canada..The truckers’ vaccination mandate therefore was a nonsensical public health measure that not only had nothing to do with keeping Canadians “safe,” but cannot be “demonstrably justified” either as a “reasonable limitation” of a Charter right, as the Charter requires for infringements of rights..This is a truth Canadians need to know. It puts the subsequent Freedom Convoy protests, rallies and partial border blockades in the proper context. Without Trudeau’s unjustifiable mandate, there would very likely have been much less of a response — perhaps none at all — and consequently, no need even to discuss the Emergencies [War Measures] Act..This truth also raises questions about the nature of our federal government and the character of some of our politicians, the answers to which are of immense importance for Canadians..Did Trudeau know this truth at the time and impose the mandate anyway? Did he learn of it subsequently, but before invoking the Emergencies [War Measures] Act, failing or refusing to “follow the science” and rescind the mandate? If either of these is true, the implications are highly disturbing, suggesting an autocratic, possibly even malevolent, streak in the prime minister’s personality. Certainly, a personality that allows ideology and political agenda to become impervious to disagreeable facts..If Trudeau did not know this truth, the implications are also deeply unsettling. How could such vital information not come before the leader of a G-7 nation?.One possibility is federal public health officials, the vast health-care bureaucracy and the Prime Minister’s Office — which has significant resources of its own — all failed to come across any of this data or failed to recognize its significance if they did. Such a large blind spot would suggest serious impairment in the federal government’s information-gathering and analysis systems, perhaps outright incompetence..Keeping abreast of all relevant new information would seem foundational to crafting public health policies and measures that “follow the science.” But if they did not know any of this, how many other things of importance did they also not know?.Even more disturbing would be if one or more elements of the government’s apparatus did become aware, but failed to brief the minister of health. A variant of this possibility is if the minister herself was properly briefed, but chose not to so advise the prime minister. These possibilities speak to a seriously dysfunctional and untrustworthy government and/or minister..As unsettling as these implications may be, it's important Canadians know the answers..The second truth bears on what was known about the vaccines..The federal government unequivocally and incessantly assured Canadians the vaccines were “safe and effective.” Yet, just two days after approving the first COVID-19 vaccine on Dec. 8, 2020, the federal government announced a Vaccine Injury Support Program. Such a program had not been considered necessary throughout the 153 years since confederation, despite numerous traditional vaccines being introduced and administered during that time. But just two days after approval of the first mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, it was deemed necessary to compensate people “who have experienced a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine, administered in Canada on or after Dec. 8, 2020.” This implies that, already at the time of approval, the Government of Canada had reason to believe serious injuries were likely to result from these vaccines..Canadian law is quite clear that before administering any medical treatment, the person or party doing so must obtain informed consent from the patient receiving the treatment. The law is also quite clear in order for this to be the case, absolutely no coercion can be involved and the person receiving the treatment must be advised of all potential adverse outcomes, no matter how small the probability, especially if the outcome is severe. If this is not done, the party providing the treatment has broken the law..When Trudeau began imposing vaccine mandates in 2021 he used coercive means — including the threat of job termination and/or the loss of mobility rights — to cause millions of Canadians to undergo a medical treatment (vaccination) which the federal bureaucracy knew and he knew — or ought to have known — posed the potential for serious injury..While he was not, himself, administering the medical procedure, he caused these procedures to commence..Trudeau’s mandating of vaccination from which serious injury could occur, without itemizing the adverse outcomes, is yet another ethical lapse. His piling an additional vaccine mandate upon cross-border truckers after credible information indicated that the vaccines’ efficacy was collapsing, along with the seriousness of COVID-19 itself is unconscionable..As with the previous truth, this raises questions. Knowing of these severe outcomes, why did Trudeau impose mandate after mandate anyway? How could he and other members of his government continue to assert the vaccines were safe? And knowing all of this, how could they behave with such arrogance, lack of compassion and, ultimately, brutality towards those who were about to lose their livelihoods for no good reason and dared to protest the Liberal government’s actions?.As with the previous truth, the implications of the answers to these questions are deeply concerning..Whether or not the Rouleau Inquiry proves capable of fully unmasking the truths behind the Trudeau government’s behaviour, Canadians should demand answers anyway — even if they don’t much like the truckers..Jim Mason is a retired engineer, living near Lakefield, Ont. This article first appeared in C2C on Oct. 26, 2022 and is reproduced with permission.
