Executive Summary

1.1  Introduction

Canada‘s federal, provincial, and municipal governments‘ responses to COVID-19 were unprecedented.

The policy, legal, and health authority interventions into the lives of Canadians, our families, businesses, and communities were, and to a great extent remain, significant. In particular, these interventions have impacted the physical and mental health, civil liberties and fundamental freedoms, jobs and livelihoods, and overall social and economic wellbeing of nearly all Canadians.

Given the enormity of these mandates and the resultant consequences, these circumstances demanded a comprehensive, transparent, and objective national inquiry into the appropriateness and efficacy of these interventions to determine what lessons can be learned for the future.

No Canadian government has shown appetite for a fulsome review of the measures implemented. It is also questionable whether municipal, federal, and provincial governments would or could conduct a fair and unbiased review simply because it is their own actions and responses to COVID-19 which should be under investigation.

The preceding description of the genesis of the National Citizens Inquiry represents a somewhat sterile description of the requirement to hold an inquiry into governments‘ responses to the “pandemic.” That description, although absolutely valid, was formulated prior to the commencement and subsequent completion of the National Citizens Inquiry hearings.

Those individuals who participated in the hearings or watched even a small fraction of the more than 300 sworn testimonies have had their lives transformed forever. Many of the testimonies were heartbreaking. Others revealed a sometimes terrifying depth to which this nation has fallen. Over the 24 days of hearings, witness testimonies provided an overall sense of how Canada has been transformed by government actions to address the pandemic.

Our country underwent a dramatic transformation within a short timespan. Sweeping lockdowns and restrictions on rights and freedoms that would once have been considered unthinkable in our country were adopted with incredible speed and with no room for public comment or debate. This was, in and of itself, a phenomenon.

The testimony objectively demonstrates that an unprecedented attack was carried out on the basic rights, freedoms, and way of life of Canadian citizens. Not since World War II have so many lives been lost due to measures imposed on Canadians by their government.

It is important to appreciate that this statement is based on sworn testimonies of the events and experiences described by the witnesses and that these testimonies, as incredible as they are, do not capture the full breadth of the events that took place.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in late 2019, presented governments worldwide with an unprecedented opportunity to change the direction of their respective nations. With the official narrative to contain the spread of the virus and prevent healthcare systems from being overwhelmed, many countries resorted to implementing strict non-pharmaceutical interventions.

These interventions, which included widespread business closures, travel restrictions, and stay-at-home orders, were initially introduced as “temporary” and “emergency” measures to mitigate the immediate impact of the virus.

In the early stages of the pandemic, there was a widespread sense of urgency and fear surrounding the unknown nature of the virus. Public Health experts quickly became the face of governments, and citizens were left grappling with the need to balance public safety with individual freedoms. The severity of the situation, as described in government messaging and daily state-media broadcasts, led to a general willingness among the population to accept stringent interventions as a necessary evil.

During these early stages, public health messaging informed Canadians that the primary goal was to “flatten the curve” and prevent healthcare systems from collapsing under the strain of a sudden surge in COVID-19 cases.

Based on the government messaging presented to the public, the notion of lockdowns seemed logical and justifiable to curb the rapid transmission of the virus. Moreover, the suppression of effective existing treatments in favour of the new, experimental genetic therapy “vaccines” further underscored the need for non-pharmaceutical interventions. Canadians have since learned differently. Nevertheless, at the time, the unknowns were still too numerous to ignore the messaging that we now can conclude as biased and inaccurate, similar to, if not actual, propaganda.

Testimony from experts confirmed that by late March of 2020, the government already knew the true nature and risks of the virus known as SARS-CoV-2. The government knew that it primarily affected the elderly and individuals with comorbidities, and they therefore were aware it was not unusually deadly or virulent to the vast majority of Canadians.

Nevertheless, governments persisted in their imposition of emergency measures. As time went on, the long duration of lockdowns and their impact on daily life began to generate debate and dissent. Economies suffered severe contraction and losses, businesses closed permanently, and livelihoods were disrupted. The societal and psychological toll of prolonged lockdowns became increasingly apparent as people grappled with issues such as mental health, educational challenges, and social isolation.

Governments undertook unprecedented levels of spending—a reality that will impact generations of Canadians to come.

Many people lost their lives due to fear, loneliness, and depression. Many others had scheduled surgeries cancelled. The doctor–patient relationship was severed when medical appointments were no longer conducted in person.

Many had adverse reactions to an experimental biologic injection that many were forced to take against their will.

Many people were terrified by the government messaging that increasingly encouraged people to turn on each other. Friends, families, and communities were torn apart. The government resorted to name-calling and public shaming, and in so doing, altered the social fabric. Society, as it was known, had now become toxic and, in many ways, dangerous. As a result, the incidence of suicide, violence, and despair increased to unprecedented levels.

As the pandemic persisted, differences in the way various countries approached the pandemic started to become known. Some nations adopted more targeted and localized measures, while others implemented broad and strict nationwide lockdowns. These varying approaches contributed to a diverse range of experiences and public perceptions.

Citizens began to undertake their own research—coming together and realizing that historical pandemic-management practices and emergency plans, which had withstood the test of time, had been discarded by Canadian governments and replaced with unsupported measures and mandates that appeared to be politically-driven.

Although the government had done extensive emergency planning well in advance of 2020, these emergency plans were simply ignored, and those professionals who were trained to implement emergency measures were sidelined.

In summary, governments in various jurisdictions throughout Canada were able to introduce draconian lockdown measures in a relatively short period of time. Admittedly, governments were not alone in this endeavour. The excuse of combatting a ”novel virus ” combined with a fear that healthcare systems would be overwhelmed to persuade the public to accept any and all measures that were brought forth.

However, as time progressed, the long-term consequences and societal costs associated with prolonged lockdowns could no longer be hidden from the public.

Claims about consequences and social costs are incredible claims to make.Just three years ago they were unthinkable. Once the reader has had the opportunity to thoroughly review the contents of this Report and watch the recorded testimonies, there is no escaping the validity of these assertions. 

1.2  Reasons for a National Independent Citizens Inquiry

Canadians demanded an independent inquiry into government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of a wide variety of considerations that include the following:

1. The scope and magnitude of the COVID-19 response were/remain unprecedented.

2. The impacts were national, and the responses of the governments affected the vast majority of Canadians.

3. Canadians have many legitimate questions concerning how the response was managed and what scientific and policy advice governments relied upon—questions to which the governmental response thus far has been non-existent or unsatisfactory.

4. Calls for the governments themselves to commission an inquiry have gone unheeded.

5. The governments cannot be expected to objectively and impartially conduct the required investigation of themselves—hence the need for a National Citizens Inquiry.

6. It is necessary to solicit, receive, and evaluate first-hand personal testimony from those impacted by governments‘ responses to COVID-19. It is important that this testimony be sincere, honest, and free of coercion or censorship.

7. It is necessary to solicit, receive, and evaluate testimony from scientific, medical, legal, and other appropriate experts that may differ from the narrative communicated by governments and mainstream media.

8. It is necessary to ascertain where governmental responses to COVID-19 were effective, ineffective, or counterproductive and where alternative methods could have yielded much better or more appropriate results.

9. It is necessary to establish accountability for the impacts of measures undertaken and to ascertain the social and economic costs of those measures.

10. It is necessary to ensure that our governments manage any future declared public emergencies effectively and they exercise related emergency orders or powers in a transparent, responsive, democratic, and effective manner. 

1.3 Guiding Principles

The National Citizens Inquiry was established under strict guidelines, which include the following:

1. Independence: The Inquiry must be truly independent. Inquiry Commissioners were selected on the basis of experience, competence, and credibility, and not for any pre-conceived positions they might hold on the issues dealt with by the Inquiry.

2. Citizen-Supported: The authority of the Inquiry must rest on a mandate received from significant numbers of Canadian citizens across the country who have made repeated calls for an independent and objective review of governments‘ pandemic measures. This mandate was further reinforced by such citizens adding their names to the Petition of Support for a National Citizens Inquiry provided on the Inquiry‘s website: www.citizensinquirycanada.ca.

3. Open and Transparent: The Inquiry‘s investigation and related activities were undertaken in an open and transparent basis, free of biases or preconceived conclusions.

4. Truthfulness: All persons who participated in the Inquiry were only able to submit oral or written testimony under oath, dutifully sworn before the Commission representatives.

5. Evidence-Based: The deliberations and conclusions of the Inquiry are evidence-based, with any and all testimony received (including that containing extreme claims and conspiratorial charges) being subject to cross examination. The submitted evidence for all arguments, claims, and/or positions are publicly available through the Inquiry‘s website.

6. Respect: The Inquiry insisted that all participants exhibit mutual respect for the evidence, opinions, beliefs, and statements before the commissioners, in accordance with the principles of facilitating reconciliation and healing.  6. 

1.4 Purposes of the National Citizens Inquiry

1. To inquire into much needed dialogue with Canadians. To listen to Canadians concerning the impacts of government health and policy measures impacting their personal lives, including their physical and mental health, families, and communities (particularly children and seniors), jobs and livelihoods, businesses, and their fundamental freedoms and civil liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution.

2. To invite Canadians to pose to the Inquiry any unanswered or unclear questions concerning COVID-19 and governments‘ responses thereto, and for the Inquiry to make all reasonable efforts to secure answers to those questions.

3. To receive and evaluate testimony from medical, legal, scientific, and other relevant experts concerning the governments‘ pandemic measures and strategy, what information was known or knowable by governments, and what, if any, alternative approaches could have been taken.

4. To receive and evaluate testimony from legacy and independent media to understand what information was known or knowable beforehand and whether the information conveyed to the public was factual, objective, and without bias.

5. To invite input from healthcare officers and other governmental officials as to the rationale behind the healthcare protection measures adopted—including mandates, lockdowns, and public health orders and actions—and the strategies employed to secure public compliance.

6. To invite and secure testimony as to the appropriateness, efficacy, legality, and constitutionality of governments‘ responses to COVID-19.

7. To investigate public sector expenditures, grants, and any other subsidies or financial support programs and their distribution related to the governmental responses to COVID-19.

8. To consider the issue of civic and criminal liability for any damages or harms caused by governments‘ responses to COVID-19.

9. To investigate rulings and judgments against citizens for the personal choices they made, and to investigate institutional policy changes that led to the perception of discrimination.

10. To make publicly available to Canadians all findings, submissions, and testimonies certified by and formally presented through the Inquiry.

11. To identify any mistakes, negative impacts, or mismanagement that the Inquiry may determine to have occurred, and if it does so, to recommend appropriate measures for more appropriate and effective government responses in the future.

1.5. Structure of the National Citizens Inquiry

The National Citizens Inquiry consists of two main components: the Commissioners and the Support Group.

1.5.1  The Support Group is a purely administrative committee that facilitates the NCI‘s logistics, such as booking venues, maintaining the NCI website, or raising funds to support this initiative. The Support Group drafted the initial Terms of Reference for the Inquiry, which were reviewed by the Commissioners. The Support Group had no role in the substantive aspect of the Inquiry (e.g., asking questions of witnesses, considering evidence, or advising the Commissioners).

• The Support Group is represented across Canada through Regional Subcommittees. These committees carried out the local planning and organization needed to host the NCI hearings, accommodate witnesses, and provide logistical support to the Commissioners.

• Support Group and Regional Subcommittee members were all unpaid volunteers who stepped forward from across Canada and all walks of life.

1.5.2. The Commissioners were solely responsible for hearing testimony, asking questions, and issuing a comprehensive report inclusive of recommendations, if any.

• The NCI‘s Commission consisted of four Commissioners. The Commissioners elected a Chair to lead the Commission.

• Commissioners were solely responsible for hearing witness testimony and preparing this Report.

• The Commissioners were identified by Canadians and reviewed and appointed by the Support Group on the basis of their credibility, demonstrated objectivity, and competence in one or more relevant areas (e.g., law, medicine, science, ethics, public policy, journalism, etc.). It was essential that the Commissioners be objective and non-biased.

• Commissioners were supported by a Secretariat staff comprised of lawyers and other professionals.

• Upon the conclusion of the hearings, the Commissioners have written this Report.

1.6. Selection of Commissioners

It was critical that selected Commissioners were, and are, seen to be credible in all regards and in particular that they were, and are, as objective, competent, and trustworthy as possible to Canadians on whose behalf the Inquiry was conducted.

The invitation to nominate or apply to be a Commissioner was posted on the Inquiry‘s website (www.citizensinquirycanada.ca). The posting included a brief description of the nominees‘ desired characteristics (e.g., independence, objectivity, competence, etc).

Nominations/Applications were received and evaluated, and those who were most qualified to serve were invited to do so. Commissioners signed a Declaration of Understanding and Neutrality indicating that they accepted the Inquiry‘s Terms of Reference and commitment that their conclusions and recommendations would not be pre-determined but would be based solely on testimony provided to the Inquiry. The names and biographies of the selected Commissioners are posted on the Inquiry‘s website.

The Commissioners selected their own Chairperson, Ken Drysdale.

1.7. Instruction to the National Citizens Inquiry

The National Citizens Inquiry was instructed and authorized to carry out the following:

1. To include the activities of all levels of government (federal, provincial, and municipal) within the scope of its investigations.

2. To complete its investigations and to issue a final report of its findings and recommendations within one year of the commencement of its operations.

3. To adopt such procedures and methods as it may consider necessary for the proper conduct of the Inquiry. While the Inquiry is not a court, the Commissioners adhered to court-like procedures with respect to receiving evidence (e.g., instructions to witnesses, cross examination) and legal counsel.

4. To sit at such times and places in Canada, as it may decide, for the purpose of holding in-person hearings, to conduct virtual hearings as necessary, and to receive written as well as oral testimony.

5. To seek additional input and advice from experts and grassroots sources as deemed necessary.

6. To issue interim reports as well as a final report and such other communications as the Commission considers necessary to keep the public apprised of its work and to correct any misconceptions or misrepresentations thereof.

7. To understand that its interim and final reports are the primary output of the Inquiry, which the Commissioners must be prepared to publicly explain and defend.

8. To immediately upon its formation establish a system to account for the revenues used to finance the operations of the Inquiry and the expenses incurred, and to make this accounting public at the conclusion of the Inquiry.

1.8. Public Hearings

1.8.1 General Principles of the Public Hearings

The Public Hearings were conducted under the following Rules and Procedural Principles:

1. Proportionality: The Inquiry allocated investigative and hearing time in proportion to the importance and relevance of the issue to the Inquiry‘s mandate and the time available to fulfill that mandate so as to ensure that all relevant issues are fully addressed and reported on;

2. Transparency: The Inquiry proceedings and processes were carried out in a manner that was as open and available to the public as was reasonably possible, consistent with the requirements of national security and other applicable confidentialities and privileges;

3. Fairness: The Inquiry balanced the interests of the the public‘s right to be informed with the rights of witnesses testifying to be treated fairly;

4. Timeliness: The Inquiry proceeded in a timely fashion to engender public confidence and ensure that its work remained relevant; and

5. Expedition: The Inquiry operated under a strict deadline and conducted its work accordingly.

Detailed Rules of Practice and Procedure are available on the NCI Website:

https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NCI-Commission-Rules-FINAL.pdf

1.8.2. Locations and Schedule of the Public Hearings

Public Hearings were held in locations from coast-to-coast in Canada as follows:

• Truro, Nova Scotia    March 16, 17, 18, 2023

• Toronto, Ontario   March 30, 31; April 1, 2023

• Winnipeg, Manitoba   April 13, 14, 15, 2023

• Saskatoon, Saskatchewan  April 20, 21, 22, 2023

• Red Deer, Alberta   April 26, 27, 28, 2023

• Vancouver, British Columbia   May 2, 3, 4, 2023

• Québec City, Québec  May 11, 12, 13, 2023

• Ottawa, Ontario    May 17, 18, 19, 2023

Members of the public who wished to testify at the hearings were invited to apply through online application forms that were available on the NCI website:

https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/testimony/

Members of the public were offered the option of testifying in person or via live video broadcast.

Over 900 members of the public (lay witnesses) applied to testify. One hundred forty-seven expert witnesses applied or were nominated to provide testimony (some were nominated more than once).

Approximately 300 members of the public testified at the hearings.

Many more members of the public are currently providing additional testimony outside of the Public Hearings, which will similarly be included in the Commission Record, but which will not form part of the record considered when preparing this Report.

Testimony was ”invited” from representatives of all provincial/territorial and federal levels of governments across Canada. Subpoenas were issued and government witnesses were given the option of testifying either in person or on video conference at any of the eight hearing locations.

Sixty-three members of government, regulators, and authorities were subpoenaed to attend and testify.

Not one representative of any government in Canada appeared to testify at the public hearings. All subpoenas sent were either ignored, declined, or not picked up.

As a result of the lack of government representation at the hearings, the Commissioners were unable to hear governments‘ defences of their measures. The inquiry sought to obtain government positions through the consideration of non-oral evidence, such as sworn affidavits of government officials—obtained from various court proceedings. Where such materials have been considered, they form part of the official record. It was this sworn evidence as well as their actions, press releases, statements of policy, and press conferences that were utilized to represent government positions.

Actual recorded statements and press conferences, et cetera, were aired at a number of the hearing locations.

Despite the fact that the actions taken by all levels of government represented the most profound intrusion into the lives of all Canadians, not a single government representative took the opportunity to address the Canadian people and explain their side of the story.

As a citizen-led initiative, the Commission did not have the ability to compel the government witnesses to appear through judicial subpoenas.

1.9. Identification and Classification of COVID-19 Interventions

For the purposes of this Report and based on the testimony provided at the Public Hearings, the COVID-19 measures that were implemented by governments were summarized into four major categories. The categories are based on the actual or perceived effects that the measures had on the lives of Canadians.

There is significant overlap between each of these categories. It‘s important to note that the particular expertise and knowledge of each Commissioner may be reflected and embedded differently within this overlap, as well as each Commissioner‘s personal and professional response to witness testimony. This is intentional and deliberate so that the voices of all Canadians can be fully represented in this Report.

The major categories are:

1. Social, meaning those measures that largely impacted the social fabric and interaction of Canadians in their daily life activities. These include measures that restricted public meetings, movement, and ability to interact and meet with other people.

2. Civil, meaning those measures that impacted the civil rights and freedoms of Canadians, including the imposition of restrictions by the governing authorities and, as well, the imposition of forced mandates by both government and non-government entities. These impacts were assessed at the personal, institutional, and organizational level.

3. Economic, meaning those measures that impacted the economic wellbeing and performance of individuals, businesses, and organizations in Canada. These could include restrictions to employment, the shutdown of businesses and organizations deemed non-essential, and the overall impacts of the measures on our society as a whole.

4. Health, meaning those measures that impacted the health and wellbeing of citizens of Canada. These issues might include such things as forced medical procedures, lack of access to patients because of the mandates: many doctors were treating via zoom, and injuries resulting from forced medical procedures and isolation.

1.10. Assessing the Effects of the COVID-19 Interventions

This Report relies on the testimony of the witnesses to assess the effects of the COVID-19 interventions. The interventions have been grouped into two basic categories as follows:

Pharmaceutical Interventions

This Report defines a ”pharmaceutical intervention” as a course of treatment to help prevent, control, or mitigate a pandemic through the use of over-the-counter or healthcare provider prescription medication. This might include such things as vaccine, anti-virals, and antibiotics.

Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions

This Report defines a ”non-pharmaceutical intervention” (NPI) as a course of action taken either by individuals or communities to help prevent, control, or mitigate a pandemic through the use of other means, excluding over-the-counter or prescribed medications. This might include the implementation of masking policies, lockdowns, closures of public facilities, and quarantines.

Actual first-hand testimony of witnesses describes how each of the measures affected them personally or how they have been involved in the evaluation of the interventions.

Transcripts of the testimonies, grouped into the various hearing locations are provided in Volume 3 of this Report. The actual recorded testimonies, transcripts, and submitted evidentiary exhibits are also provided on the NCI website.

1.11. Assessing the Appropriateness and Efficacy of These C-19 Interventions

Assessment of the appropriateness and efficacy of the interventions is based on the outcomes observed.

Testimonies from physicians, scientists, researchers, statisticians, legal scholars and practitioners, lawyers, judges, teachers, commentators, and Canadians from all walks of life were used to assess the appropriateness of the interventions.

The Commission heard from a wide variety of witnesses, from locations across Canada and beyond, with a diversity of expertise and experience.

At times, testimony was limited as certain witnesses would not testify out of fear of reprisals. In addition, since all representatives of government either refused to appear or simply would not acknowledge the subpoena, their testimony was never heard.

This Report relies on first-hand testimony received from everyday Canadians and from leading experts in a wide range of fields of study.

1.12. Lessons to Be Learned

1.12.1.Recommendations

Detailed analysis and commentary on each aspect of the pandemic response is provided in “Section 7. Analysis” of the Report. The Commissioners set out and describe each area of review, reference some of the testimony upon which the analysis and commentary is based, provide conclusions based on that analysis, and then provide specific recommendations to address the issues identified.

In ”Section 8. Recommendations,” for ease of reference, the recommendations set out in ”Section 7. Analysis” are itemized and presented in a simple format.

Recommendations vary widely depending on the subject under consideration. There were no restrictions or limitations placed on the scope or nature of the recommendations made.

1.12.2.An Ode to Truth and Integrity

Collectively, we‘ve been paying too much deference to our material comfort, and not enough to truth. Accommodation with half-truths, lies by omission, blatant lies, or complicit silence has created a culture in which the institutions have gradually rotted from within. The COVID-19 crisis has revealed that our Western societies are on the slippery slope towards totalitarianism that cannot happen without the consent and the active participation of the governed. We are all responsible for what‘s happening, one way or another.

Without clear separation of powers between independent institutions—the executive branch of government, the administrative branches of government, the judiciary, and healthcare providers—there can be no proper checks and balances. These checks and balances are essential to foster a culture of accountability. Without proper accountability, society is left at the mercy of incompetence and corruption working hand-in-hand to maintain and strengthen the power of the institutions in place.

Restoring a vibrant culture of accountability and thriving on truth is the only way to rebuild the most important asset of a prosperous and benevolent society: trust. Trust cannot be demanded; it has to be earned by word of truth and integrity of actions.

One of the gravest dangers in democracy is the tyranny of the majority that has forgotten the primordial importance of truth and liberty grounded in individual responsibilities that cannot and should not be outsourced to the administrative state. Unless a true safe space is created for the flourishing of new ideas, freely challenged by rigorous debates, societies will eventually crumble in obsolescence.

The relentless search for truth, which is the best possible alignment with the laws of nature, is not a democratic endeavour in and of itself. Before becoming widely accepted, a new scientific discovery (or a new, potentially truthful idea), is unique and cannot be subjected to the vote of the majority that is completely oblivious to this new truth initially. If we kill these new ideas before they have the chance to be accepted widely, we will impede the progress of society.

The only way to confirm if a new idea, a discovery, or a hitherto unknown law of nature is really true is to subject it to the free exchange of ideas in debates. Not to censor it arbitrarily by fiat, bringing forward an ill-proclaimed scientific consensus.

Consensus is a way of functioning when much uncertainty remains, and yet a decision has to be made, especially in a state of perceived emergency. Crisis occurs when institutions are poorly managed or somebody wants to take advantage of imposing decisions without proper vetting, using the pretext of emergencies, real or perceived. When society is in a constant state of crisis, one has to question the competence and/or the motives of the ruling class, including the administrative state.

We have to protect as sacred the path and the institutions that have been used for centuries in the rigorous scientific process. Money and corresponding institutions should facilitate this process, not subjugate it.

People working as unelected officials in the administrative state should not end up being the masters of our destiny but rather the civil servants of the institutions at the service of the people.

We are learning the hard way that dysfunctional institutions can and will fail us when we need them the most. As engaged citizens, we must embark and take part in a major reform of our institutions and not leave it to elusive others. Let‘s not be discouraged by the magnitude of the tasks at hand.

We owe it all to our children and grandchildren. 1. Conclusions

Administrative State: Is the State benevolent or guilty of malfeasance?

As the famous Nobel laureate physicist, Steven Hawking, judiciously said: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”

In Canada, the administrative state used—and continues to use—the illusion of knowledge to maintain power. This was evidenced throughout the three-year COVID-19 experience when bureaucrats and administrators alike were perceived as all powerful. However, this illusion was only an image accomplished through an elaborate and inextricably intertwined web of deceit, much like the tactics of the sorcerer‘s apprentice. Meanwhile, politicians were more than happy to impose popular but ill-advised, half-baked health measures, justifying these emerging policies as well-intended measures to protect public health.

Sadly, the majority of people succumbed to the measures out of fear, a lack of unbiased and objective information, and questionable trust in long-standing institutions.

In this context, as long as most people perceive benefits from the government narrative, everything will be done to protect the illusion of the effectiveness of the ill-advised health measures.

But as we witnessed, the administrative state, to achieve this end, relied on poor modelling and statistics full of omissions while ignoring scientific knowledge and understandings. The administrators also dismissed the wisdom of true experts who have credentials considerably above the pretended expertise of technocrats who systematically censored any dissenting voices threatening their usurped authority.

This is best illustrated by the numerous accounts of ignorance of epidemiology; their ineffective, unjustifiable non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs); their willful ignorance of state-of-the-art medical practice; and last but not least, their superficial knowledge of the intricacies of the immune system.

The only way out of this conundrum is through our constitutionally protected freedom of speech, wherein widely held beliefs, thoughts, and opinions are respected, and likewise, conversations, debates, and dissenting voices are heard. This should be particularly true in the scientific and medical professions.

We know the very essence of society is human interactions, and embedded therein, relationships. Because human societies thrive on narratives that present distorted views of reality and define culture according to unwritten rules, new narratives need to emerge. These are particularly critical when societies face a major crisis, like a pandemic. Sometimes, low-resolution representations of reality need to be updated and subsequently redefined by rigorous debates to orient better decision-making and implement more effective solutions to vexing problems going forward.

This Report is an attempt to craft a more balanced and objective narrative based on the hundreds of testimonies heard during the 24 days of hearings across Canada. Why? Because Canadians deserve to hear the concerns raised and to determine their own informed opinions regarding the health crisis we have just faced and the appropriateness of the mitigation measures used by government authorities. It will be up to readers to determine for themselves whether this new narrative is a more comprehensive representation of reality than the messaging delivered by governments and the mainstream media during the three years of the COVID pandemic.

Specifically, this Report examines the health, civil, economic, and societal issues resulting from the COVID-19 response. The Report also makes specific recommendations to improve the management of any future health crises.

What, How, and Why?

This Report focuses on answering questions that are in the realm of scientific and forensic investigations. “What” happened? “How” did it happen? And although the ”why” deserves attention too, the Commissioners have determined that it is beyond the scope of this investigation. Still, this existential question will undoubtedly be the subject of many scholarly books for decades to come.

By way of further explanation, asking why is certainly not mundane to the Inquiry as it strikes many sensitive cords for most people, whether philosophically, psychologically, or spiritually. However, going down that slippery slope can lead into a maze where one looks for ulterior motives, where there arises a need for, or requires, soul-searching and psychological discussion, which is outside the borders of rigorous scientific investigations. Attributing motive is not part of the playbook of the scientific method.

What is required are open and honest debates to foster our collective understanding of what happened and how it happened. In any healthy debate, one has to stay focused on the data, the information, and the knowledge before the wisdom can blossom. This is why forensic investigations are critical—so that conclusions can be reached, apart from agendas and ulterior motives.

It is for this reason that the Commissioners have agreed to abide by the witness testimonies to the best of their ability in seeking the truth. These are the truths we have sought throughout the hearings. Moreover, through engaging in this cross-country experience, we can come together as a nation, restoring the very principles and freedoms that have defined Canada since 1867.