4.  Objectives of Inquiry

4.1 Overall Objects of an Independent Public Inquiry

The overall objectives of an independent public inquiry on the COVID-19 response included:

Examining the Effectiveness of the Response: The National Citizens Inquiry aimed to assess the effectiveness of government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. This included evaluating the actions taken, policies implemented, and decisions made by authorities at various levels.

Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses: The National Citizens Inquiry sought to identify the strengths and weaknesses in the COVID-19 response, including areas where the response was successful and where improvements could have been made. It aimed to provide an impartial assessment of the actions taken and identify lessons learned for future preparedness and response efforts.

Assessing Decision-Making Processes: The National Citizens Inquiry examined the decision-making processes used by government bodies and public health officials during the pandemic. This involved evaluating the quality and timeliness of decisions, considering the available evidence and expert advice, and assessing the communication of those decisions to the public.

Examining the Impact on Public Health: The National Citizens Inquiry assessed the impact of the COVID-19 response on public health outcomes, including the effectiveness of measures such as testing, contact tracing, quarantine protocols, vaccination strategies, and healthcare system preparedness. It evaluates the extent to which the response protected public health, reduced the spread of the virus, and mitigated the impact on vulnerable populations.

Evaluating Communication and Transparency: The National Citizens Inquiry examined the communication strategies employed by authorities to disseminate information about the pandemic, public health measures, and risks. It assessed the transparency of data sharing, public messaging, and the dissemination of accurate and timely information to the public, media, and stakeholders.

Holding Accountable and Restoring Trust: The National Citizens Inquiry sought to establish accountability for any failures or shortcomings in the COVID-19 response. The National Citizens Inquiry has identified any instances of misconduct, negligence, or lack of adherence to established protocols. The objective is to restore public trust in government institutions and ensure that responsible parties are held accountable for their actions or decisions.

Recommending Improvements: Based on the findings and analysis, the National Citizens Inquiry aimed to provide recommendations for improving future pandemic preparedness and response efforts. This has included recommendations for changes in policies, procedures, legislation, and governance structures to enhance public health resilience and response capabilities.

The overall objective of the National Citizens Inquiry on the COVID-19 response is to provide a comprehensive, impartial, and evidence-based assessment of government actions and decision-making processes. It serves to inform policy development, identify areas for improvement, restore public confidence, and contribute to better preparedness and response efforts in future public health crises.

4.2. The National Citizens Inquiry

More specifically, in addition to the general objectives stated previously, the National Citizens Inquiry undertook the following specific actions:

1. To inquire into and undertake dialogue with Canadians. To listen to Canadians concerning the impacts of government health and public 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 government pandemic measures and strategy, what information was known or knowable by governments, and what alternative approaches could have been taken.

4. To receive and evaluate testimony from mainstream and independent media in order to understand what information was known or knowable and why information was conveyed to the public as it was.

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 similar 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 government 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 government responses to COVID-19.

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

10. 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. 

4.3. The Commissioners

4.3.1. Role of the Commissioners

The NCI‘s Commission consisted of four independent Commissioners. The Commissioners then selected, through a vote, a Chair to lead the Commission.

Commissioners were solely responsible for hearing testimony and issuing their report and recommendations.

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 (for example, law, medicine, ethics, public policy, journalism, etc.). It was essential that potential Commissioners be individuals that had not publicly expressed strong views, in any way, regarding governments‘ COVID-19 policies.

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

Upon the conclusion of the hearings, the Commissioners issued this public report, including recommendations.

4.3.2 Independent Commissioners

A key aspect of the Inquiry was that the Commissioners were independent of the Commission, governments, or any other outside influence.

Independence ensured that Commissioners were free from any external influence or bias, enabling them to approach the Inquiry with impartiality. They were not beholden to any specific interests or stakeholders, allowing them to objectively examine the evidence and make unbiased conclusions. This enhanced public trust in the process and the outcome of the Inquiry.

Independence lent credibility and legitimacy to the findings and recommendations of the National Citizens Inquiry. When Commissioners are perceived as independent, their conclusions are more likely to be accepted and respected by the public, government entities, and other policy stakeholders. This increases the chances of effective implementation of the Inquiry‘s recommendations and fosters public confidence in the fairness of the process.

This Inquiry involved sensitive and controversial matters that could impact various participants, including powerful individuals or organizations. By ensuring the independence of Commissioners, potential conflicts of interest could be minimized or eliminated. Commissioners could make decisions and recommendations solely based on the evidence and the best interests of the public, without fear of reprisal or undue influence.

4.3.3 Selection of Commissioners

The Inquiry‘s Commissioners were selected for objectivity, independence, and competence. Commissioner Ken Drysdale was selected the Chair, and he provided direction to the Commission Administrator, the Honourable Chelsey Crosbie.

The Commissioners had the power to direct the Inquiry, to decide any procedural or substantive question that arose, and to produce interim or final reports and recommendations.

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

Given the broad scope of the Inquiry, efforts were made to select Commissioners from various locations across Canada and to include Commissioners who had a broad range of expertise.

Suggestions were received from the public and were evaluated, and those most qualified to serve were contacted and invited to a series of interviews with selected members of the Steering Committee.

Following that interview process each Commissioner was vetted for perceived conflicts of interest.

Commissioners signed a Declaration of Understanding and Neutrality indicating that they accepted the Inquiry‘s Terms of Reference and were committed to conclusions and recommendations based solely on witness testimony provided to the Inquiry.

The names and biographies of the selected Commissioners have been posted on the Inquiry‘s website. Short summaries follow.

4.3.4 The Commissioners

Following are brief descriptions of the independent Commissioners:

Ken Drysdale, Chairperson, is an executive engineer with over 40 years of experience as a Professional Engineer, which includes 29 years experience in the development and management of national and regional engineering businesses.

He was the founder and president of a multidisciplinary engineering company with unique expertise in arctic development. He is currently president of an artisan steel fabrication firm and senior partner in an Audio and Video production company.

Ken is currently retired from full-time practice as a consulting engineer but continues to be active in the area of forensic engineering, investigations, preparation of expert reports, and expert testimony at trial, arbitrations, and mediations.

He has testified as expert witness at trials in Manitoba and Ontario. He has acted as the arbitrator and mediator in disputes.

Bernard Massie, PhD, graduated in microbiology and immunology from the University of Montreal, in 1982, and completed a three-year postdoctoral fellowship at McGill University studying DNA tumour viruses. He worked at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) from 1985 to 2019 as a biotechnology researcher and held various management positions, including the position of Acting Director General of the the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre from 2016 to 2019. He has devoted a significant part of his career to the development of integrated bioprocesses for the industrial production of therapeutic antibodies and adenovirus vaccines. He was also an associate professor in the department of microbiology and immunology at the University of Montreal from 1998 to 2019. He is currently an independent consultant in biotechnology.

Janice Kaikkonen‘s passion is community outreach. She works primarily with vulnerable populations and youth. Academically, she holds degrees in Island Studies (MA), English and Political Science (BA), and Public Administration. Janice has taught in both K–12 and post-secondary education (Faculty of Arts, Education, Journalism, and preMed). Her research specialization involves the intersection of public policy and the social fabric, which has led Janice to pursue a PhD in Theology and Discipleship.

Professionally, Janice served as a researcher on the PEI Task Force for Student Achievement, as Coordinator for Canadian 

Blood Services, and was a contributing member to the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council. At one point, Janice established a transportation service for adults with special needs and owned/operated a summer day camp for youth. In her spare time, Janice enjoys reading and writing and leading workshops on effective communications and media.

Currently, Janice serves as an elected trustee for Bluewater District School Board. Married to Reima, they have 7 children and 17 grandchildren. They live on a farm in Southgate, Ontario.

Heather DiGregorio is a senior law partner at a regional law firm located in Calgary, Alberta. Heather has nearly 20 years of experience in the areas of tax planning and dispute resolution, which involves assisting her clients to navigate the complex and ever-evolving Canadian tax landscape. She is a past executive member of the Canadian Bar Association (Taxation Specialists) and of the Canadian Petroleum Tax Society. She continues to be a frequent speaker and presenter at these organizations, as well as at the Canadian Tax Foundation and the Tax Executives Institute. Repeatedly recognized within the legal community as an expert and leading lawyer, Heather has represented clients at all levels of Court, including the Alberta Court of King‘s Bench, the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada. 

4.4 The Report

The report of the Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID 19 Response in Canada was authored by the four independent Commissioners with the support of the various resources allocated to the Commission and as outlined in Section 5 of this document.

During the preparation of the National Citizens Inquiry report, there were several key considerations at the forefront of the Commissioners‘ minds. These considerations helped to ensure that the Report would be comprehensive, objective, and effective in addressing the purpose of the Inquiry.

Here are some important factors that were considered:

Understand the specific terms of reference that defined the scope and purpose of the Inquiry, and stay within those boundaries while conducting investigations and writing the report.

Maintain independence and impartiality throughout the inquiry process. Avoid conflicts of interest or biases that may compromise the integrity of the Report.

Use robust methodologies to collect and analyze evidence. Ensure that evidence was reliable, verifiable, and relevant to the Inquiry‘s objectives. Clearly explain the methods used and the limitations of the evidence.

Present the findings of the Inquiry in a clear and concise manner. Use plain language to ensure the Report is accessible to a wide audience. Provide context and explanations where necessary to aid understanding.

Make practical and actionable recommendations based on the findings. Clearly outline the rationale behind each recommendation and explain how they address the issues identified. Consider the feasibility and potential impact of the recommendations.

Maintain transparency in the inquiry process by documenting and disclosing all relevant information. Be accountable for the findings and recommendations by providing a robust justification for each.

Engage with relevant stakeholders throughout the inquiry process. Seek input, gather diverse perspectives, and ensure that the report would reflect a broad range of voices and experiences.

Complete the report in a reasonable timeframe. Delivering the report promptly helps maintain public confidence and ensures that recommendations are implemented in a timely manner.

Present the report in an accessible format, considering different audiences and their varying levels of expertise. Use headings, summaries, and visual aids to aid comprehension.

Consider the steps required for the implementation of recommendations and outline a plan for monitoring and evaluating progress. Ensure there are mechanisms in place to track the impact of the Inquiry‘s findings and recommendations.