3. Independent Commissioners

Selection of New and Additional Commissioners

The Inquiry‘s Commissioners were selected for objectivity, independence, and competence. Commissioner Ken Drysdale was originally selected as the Chair, and continues in this role. Commissioner Drysdale provided direction to the Commission Administrator, Mr. Ted Kuntz, throughout the course of the Regina hearings.

Although it was preferable that the original four Commissioners would continue to participate in the 2024 Regina hearings, due to previous time commitments and competing responsibilities, two of the original four commissioners were unable to participate in the Regina hearings.

The Commissioners selected to participate in the 2024 Regina hearings as follows:

• Ken Drysdale, Chair

• Patricia Robertson

• Louis Olivier Fontaine

• Janice Kaikkonen

The Commissioners had the power to direct the Inquiry, to decide any procedural or substantive questions 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 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.

The Commissioners

Following are brief descriptions of the independent Commissioners:

Ken Drysdale, Chairperson, brings over 40 years of distinguished experience as a Professional Engineer to his role as Chairperson of the National Citizens Inquiry.

Ken has made significant contributions to forensic engineering, where he continues to actively engage in investigations, preparation of expert reports, and providing expert testimony at trials, arbitrations, and mediations.

Ken’s leadership is further underscored by his role as co-author of the comprehensive 5,342-page investigative report, Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada. With a wealth of experience in complex engineering projects, business management, and advocacy for democratic rights, Ken Drysdale's extensive career, leadership, and commitment to integrity make him exceptionally qualified to lead the National Citizens Inquiry as its Chairman.

Patricia Robertson has a passion for learning something new everyday. She spent five years studying Advanced Level Medical Science at Liverpool University with a specialty in Immunohaemotology (FIMLT), working in the UK at Chester City Hospital’s West Cheshire Maternity and Walsall Manor.

She came to Canada in 1976. She worked at the University of Alberta Hospital’s blood bank and also worked as a home care nurse. After challenging the Canadian Exams in 1996, Patricia studied alternative and traditional therapies and began her own practice as a member of the Canadian Remedial Massage and Osteopathic Therapist Association and is a Certified Onsen Therapy Technique Instructor. She currently consults as an invited guest working with a variety of healthcare professionals.

Louis Olivier Fontaine After studying health sciences and completing a bachelor’s degree in architecture at Laval University, Louis Olivier Fontaine studied law at the University of Quebec, in Montreal. After becoming a lawyer in 2013, he has practiced in various workplaces and areas of law. Notably he has defended professionals in disciplinary matters and acted as lawyer for the National Citizens Inquiry during the hearings held in Quebec in May 2023.

He has been active within the Réinfo Québec collective since the summer of 2021 in the achievement of its mission, which is the dissemination of fair, factual information without conflicts of interest in health and other social issues.

Mr. Fontaine recently resigned from the Québec Bar, denouncing the refusal of debate by the courts and the repression exercised by professional orders against all those who question the official narrative surrounding the COVID crisis.

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.

Commissioners‘ Evaluation of Evidence and Report

The National Citizens Inquiry tasked the four independent Commissioners with evaluating the testimonial evidence presented at the 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 included 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 witness credibility.

Cross Examination: The Inquiry Rules permit interested persons to apply for standing to cross-examine witnesses.  For this Hearing no parties applied for this right.

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 testimony 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.

Supplemental Report of the 2024 Regina Hearings

Several steps were involved in the process of preparing this Supplemental Report. The following is a general outline of the key elements involved in the preparation.

Review of Evidence: Each of the four Commissioners thoroughly reviewed all the evidence presented during the supplemental hearings in Regina. 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 also consulted legal frameworks, relevant policies, and existing 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 involved considering any applicable laws, regulations, or guidelines governing the subject matter of the supplemental hearings. The Commissioners’ analyses and findings were aligned with these standards.

Drafting the Supplemental Report: Based on the analyses and findings, the Commissioners drafted the Supplemental Report. This Supplemental 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 Supplemental Report, the Support Group ensured its accuracy and completeness. Peer review was utilized to help identify any potential biases, errors, or areas that required further clarification.

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

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

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

https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/

Implementation and Follow-up: Given the evolving nature of the information and the far-reaching and transformative recommendations and conclusions contained in the Supplemental 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 Supplemental 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, during the original 2023 hearings, no public authorities responsible for the planning, design, or implementation of the pandemic measures elected to take part in the supplemental hearings.

During the 2024 supplemental hearings in Regina, one current Member of the Saskatchewan Legislature testified.

Testimony was invited from representatives of various levels of government across Canada. In order to facilitate schedules, non-judicial subpoenas were issued, and government witnesses were given the option of testifying either in person or via video conference at any of the hearing locations or at another agreeable time.

Members of government, regulators, and authorities were subpoenaed to attend and testify. ONE current member of government appeared at the supplemental hearings to testify. The majority of these representatives did not even take the time to respond to the Commission.

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 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 reporting were 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 Supplemental 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 Supplemental Report was written in clear and direct language and is accessible to all. The Supplemental 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, ensured accountability, transparency, and the restoration of public trust in matters of significant public interest.