5.  Procedures

5.1 Introduction

The National Citizens Inquiry was a citizen-led and citizen-funded initiative that was completely independent from government and operated without legal compulsion or coercion. Legally, it is organized as a non-profit corporation with a Board of Directors to manage financial and compliance issues; however, the Inquiry was led by a Support Group and Commissioners.

The conduct of the Public Hearings and the Rules as set out in the Commission Rules Document were informed by the following Procedural Principles:

• Proportionality: The Inquiry would allocate 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 would be fully addressed and reported on;

• Transparency: The Inquiry proceedings and processes must be as open and available to the public as is reasonably possible, consistent with the requirements of national security and other applicable confidentialities and privileges;

• Fairness: The Inquiry must balance the interests of the public to be informed with the rights of those involved to be treated fairly;

• Timeliness: The Inquiry must proceed in a timely fashion to engender public confidence and ensure that its work remain relevant; and

• Expedition: The Inquiry must operate under a strict deadline and conducted its work accordingly.

Parties and their legal representatives, as well as those otherwise taking part in the Public Hearings, conducted themselves and discharged their responsibilities under the Rules, in accordance with the Procedural Principles.

5.2 The National Citizens Inquiry Organization

5.2.1 The Commissioners

The NCI‘s Commission consisted of up to four Commissioners. These Commissioners selected a Chairperson to lead the Commission.

• To select Commissioners, the NCI invited the public to nominate individuals the public had confidence could perform the role of Independent Commissioner. Applications were vetted by a volunteer committee, which then submitted a short list to the Support Group. The Support Group appointed the individuals they believed were best suited to conduct the Inquiry in a fair and impartial manner. The Commissioners appointed were Ken Drysdale, Bernard Massie, Janice Kaikkonen, and Heather DiGregorio.

• As set out in the Commission Rules, the Commissioners were independent of the NCI Administration. The Commissioners had authority over hearing the testimony and the conduct of the hearings. The NCI had the administrative role of supporting the Commissioners by performing the administrative tasks necessary to organize the hearings.

• The Commissioners were charged with drafting and issuing a public report including recommendations, if any.

• The NCI was responsible for presenting the report and recommendations to the public and to governments so that if Canada faces a future pandemic, the lessons identified by the Inquiry can be used to ensure that the best decisions are made in the future. 

5.2.2 Support Group

The NCI was, and continues to consist of, two main components, the Commissioners and the Support Group.

• 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 the initiative. The Support Group drafted the initial Terms of Reference for the Inquiry. The Support Group had no role in the substantive aspect of the Inquiry (for example, asking questions of witnesses, considering evidence, or advising the Commissioners).

• The Support Group is represented across Canada through Regional Subcommittees. These committees carry 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 are all unpaid volunteers who have stepped forward from across Canada and all walks of life.

5.2.3 Funding

The NCI was and is strictly funded by donations from Canadian citizens. The NCI does not have a single large donor.

While preparing for and running the hearings, the NCI did not have enough funds to pay for the next hearing. At each hearing, the NCI asked the public to donate so that the hearings could continue. The public responded and hearing-by-hearing enough funds came in to allow the Inquiry to continue. At the beginning, most of the donations were small, such as $25 or $50. As the Inquiry continued, the average size of the individual donations increased.

The fact that large numbers of individual Canadians across the country made the Inquiry happen by individual donations demonstrates the nation-wide desire of Canadians for an inquiry that listened to the citizens. 

5.2.4 Volunteer Nature of the NCI

The Support Group, which began and managed the NCI, was and is made up strictly of volunteers. As the NCI progressed, it had a maximum of three support staff to assist with the administration, website, and social media. For some specific tasks, contractors were hired for limited durations.

The Audio Visual team that travelled with the NCI was under contract but went above and beyond what they had been asked to do. All of the support staff and teams also volunteered by working well beyond the hours they were paid for and the tasks they were originally asked to perform.

All substantive activities of the NCI were performed by volunteers including:

• setting the goals of the NCI and organizing its structure,

• running the NCI administration with the staff,

• vetting and selecting Commissioners,

• setting communications strategies and messaging,

• vetting and preparing witnesses,

• preparing for and running the hearings,

• fundraising,

• media appearances and witness videos,

• social media teams clipping videos of testimony,

• calling witnesses at the hearing,

• preparing transcripts of witness testimony,

• website preparation, and

• preparing for the release and communication of the Commissioners‘ Report.

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

There is no accurate count of the number of volunteers that participated in the NCI. In part, this is because some volunteer groups, once set up, added to their number as they performed their tasks.  Shawn Buckley, who participated in setting up many of the volunteer groups, estimated that there were between 800 and 1000 volunteers.

In addition to volunteer activities managed by the NCI team, countless Canadians decided to undertake their own efforts to promote and support the NCI. Whether it was the Posties for Freedom holding posters at City Hall, or individuals retweeting NCI hearings and events, the public participation changed the NCI.

The NCI became such a citizen-led and -run adventure that the NCI Support Group and administration were and are not even vaguely aware of all that volunteers have done on their own.

5.3. The Investigative Process

5.3.1 Structuring the Investigations

The Inquiry had many objectives, including hearing from Canadians about the impacts of government health and policy measures on all aspects of their personal lives, to invite and secure testimony as to the appropriateness, efficacy, legality, and constitutionality of government responses to COVID-19.

Never before had there been a citizen-run public inquiry. New Rules had to be prepared which ensured the Commissioners were independent and that a fair structure was established to ensure all voices were heard. An outside lawyer was hired to prepare an initial set of Rules. Volunteer lawyer Shawn Buckley and Inquiry Administrator the Honourable Chesley Crosbie then adapted these Rules to work with the NCI structure.

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

The Inquiry commenced with a preliminary investigation by the Inquiry Administrator. The goal of the investigation was, in part, to identify the core or background facts and to identify witnesses.

The investigation consisted primarily of document review, engagement with interested persons, and interviews by Inquiry Administrator and staff, including volunteers.

5.3.2. Organization of Public Hearings

The Inquiry Rules permitted the holding of public hearings as follows:

• 51. Public Hearings will be convened anywhere in Canada as the Support Group may determine to address issues related to the Inquiry. Hearings may proceed virtually or in hybrid form.

• 52. The Support Group will, in consultation with the Commissioners, set the dates, hours and place of the Public Hearings.

With agreement of the Commissioners, the Support Group determined a series of in-person hearings were to be held across Canada. It was agreed that these cross-country hearings would be appropriate to achieve the Inquiry‘s objectives, given the Inquiry was committed to “hearing evidence in a process that is public to the greatest extent possible” (per Inquiry Rule 58).

Three-day hearings were planned and scheduled in 2023 in the following locations:

• Truro (representing NL, NS, PEI, NB): March 16 to 18, 2023,

• Toronto (representing Ontario): March 30 to April 1, 2023,

• Winnipeg (representing Manitoba): April 13 to 15, 2023,

• Saskatoon (representing Saskatchewan): April 20 to 22, 2023,

• Red Deer (representing Alberta): April 26 to 28, 2023,

• Vancouver (representing British Columbia and the Territories): May 2 to 4, 2023,

• Québec City (representing Québec): May 11 to 13, 2023, and

• Ottawa: May 17 to 19, 2023.

All hearings were conducted in English, except the Québec City hearings, which were conducted in French. (All hearings would have been fully bilingual had the funding permitted this.) Members of the public were invited to attend the hearings in-person, and they were also live streamed so anyone interested could hear the testimony.

Hearings were scheduled from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. local time each day, but often ran later into the evenings.

The Inquiry Administrator (or his representative) served as Chair of each hearing; Commission Counsel called each witness at the hearing.

Regional organizing committees were established for each hearing to assist with local arrangements. 3. Identification and Vetting of Witnesses

NCI established an online application process that invited Canadians to offer to testify at one of the hearings. Given the reasons for the Inquiry as outlined in its Terms of Reference, testimony was sought to address four main categories of impacts from governments‘ health-protection and policy measures.

CIVIL

• Legal, policing, policy, regulatory, human rights, emergency preparedness, government, private–public partnerships, anti-trust, monopolies, private corporations

SOCIAL

• Media, family, faith, education, community, service delivery, societal coercion

ECONOMIC

• Impacts related to financial matters at all levels, personal, family, corporate and governmental expenditures and debt, government actions

HEALTH

• Medicine, research, pharmaceuticals, regulatory, safety monitoring, patient relations, doctor–patient relationship, industry health, messaging, incentives, and regulatory collusion

In addition, the Inquiry sought testimony concerning “alternative medical narratives,” that is, medical or health information that differed from that presented by governments or the media.

To ensure witness testimony covered a range of desired topics across these categories, a detailed series of questions was developed, and witnesses were evaluated on who could offer testimony that could answers questions in these four subject areas.

The open, online application process invited testimony from lay witnesses (those who testified about the impacts of governments‘ COVID measures on themselves or their families) and expert witnesses (those whose testimony represented their expert opinion). Witnesses had the option of testifying in-person or virtually. The Inquiry received many more applications to testify than could be included in the eight hearings.

General Procedures

All witness applicants were reviewed by a Selection Committee established for this purpose. The Regional Organizing Committees were involved in selecting lay witnesses for their hearings, so the testimony at each hearing reflected regional differences in how citizens were affected by the health-protection measures across Canada.

Expert witnesses were selected by the Selection Committee in consultation with the Regional Committees to apportion a similar number of witnesses to testify at each hearing and ensure their testimony covered the full range of topic areas over the course of the entire Inquiry.

After a short-list of witnesses was selected for each hearing, members of the Inquiry‘s legal team prepared the witnesses to testify. Some witnesses were screened out by the legal teams if they felt the individual testimony would not fit the categories selected for the hearings.

Given the Regional Committees were actively involved in the witness selection process, there were slight variations in the vetting process in each location.

Witness Drop-Out

Shortly after the NCI invited witnesses to apply on the NCI website to be considered as witnesses, the NCI was flooded with applications. It became clear that only a handful of those who applied could be selected to testify. Those who were selected to testify were contacted or interviewed multiple times. The last point of contact was made by the lawyer who called the individual as a witness.

Despite all of this prior contact, a number of witnesses dropped out a few days before their scheduled testimony time or on the day of testimony. Various reasons were given such as concern of discrimination in employment or concern of social pressure from family or friends. Some became too sick to testify. Some became too anxious to testify.

A couple of expert witnesses also dropped out.Public Lay Witnesses

A public lay witness or “Non-Expert“ witness was an individual who believed they had been harmed directly or indirectly by any of the COVID-19 measures. You may consult the NCI‘s website to learn more about the kinds of personal harms Canadians have already identified.

Examples included:

• Disruption in the lives/education of children/students,

• Impaired mental health due to isolation,

• Business loss due to restrictions,

• Job loss due to vaccination mandates,

• Delayed or denied healthcare for non-COVID-19 matters,

• Adverse reaction(s) to COVID-19 genetic vaccines,

• Reputation and/or professional discipline or censorship for expressing contrarian views,

• Restrictions of fundamental liberties, such as speech, association, or travel.

The NCI contacted witnesses whose applications were selected to continue in the screening process. Discussions were held with selected applicants to arrange their participation at the most appropriate hearing location and time. Selected applicants were provided with NCI‘s guidelines to assist them in preparing for their testimony.

Witnesses were advised that

• they would only be able to testify under oath.

• they may be subject to vigorous questioning, and

• their testimony would be subject to strict time limits.

Applicants who were not initially selected to testify may still have their story published on the NCI website at a later date as part of a broader project to give a voice to as many Canadians as possible. NCI strived to publish as many stories as possible. NCI contacted every applicant to receive their consent and also, potentially, to ask more questions.

A team of volunteer medical doctors screened all witnesses that testified about vaccine injury. This team developed a medical questionnaire to ensure that each vaccine-injury witness was speaking about injuries that were reasonable to ascribe to the vaccine. For example, underlying conditions which could cause similar injuries were investigated. Each vaccine-injury witness was then interviewed by one of the volunteer doctors to go through the questionnaire. This was to ensure that only witnesses whose injuries could be credibly attributed to the vaccine were approved to provide testimony to the Inquiry.

Public Expert Witnesses

“Expert” witnesses were individuals who gave testimony based on their professional and academic expertise and experience in one or more specific fields relevant to the COVID-19 measures.

Examples included

• doctors and scientists (for example, epidemiologist, pathologist),

• lawyers and public servants,

• economists and professors,

• journalists, and

• psychologists.

“Expert” witness applications were assessed against the following criteria:

• experience and credentials,

• topic(s) of testimony,

• objectivity, and

• strength of supporting evidence.

Government Witnesses

The NCI received no offers to testify from government witnesses (unless the individuals had left government or retired). Under the Inquiry‘s Rules, such witnesses could be issued a Summons to attend a hearing to provide testimony on a matter requested by the Commission Administrator.

Sixty-three Summons letters were issued to federal, provincial, and territorial government officials from across Canada. None of the subpoenaed officials agreed to attend any of the hearings to provide their testimony.

Unlike a government commission, the NCI had no legal authority to compel a witness to testify. The Summonses that were served on government witnesses were non-binding in that it was clear that there was no criminal or civil liability for failing to attend.

Although government witnesses were served with a Summons to attend at a specific location at a specific time, the Summons also made it clear that the witness could attend at a different hearing date, in-person or virtually. This was done so that if a witness had a busy schedule it was made clear to them the NCI would accommodate them so that they could testify.

5.3.4. Recording and Archiving of Witness Testimony

All eight hearings were recorded in their entirety. Recordings of each day and individual recordings of each witness will be permanently archived and available for viewing on the NCI website. English and French transcripts of the testimony from each hearing will also be permanently archived and available on the NCI website. 

5.3.5 Collecting Documents

An exhibit ledger was developed for materials entered as testimony by witnesses at the hearings.

Witness materials included Powerpoint presentations, reports, curriculum vitae, photos, and media reports.

All exhibit materials were identified with a unique number and classified by Commission Counsel as public or in-camera (i.e, confidential). All exhibits were listed on the Inquiry website, and all public items were posted as well. (In-camera items are available for viewing by the Commissioners only.) The exhibit ledger will be permanently archived for ongoing reference on the NCI website. 

5.3.6  Commissioners‘ Evaluation of Evidence and Report

The National Citizens Inquiry tasked the four independent Commissioners with evaluating the testimonial evidence presented at Public Hearings.

Following are some of the guiding principles utilized in the evaluation process:

Impartiality: The independent Commissioners approached the testimonial evidence with impartiality, ensuring that no biases or preconceived notions influenced their assessment. They considered the credibility and relevance of the evidence without favouring any particular party or agenda.

Corroboration: The independent Commissioners sought out corroborating evidence whenever possible. This could include documents, photographs, videos, expert opinions, or other witness-testimony that supported or refuted the claims made by the individuals providing testimony. Corroborating evidence strengthens the overall reliability and credibility of the testimonial evidence.

Witness credibility: The independent Commissioners carefully assessed the credibility of each witness who provided testimony. Factors such as consistency, coherence, demeanour, expertise, and potential biases were considered. The Commissioners were also aware of any potential motivations or conflicts of interest that may have impacted the witness‘s credibility.

Cross-examination: Allowing for cross-examination of witnesses was an important aspect of evaluating testimonial evidence. Cross-examination provided an opportunity to challenge and test the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented. The Inquiry provided for a fair and thorough cross-examination process, allowing all parties involved to present their arguments and question witnesses effectively.

Context and relevance: The independent Commissioners considered the broader context in which the testimonial evidence was presented. This included understanding the background, circumstances, and any relevant historical, social, or cultural factors that may have influenced the testimony‘s reliability or interpretation. Assessing the relevance of each piece of evidence to the issues at hand was crucial in determining its probative value.

Consistency and contradictions: The independent Commissioners carefully analyzed any inconsistencies or contradictions within the testimonial evidence. Inconsistencies may have raised doubts about the accuracy or reliability of the testimony, while contradictions may have required further clarification or investigation.

Independent expert advice: When necessary, the independent Commissioners sought independent expert advice to evaluate complex or technical aspects of the testimonial evidence. Expert opinions provide additional insights and assist in assessing the credibility and reliability of the evidence.

Transparency and documentation: The independent Commissioners maintained transparency throughout the evaluation process by documenting their reasoning and decision-making. This included providing clear and well-reasoned explanations for the weight given to different testimonial evidence and any conclusions drawn.

5.3.7. Preparing the Report

Several steps were involved in the process of preparing this Report. Following is a general outline of the key elements involved in preparing a final report.

Review of Evidence: Each of the four Commissioners thoroughly reviewed all the evidence presented during the public hearing. This included testimonies, documents, expert reports, and any other relevant materials. The Commissioners analyzed and evaluated the evidence based on its credibility, relevance, and overall weight.

Analysis and Findings: The Commissioners carefully analyzed the evidence to identify key issues, patterns, and relevant facts. They assessed the credibility and reliability of the evidence, considering any corroborating or conflicting information. The Commissioners may have also consulted legal frameworks, relevant policies, and precedents to guide their analysis.

Assessing Legal and Ethical Standards: The Commissioners applied relevant legal and ethical standards to the evidence and testimonies presented. This may have involved considering any applicable laws, regulations, or guidelines governing the subject matter of the Public Hearing. The Commissioners‘ analysis and findings aligned with these standards.

Drafting the Report: Based on the analysis and findings, the Commissioners drafted the Final Report. This Report includes an introduction, executive summary, methodology, findings of fact, analysis of legal and ethical issues, conclusions, and recommendations.

Consultation and Peer Review: Before finalizing the Report, the Support Group ensured the accuracy and completeness. Peer review was utilized to help identify any potential biases, errors, or areas that required further clarification.

Including Supporting Documentation: The Final Report includes supporting documentation to provide transparency and credibility. This includes URLs, appendices containing relevant exhibits, transcripts of testimonies, or references to relevant laws, regulations, or policies.

Review: The Commissioners and Support Group reviewed the draft Report for accuracy, consistency, and clarity. Any necessary revisions or edits were made at this stage. The Report also underwent internal review by legal advisors and other experts to ensure its integrity.

Public Release: Once the Report was finalized and approved, it was submitted to the Commission for translation and made available to the public in both official languages of Canada. The Report is published on the Commission‘s website, shared with relevant stakeholders. Both electronic and hardcopies of the Final Report are made available to the public on the National Citizens Inquiry website.

Implementation and Follow-up: As a result of the evolving nature of the information and far reaching and transformative recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report, the Commissioners may be called upon to take part in a process of public education and debate. Although largely a process that will be carried out by the Commission itself, the Commissioners may monitor the progress of distribution and provide follow-up reports or recommendations as necessary.

The principles of independence, thoroughness, transparency, and fairness guided the Commissioners‘ work in preparing this Final Report.

It must be clearly understood that although it has always been the intent of the Commissioners to include testimony from all sides of the debate, no public authorities responsible for the planning, design, or implementation of the pandemic measures elected to take part in the hearings.

Testimony was invited from representatives of various levels of governments across Canada, and in order to facilitate schedules, 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 or at another agreeable time.

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

ZERO members of government appeared at the Public Hearings to testify.

The majority of these representatives did not even take the time to respond to the Commission.

5.3.8. Concluding Observations on the Process

A public inquiry can be an important mechanism for investigating and addressing significant issues of public concern. But only if that inquiry can be shown to be fair and without bias.

Canadians no longer believe they can rely on their elected representatives or public institutions to provide an in-depth, fair, and impartial evaluation of how governments handled and reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additionally, media institutions, whose traditional role was to question the actions of government and inform the people in a fair and unbiased manner, failed to question government actions and served instead to simply repeat government and public health messaging without question. At the same time, those media institutions received significant funding from the federal government, perhaps contributing to their reluctance to hold it or any government to account.

The only solution, in these unprecedented times, was to form an independent, citizen-led, citizen-funded and non-biased commission such as the National Citizens Inquiry to undertake this historic task.

The National Citizens Inquiry is paid for and operated by the citizens of Canada. The National Citizens Inquiry is not aligned with any political party. The National Citizens Inquiry was deliberately structured so that the Commissioners were free of influence from any person or source.

The National Citizens Inquiry has received no funding from government.

The National Citizens Inquiry has received no large corporate funding.

The National Citizens Inquiry has received no funding from the pharmaceutical industry.

The National Citizens Inquiry is paid for and operated by the citizens of Canada.

The National Citizens Inquiry is not aligned with any political party nor does it have a political agenda, except to represent the best interests of Canadians.

The Commissioners played a crucial role in ensuring fairness and minimizing bias.

The Commissioners were specifically selected from different geographic areas of Canada.

The background, training, and experience of the Commissioners is varied and represents different perspectives.

Although no human being is truly without certain preconceptions and biases, the diverse nature, experience, and background of the Commissioners helped to recognize those biases and address them so that the overall process and Report was fair and without prejudice.

All internal discussions, meetings, and considerations of the Commissioners were held in private, fully independent of any undue influence from outside sources.

Readers of this Report should consider several factors when evaluating the fairness and unbiased nature of the National Citizens Inquiry including:

Independence: A fair and unbiased public inquiry must be independent from any undue influence or interference, ensuring that the investigators and decision-makers are impartial and free from conflicts of interest. This independence was achieved through the appointment of the independent Commissioners who were provided with sufficient authority and resources.

Transparency: The National Citizens Inquiry was transparent, allowing for open access to information, evidence, and proceedings. Transparency is essential to build trust in the Inquiry‘s findings and ensures that the public has a clear understanding of the investigative process and its outcomes.

Inclusivity: A fair public inquiry should strive to be inclusive, providing opportunities for all relevant stakeholders, including affected individuals, organizations, and experts, to participate and present their perspectives. Inclusivity helps ensure that diverse voices are heard and that the Inquiry‘s conclusions are well-rounded and comprehensive. Although this inclusivity was extended to all groups, including various levels of government, government representatives elected not to participate.

Evidence-based approach: A fair and unbiased public inquiry relies on an evidence-based approach where facts, data, and expert analysis form the basis for the Inquiry‘s findings. The collection, analysis, and interpretation of evidence was rigorous and objective, taking into account different sources and viewpoints.

Due process and fair procedures: The principles of due process were upheld in the National Citizens Inquiry, ensuring that all parties involved were treated fairly and had an opportunity to present their case, cross examine witnesses, and challenge evidence. Fair procedures, including the right to legal representation, were essential to maintain the integrity of the Inquiry process.

Report and recommendations: A fair and unbiased public inquiry concludes with a comprehensive Report that presents the findings, analysis, and recommendations based on the evidence and investigations conducted. This Report was written in clear and direct language and is accessible to all. The report provides a fair assessment of the issues under investigation, without undue influence or bias.

By adhering to these principles, the National Citizens Inquiry demonstrated its commitment to fairness, impartiality, the pursuit of truth, ensuring accountability, transparency, and the restoration of public trust in matters of significant public interest.