7.5.5 Early Treatments 7.5.5 Early Treatments Introduction According to a large number of attending physicians and researchers, an important pillar of pandemic management which was particularly evaded, not to say actively suppressed in most rich countries, was the off-label use of generic drugs whose harmlessness had been demonstrated by decades of use on large populations. Recommending against early treatments was based on layers of lies, cowardice, and treason to the Hippocratic oath. Sadly, the decision to suppress early treatment exposed the corruption of our institutions, which enthusiastically persecuted the courageous doctors who dared treating COVID-19 patients with all kinds of generic drugs that had been part of the pharmacy for decades and for which the safety profile had already been well established. Meanwhile, the majority of doctors sat in silence as accomplices of the colleges of physicians, doing treatments discreetly, underground, or doing nothing, out of fear of retribution. Using an approved drug off-label was far from unusual, as the majority of drugs are prescribed off-label. The fact that drugs proposed as early treatments had not been officially approved by the health agencies for COVID-19 treatment was a bogus excuse to suppress their use. Besides, we were in the middle of a pandemic, and in the past, the recommendation was to try any potential generic drugs to get some therapeutic benefits. However, the advent of any potential treatment posed a serious threat to the eventual interim authorization of the COVID-19 vaccines. The suppression of early treatment was not for public health reasons—quite the contrary. The data speaks volumes: the death toll was much lower across the world where early treatments were deployed en masse. Unfortunately, for the longest time, the medical establishment in collaboration with the health authorities collaborated to justify their harassment of the courageous doctors. They claimed to have been protecting the public against alleged snake oil peddlers. To this day, the health authorities have downplayed the importance of vitamin D in the prevention of infectious seasonal diseases, which occur more frequently in the winter when vitamin D levels typically drop below the healthy threshold. Even in the face of all the evidence on early treatments, advocates were ignored and vilified by the authorities. The c19early.org website regularly updated all observational studies, randomized trials and meta-analyses. As of August of 2023, there was a real-time compilation of 3013 studies examining 4468 potential COVID-19 treatments, of which 52 have already been approved as early treatments in 102 countries. Of all these treatments, ivermectin was among the most effective, with 62 per cent improvement observed in 99 combined studies enrolling 137,255 patients. Ivermectin was recommended in several countries, including Japan, where it was created. In spite of the evidence, several attending physicians experienced enormous difficulties, including sanctions. In order to prevent the physicians from deploying ivermectin and the panoply of other treatments which were used freely in several countries, the authorities threatened to revoke, and sometimes did revoke, their licence to practise medicine. Without speculating on the motivations that led to such a suppression of early treatments, it is likely that the recognition of any treatment whatsoever would have compromised the interim authorization of the experimental vaccines that, by April 2020, were being promoted as a panacea for the pandemic. This all-vaccination strategy required that any valid therapeutic approach be inoperative. And that was what happened, whatever the real intentions were behind those decisions. It appears, and it is noteworthy, that not a single one of our health agencies did a systematic analysis of peer-reviewed literature of potential treatments. Some bureaucrats, when challenged in court, claimed they were unaware of the information on the c19early.org website. Instead, they cited as gospel the information on the Health Canada website. Pioneers of Early Treatments Many doctors faced being reprimanded by their regulators for treating their patients, and many paid the price for their courageous actions to respect their Hippocratic oath. In many states, even taking care of sick people in person was discouraged to fuel the perceived dangers of COVID-19 that propaganda equated with the Spanish flu. Even earlier on, we knew that this was a lie. The data had clearly shown that in terms of adjusted life years lost, the death toll of the Spanish flu was about 100-fold higher than COVID-19, and they treated the sick people back then. Considering that many frontline care workers treat Ebola-infected people at their peril, we have to appreciate the level of fear-mongering that made healthcare workers so afraid to take care of putative COVID-19 patients and led them to mistreat the “dangerous“ unvaccinated. Among the pioneers of early treatments was Professor Didier Raoult. By following the scientific literature, he found that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a drug he was familiar with for the treatment of malaria, had been shown to be an effective COVID-19 treatment by a Chinese team. He immediately tested it in his institute, the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire en Maladies Infectieuses de Marseille (IHU of Marseilles), and found very interesting results, both alone or in combination with azithromycin (AZ). His first report attracted some positive comments but also some surprisingly negative ones. While many other doctors in France and across the world followed up on these initial successes, a targeted campaign of denigration was put in place to suppress the use of HCQ by any means. All of a sudden, HCQ not only had to be shown to be ineffective by fraudulent trials, but it also had to be shown to be toxic. The infamous Lancet -gate paper fraudulently claimed a 10 per cent cardiac toxicity based on fabricated data that had to be retracted in a few days. However, as soon as the Lancet paper was out, the Minister of Health used it as a pretext to suppress the use of HCQ in France for COVID-19. Astoundingly, after the paper was retracted, the Minister maintained his proscription of HCQ. This had a chilling effect on HCQ use in France, even to this day. Prof. Raoult, against wind and tide, continued to use the HCQ-AZ therapy at the IHU. He published the largest observational study, with more than 30,000 IHU patients, showing an indisputable benefit of the combination of HCQ and AZ for the early treatment of COVID-19. In an unprecedented move, he had his study verified by a bailiff as a preemptive measure against the horde of fact-checkers paid by the corrupt mainstream media on behalf of the political establishment. The saga continued. His study was attacked by the French medical establishment, fighting ferociously to avoid the judicial consequences of having suppressed this early treatment and be found responsible for preventable deaths of thousands of COVID-19 patients. Another important pioneer in the development and use of early treatments was Dr. Peter McCullough. In August 2020, in front of the Texas Senate, he presented his work on the various phases of SARS-CoV-2 infection—viral proliferation, cytokine injuries, and thrombosis—that have discrete symptom manifestations but overlap over the 30 days of COVID-19 disease. Dr. McCullough was among the first to actively promote to the medical community a panoply of various treatments that could lead to very effective therapeutic support for COVID-19 patients. His treatments included intracellular anti-infectives, antivirals, antibodies, corticosteroid, immunomodulators, and anti-platelet, anticoagulants. His clear message, based on his medical practice, was that many therapeutic interventions were available to avoid serious disease and death from COVID-19. This message was echoed by other pioneers, like Dr. Pierre Kory and his colleagues at the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Dr. Kory made a remarkable presentation in front of the U.S. Senate in December 2020 to promote the use of ivermectin, which had shown solid clinical results. Although the promise of ivermectin had been strongly disputed by authorities in several countries, a flurry of examples demonstrated its clear effectiveness. Again, as with HCQ, ivermectin was attacked by the medical establishment in many creative ways to suppress its use. After successes in Mexico, Peru, Japan, and India during the Delta wave where the majority of states treated with ivermectin, the waves lasted 40 days and caused comparatively half the number of deaths in the states that treated, such as in Uttar Pradesh, versus states like Kerala, which had banned ivermectin. At that time, only three per cent were vaccinated in India. The Delta wave in India was much weaker than in France, which curiously experienced two delta waves that spread over several months, while the wave quickly subsided in India. During the first Delta wave, the vaccination rate in France was 40 per cent; during the stronger second wave, the vaccinated rate was 80 per cent. India‘s better performance could not be explained by a low rate of infection in the population because serological tests in June–July 2021 (in 21 of the 30 states in India, enrolling 37,000 people), 67 per cent of people were identified as infected and contributing to herd immunity. In India, the Omicron variant arrived 10 days later. They had 20 per cent fewer cases than with Delta, and it subsided earlier than in France. France had 10 times more cases with Omicron than with the Delta. In India, natural immunity provided much better protection than did the genetic vaccines in France. States that treated with ivermectin had much weaker Omicron waves than states that did not treat. For example, in Nigeria (220 million inhabitants) there were 10 times fewer deaths with Omicron (69) than with Delta (800) and 444 times fewer deaths than in France. These observations strongly suggest that the combination of natural immunity with early treatments such as ivermectin, which is both preventive and therapeutic, was a very effective approach for the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations Given the incontestable better outcomes in countries that deployed early treatments using a panoply of generic molecules with an established safety record for the management of the COVID-19 epidemic, our recommendations are to: A. Reinstate positive incentives to allow physicians to practise medicine according to an ethical, personalized, and evidence-based science and art, according to their Hippocratic oath. Repudiate algorithmic centralized protocols and punitive administrative edicts. B. Investigate alleged corruption that has interfered with the customary practice of medicine under the fallacious pretext of promoting public health while diverting the health measures to alternative political and commercial interests. C. Promote preventative health measures grounded in healthy lifestyles and real food, avoiding processed foods and sugar overconsumption and promoting adequate vitamin supplementation, physical exercise, sufficient sleep, stress management, and a vibrant social life. D. Encourage open and evidence-based discussions among healthcare professionals, researchers, and regulatory bodies regarding the use of generic drugs for early COVID-19 treatment. E. Review and revise treatment guidelines to include early intervention options that have demonstrated safety and efficacy in large populations. Consider the experience of countries that successfully employed such treatments. F. Address institutional corruption by investigating cases of corruption and suppression of early treatments within healthcare institutions and regulatory agencies. Implement measures to ensure transparency and ethical conduct in decision-making. G. Support early treatment research into the efficacy and safety of early treatment options for COVID-19 by allocating resources. Promote collaboration between medical professionals and researchers in this field. H. Ensure patients give Informed Consent for their chosen treatment by discussing all available treatment options, including early interventions. I. Establish independent medical advisory committees , free from conflicts of interest, to assess treatment recommendations and provide guidance to regulatory agencies. Enhance transparency in decision-making. J. Promote awareness of vitamin D and its importance in preventing infectious seasonal diseases, especially during the winter months when vitamin D levels tend to decrease. Encourage further research in this area. K. Hold public health agencies accountable for conducting systematic analyses of peer-reviewed literature on potential treatments. Ensure that decision-making is evidence-based and prioritizes public health over the public health establishment. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

5.4.6 Shedding and Secondary Exposure 5.4.6 Shedding and Secondary Exposure Introduction The issue of shedding and secondary exposure was prominently discussed during the NCI hearings in Regina, raising significant concerns about the implications of vaccinated individuals potentially transmitting vaccine-derived materials to unvaccinated individuals. The concept of shedding involves the release and subsequent transmission of vaccine components, such as spike proteins, through bodily fluids. This phenomenon and its potential health impacts were corroborated by evidence provided in the Regina NCI hearings. Testimonies on Shedding and Secondary Exposure Dr. Sabine Hazan Research Findings : Dr. Hazan’s research indicated that vaccinated individuals could shed the original strain of the COVID-19 virus. Her studies used genetic sequencing to detect the presence of the virus in fecal matter and suggested that the vaccines themselves might be responsible for spreading the virus, as vaccinated patients were found to carry and potentially transmit the original, un-mutated strain. Dr. Pierre Kory Shedding Mechanism : Dr. Kory elaborated on the FDA’s definition of shedding, which involves the release of vaccine-related genetic materials through excreta, secreta, or the skin. He highlighted that Pfizer’s documentation acknowledged the shedding potential of their vaccines. However, mandated shedding studies, which are crucial to understanding the extent and impact of this phenomenon, were not conducted. Dr. Marian Laderoute Health Risks : Dr. Laderoute focused on the toxic effects of the spike protein, which is known to cause micro-clotting in the blood. She indicated that individuals vaccinated with mRNA vaccines could potentially shed the spike protein for up to three months, posing health risks to those around them. Her review of data from the UK Office of National Statistics suggested an increase in mortality rates for both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals following mass vaccination, supporting the hypothesis of harmful shedding. Yvonne Nickel Personal Experience : Yvonne Nickel provided a personal account of experiencing adverse effects attributed to shedding. As a lactation consultant working with vaccinated mothers, she observed increased incidences of “tongue-tie“ in newborns. She also reported symptoms such as brain fog, abdominal pain, and increased blood pressure, which she linked to close contact with vaccinated individuals. Corroborating Evidence from the 2023 NCI Report General Findings on Shedding Spike Protein Toxicity : The 2023 NCI Report emphasized the toxic nature of the spike protein, which can lead to micro-clotting and other health issues. It also highlighted the potential for the spike protein to be shed from vaccinated individuals, posing a risk of secondary exposure to unvaccinated individuals. Regulatory Oversight and Studies : The 2023 NCI Report noted the lack of comprehensive shedding studies, which are essential to fully understand the implications of secondary exposure. The absence of such studies was a significant oversight, given the novel nature of mRNA technology and its widespread use during the pandemic. Impact on Public Health and Policy Increased Mortality Rates : Analysis of mortality rates in the UK following the vaccine rollout showed an increase in all-cause mortality among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The data supported the notion that shedding could have adverse effects on public health beyond the direct impact of the virus itself. Informed Consent and Public Awareness : The 2023 NCI Report stressed the importance of Informed Consent, which was compromised by the lack of transparency regarding the potential for shedding. The Report called for more rigorous disclosure of vaccine risks and benefits to ensure that the public could make informed decisions. Recommendations The testimonies and the 2023 NCI Report highlight the need for: Immediately Discontinuing Use of mRNA vaccines. Comprehensive Shedding Studies: Conduct detailed studies on the shedding of vaccine-derived materials to understand the full scope and impact of secondary exposure. Transparent Communication: Ensure that information about the risks of shedding and secondary exposure is transparently communicated to the public to support Informed Consent. Regulatory Oversight: Strengthen regulatory oversight to mandate shedding studies for new vaccines and ensure that the results are publicly accessible. Public Health Guidelines: Develop public health guidelines to mitigate the risks associated with shedding, particularly for vulnerable populations. Addressing these concerns is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring that vaccine policies are based on comprehensive scientific evidence, safeguarding both individual and public health. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

Phase Three Trial Data Alleged Manipulation of Data Interim Authorization of Covid-19 Vaccine Introduction The Commission received detailed information about the procedure through which "approval" for COVID-19 vaccines was granted in Canada. According to the testimony, the conventional evaluation and endorsement process for the COVID-19 vaccines was not adhered to by the Canadian Government. Instead, a new process was established whereby Health Canada "authorized" the Covid-19 vaccines under an Interim Order (which was later adopted as a permanent regulation). It is important to understand that the Covid-19 vaccines were never approved under the traditional approval process for drugs in Canada. Under the alternative authorization process, the necessity to establish the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines through an objective manner appears to have been set aside. Objectively and independently proving the safety and efficacy of any new drug before its introduction into the market is an essential cornerstone of responsible healthcare and public safety. This rigorous requirement serves as a critical safeguard for individuals' well- being, ensuring that potential risks are thoroughly assessed and weighed against the benefits. This principle becomes even more pivotal when the drug is intended for widespread use across all segments of the population. The blanket use of a drug, especially one like the Covid-19 vaccines, necessitates an unassailable foundation of evidence. Rigorous testing, transparent evaluation, and independent verification of safety and efficacy are fundamental to instilling trust among both healthcare professionals and the general public. This approach ensures that medical interventions are based on the most accurate and reliable information available. In the context of a global health crisis, these principles are vital to ensuring that public health measures are not only effective but also respectful of individuals' rights and dignity. It is imperative that all drugs proposed to be released to the public be objectively and independently proven to be both safe and effective. It is for this reason that strict proof of safety and efficacy have been required by our drug approval regulations. The need to prove both safety and efficacy take on particular importance for drugs intended for the entire population, including children and pregnant women. This approach forms the bedrock of responsible medical practice and contributes to a society that values health, science, and the dignity of each person. Testimony Concerning Interim Authorization of Covid-19 Vaccines The following vaccines were authorized by Health Canada under the Interim Order: Pfizer-BioNTech on December 9, 2020 for ages 16 and older, and May 5, 2021 for ages 12-15; Moderna on December 23, 2020 for ages 18 and over and August 27, 2021 for ages 12-17; AstraZeneca on February 26, 2021 for ages 18 and older, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) on March 5, 2021 for ages 18 and older. The Commission received testimony from two key witnesses, Shawn Buckley and Deanna McLeod, regarding the procedure through which the authorization of Covid-19 vaccines took place in Canada. The initial authorization of all Covid-19 vaccines was provided under a temporary, Interim Order, which exempted them from the traditional regulations that demand manufacturers to demonstrate objective evidence of safety and effectiveness. The result was that while chief medical officers across the country repeatedly assured Canadians that the Covid-19 vaccines were "safe and effective" - the general Canadian population had no understanding that their authorization process had not required objective proof of safety nor efficacy. Shawn Buckley The Political Approval of the Covid Vaccine: A Constitutional Lawyer's Perspective The normal regulatory process for approving a new drug in Canada is set out in Division 8 of Canada's Food and Drug Regulations (the "Regulations”). To receive approval for a new drug in Canada, the Regulations require evidence of both the drug's safety and effectiveness be demonstrated to the Minister of Health. Once evidence of safety and efficacy is provided, the Minister considers whether the benefits outweigh the risks. If evidence of safety and effectiveness has been provided that shows the benefits outweigh the risk, the Minister may grant market approval of a new drug. These first steps of demonstrating safety and effectiveness, before approval, are essential to ensuring that Canadians are not exposed to unknown risks in the name of unknown effectiveness. The Federal Government’s creation of the Interim Order required Health Canada to approve the Covid-19 vaccines without proof of either safety or of efficacy which resulted in millions of Canadians taking a new drug whose safety and effectiveness could not be known. The unfortunate result of authorizing the Covid-19 vaccines through the Interim Order (instead of under the traditional approval process under the Regulations) was revealed through NCI testimony – many Canadians were injured or killed, while at the same time the Covid-19 vaccine was revealed not to be effective in preventing infection and transmission nor reducing the severity of illness. The benefit of hindsight demonstrates clearly why the traditional tests under the Regulations are needed for all new drug approvals, and why Canada should not authorize drugs under Interim Orders, even in cases of public health emergencies. The Traditional Drug Approval Process The requirements that must be met to approve a new drug in Canada are found in C.08.002(2) of the Regulations. Of particular importance are high requirements for proof of both safety and efficacy. These are found as follows: C.08.002(2) A new drug submission shall contain sufficient information and material to enable the Minister to assess the safety and effectiveness of the new drug, including the following: detailed reports of the tests made to establish the safety of the new drug for the purpose and under the conditions of use recommended; substantial evidence of the clinical effectiveness of the new drug for the purpose and under the conditions of use recommended[.] Under the traditional approval process in the Regulations the first step is to establish the safety profile of the new drug and demonstrate to the Minister of Health that the drug is safe for use in the human population. The second step is to establish the new drug’s benefit profile, in other words, is it effective, does it work. The third step, although not specifically included in the regulation, is to evaluate the Risk / Benefit profile for the drug. In other words, the regulatory review has to establish that the benefits of using the drug outweigh the risk of using the drug. One cannot satisfy the requirement for a risk/benefit analysis without a complete understanding of the drug's safety and benefit profile. Interim Order: Importation, Sale and Advertising of Drugs in Relation to COVID-19 Instead of following the Regulations, on September 16, 2021, the Minister of Health made an Interim Order exempting all Covid-19 drugs (including Covid-19 vaccines) from the normal review and approval process. The Interim Order was made under section 30.1 of the Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-27, which permits the Minister of Health to make an interim order that overrides normal regulations. The section reads: 30.1 (1) The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a significant risk, direct or indirect, to health, safety or the environment. The term “significant risk” is not defined in the Act, nor is there any proportionality built into this section. Thus, there do not appear to be any legislative safeguards or guidelines for when this power to override is used by the Minister of Health. Under this broad power, the Minister made the Interim Order which, rather than requiring significant evidence of safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines as mandatory requirements for approval, only required the vaccine manufacturers to provide: 3(1) … sufficient information and material to enable the Minister to determine whether to issue the authorization, including … (o) the known information in relation to the quality, safety and effectiveness of the drug. By letting the Minister make a decision based on "known information" about safety and effectiveness, this allowed the Covid-19 vaccines to be authorized in advance of actual knowledge about their safety or effectiveness. The Interim Order attempted to make up for this by having manufacturers promise to do more follow-up research as follows: 3(2) If, at the time an application is initially submitted to the Minister, the applicant is unable to provide information or material referred to in any of paragraphs (1)(g) to (k) and (m) to (o) or that information or material is incomplete, the applicant must include in the initial part of the application a plan as to how and when they will provide the Minister with the missing information or material. However, as will be discussed further below, the Interim Order also prevented the Minister from revoking authorization once given, meaning that the Minister was absolved of the responsibility to protect the public if subsequent safety problems were discovered in the Covid-19 vaccines. It is vital to recognize that when the Interim Order was issued, the Minister of Health at the time had attended Lakehead University, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts, and had received a Master of Public Administration from the University of Victoria. To our understanding, the minister possessed no medical training credentials that we would consider pertinent to making the required determinations under the regulations. Approval of Covid-19 Vaccines was virtually guaranteed under the Interim Order Remarkably, the Interim Order effectively required Health Canada to authorize a Covid-19 vaccine for use in the Canadian population even in the absence of detailed evidence of safety and substantial evidence of efficacy. Section 5 of the Interim Order provides: The Minister must issue an authorization in respect of a Covid-19 drug if the following requirements are met: the applicant has submitted an application to the Minister that meets the requirements set out in subsection 3(1) or 4(2); the applicant has provided the Minister with all information or material, including samples, requested under subsection 13(1) in the time, form and manner specified under subsection 13(2); and the Minister has sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the benefits associated with the drug outweigh the risks, having regard to the uncertainties relating to the benefits and risks and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to Covid-19. The test set out in (c) above is startling when compared to the traditional test for new drugs under the Regulations. Under the traditional test, evidence of safety and efficacy must be proven. Under the Interim Order, there only needs to be "evidence to support the conclusion" that the benefits outweigh the risks. This does not mean the Minister (i.e., Health Canada) has to be convinced and actually reach the conclusion. If the test was to convince Health Canada, the test would read: the Minister has sufficient evidence to conclude The difference in language is important. Under this test, it appears that a vaccine would have to be authorized as long as there was sufficient evidence to support an argument that the benefits outweighed the risks. In addition, the risk versus benefit test need not be robust, as the Minister is to "have regard" for the "uncertainties" of the benefits and risks. It is not clear how the Minister is expected to perform a risk versus benefit analysis when there is insufficient safety and efficacy evidence to determine true risks versus benefits. It is even more unclear how to perform a risk versus benefit analysis while "having regard to the uncertainties" of the risks versus benefits. Ultimately, the Interim Order reveals that the Minister's priority was the "necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to Covid-19." The problem, of course, is that under this test, the government placed its perceived "urgent public health need" ahead of safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines. This appears to be what the Government of Canada actually did. Regardless of whether the need for a drug is urgent, this cannot override a proper assessment of safety, particularly when Canadians are under the impression that a drug has been proven safe. The NCI was not made aware of any public health authority in Canada cautioning Canadians that the vaccines had been authorized without the traditional need to prove their safety. Instead, the Government of Canada was under enormous pressure in the media to secure vaccines and make them available to Canadians. In response, it placed orders for millions of doses from the manufacturers. This placed the Government in a conflict of interest because it had purchased and imported unapproved vaccines while it waited for itself to approve the vaccines. The Interim Order appears to have been designed to ensure that the vaccines would have no problem in receiving authorization. As indicated above, in the traditional drug approval process, chances are not taken. If there is uncertainty about either safety or efficacy, the drug is not approved. There must be strict objective evidence of both safety and efficacy. It must also be objectively clear that the benefits outweigh the risks before a new drug is approved. It can only be objectively clear that the benefits of a drug outweigh the risks when the benefits and risks are objectively known. The test for Covid-19 vaccines abandoned this need for objective certainty. Instead of requiring objective proof of: safety; efficacy, and benefit outweighing risk. The Covid-19 vaccines were authorized under a subjective test which mandated that authorization must be granted if an argument could be made to support the conclusion that the benefits outweighed the risk. The question arises: what if there was evidence that went both ways? In other words, what if there was evidence that pointed towards greater benefits, but there was also evidence that pointed towards risks? Under the Interim Order, it seems the Minister must then take into account the subjective factors of: uncertainty and the urgent public health need for a vaccine. This cannot be an appropriate standard for approving a drug that the Government intends to administer to the entire population. It is difficult to conceive of a less-scientific test for drug authorization than that found in the Interim Order. The Interim Order also ensured that the authorization of a Covid-19 vaccine could not be revoked: due to evidence the vaccine was unsafe or not-effective; due to assessments the benefits did not outweigh the risks. This resulted from the fact that once a vaccine was authorized under the Interim Order, most of the Regulations did not apply, including C.08.006. This particular regulation is the safeguard that allows the Minister of Health to cancel a drug’s market authorization if evidence is uncovered that the drug is not safe. Instead, the Interim Order contained its own vague safeguards allowing for cancellation only in a few limited circumstances. The exclusion of the Minister’s normal powers to revoke authorization, and the reliance on more restricted revocation powers under the Interim Order means that Canadians could not have confidence that the Covid-19 vaccines would be pulled from the market if there was evidence that they were not safe. This situation persisted for roughly a year. Were the Covid-19 Vaccines Approved Without Safety or Efficacy Proof? In addition to the Interim Order, Health Canada created a document called "Guidance for market authorization requirements for Covid-19 vaccines." This document is intended to provide guidance to pharmaceutical companies applying for market authorization. As it must, it follows the new subjective test for the vaccines. For example, the current version includes: About market authorizations for a Covid-19 vaccine Health Canada will grant authorizations only if we determine that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh its potential risks. We will base our decision on the evidence provided on the vaccine's safety, quality and efficacy. For vaccines relying on the modified requirements in C.08.002 (2.1) of the Food and Drug Regulations, the risk- benefit analysis weighs the uncertainties about a potential vaccine against the public health need for a vaccine at the time of the decision. Modified requirements for Covid-19 drugs make it possible for initial authorization, based on early data, while the manufacturer continues working on developing a vaccine. We will use terms and conditions to manage uncertainties or risk mitigation measures related to the vaccine in the context of public health. The NCI heard testimony that the Health Canada employee who authorized all of the Covid-19 vaccines swore an Affidavit for a lawsuit for Federal Court File No. T-145-22 in which she described the basis of Health Canada's authorization of the Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. Instead of setting out the evidence relied on in support of the authorization, she simply parrots the words of the test. In the case of Pfizer/ BioNTech, she stated that Health Canada reviewed "quality (chemistry and manufacturing), non-clinical (pharmacology and toxicology), and clinical (immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy) information" and then concluded that "the evidence supports the conclusion that the benefits associated with the Pfizer.BioNTech COVID.19 Vaccine outweigh the risks, having regard to a shorter term (median of 2 months) follow up of safety and efficacy at authorization, and the necessity of addressing the urgent public need related to COVID.19." In the case of Moderna, she stated similarly that: "the evidence supported the conclusion that the benefits associated with the Moderna COVID.19 Vaccine outweighed the risks, having regard to a shorter term (median of 2 months) follow up of safety and efficacy at authorization, and the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to COVID.19." Notably, what she does not cite in support of the vaccine authorization is: objective proof of safety; objective proof of efficacy, and objective proof that the benefits outweigh the risks. Based on testimony to the NCI, and without further evidence from Health Canada, we cannot conclude that Health Canada properly evaluated the safety and efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines before authorization. To the contrary, the authorization of the vaccines appears to have been all but pre-assured by the creation of the Interim Order. The Interim Order Has Become Permanent The Interim Order can only last for a maximum of one year. The Interim Order, therefore, was replaced on March 18, 2021, with permanent regulations that codify the subjective authorization test discussed above. The only notable change between the test in the Interim Order and the new permanent regulation is that the "public health need" that needs to be addressed is no longer described as urgent. Recall that the Interim Order required an examination of risks and benefits, while: “having regard to “the necessity of addressing the urgent public health need related to Covid-19" Now the test simply requires Health Canada to give consideration to “the public health need related to Covid-19.” Thus, under the permanent test, Health Canada no longer has to be swayed by urgency, but simply by the public health need related to Covid-19. In this way, it seems that so long as Covid-19 is a circulating virus, Health Canada must authorize any vaccine for which there is an argument to support the conclusion that its benefits outweigh its risks. In effect, we fear that there will never be a need for Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers to prove safety or efficacy of their products. On a positive note, the NCI heard that the Minister's ability to revoke authorization of Covid-19 vaccines is now subject to the same regular rules as other drugs that are approved for the market. It does beg the question, however, of why was that particular rule modified for Covid-19 vaccines in the first place? Conflict of Interests for the Approval of Experimental Vaccines Canada normally prohibits drugs from being imported into Canada unless they have been approved by Health Canada for use in humans. Despite this, the Interim Order allowed unapproved and unauthorized Covid-19 vaccines to be imported into Canada as long as the Canadian Government was the purchaser. This was called pre-positioning in the Interim Order, and later in the Regulations codifying the Interim Order. The rationale was to assist Canada in expediting its response to the perceived Covid-19 crisis, by pre-purchasing and distributing the vaccines so they would be ready as soon as they were authorized. However, this created a tremendous conflict of interest. Once the vaccines were purchased, imported and ready for distribution, the Government of Canada would have suffered significant political blowback if it was unable to authorize them. Thus, it needed to authorize the Covid-19 vaccines, and it needed to do it quickly. The Government of Canada essentially put itself in charge of authorizing a drug that it had spent millions of public dollars on, had promised publicly on many occasions, and that it wanted to administer to every Canadian citizen. The authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines was all but guaranteed. The Government of Canada ordered the vaccines, imported them, created new regulations to authorize them, and then took significant measures to convince and coerce every Canadian to take multiple doses. The political stakes were high, and the federal government had every motivation to get the vaccines authorized, regardless of their actual efficacy or safety. There was no opportunity for sober second thought. There was no impartial oversight. The entire authorization process appears to have been "gamed" for one result, and one result only: authorization of vaccines for every Canadian, including children. Once the federal Government made mass-vaccination its priority, it should no longer have been solely responsible for their authorization. Timing of the Interim Order The timing of the Interim Order is also curious and coincident. Notably, the September 16, 2020 Interim Order was created just two weeks before AstraZeneca's authorization application was filed with Health Canada, and just three weeks before Pfizer filed on October 8, 2020. Since the authorization applications were made under the Interim Order, they would have been structured to meet the requirements of the Interim Order. Perhaps an authorization application is a standard document, however, the NCI suspects that it would be difficult for a company to prepare a detailed authorization application without knowing what the authorization requirements were going to be. For this reason, there are further questions that need to be answered about how the applications could have been filed so quickly in a manner that satisfied the subjective test, and whether there was participation in creating, or knowledge of the contents of, the test in advance. Phase Three Trial Data Alleged Manipulation of Data Deana McLeod Insights into Covid Vaccine Approval and Trials Deana McLeod's testimony has raised important concerns about the means and methods used in testing Covid-19 vaccines. Her testimony primarily centred on potential conflicts of interest and biases within the teams responsible for conducting and reporting Phase Three test data, which was submitted to Health Canada. Additionally, McLeod shed light on Pfizer's historical legal issues and the broader issue of potential conflicts of interest within the regulatory and approval sector. Her testimony echoed Mr. Shawn Buckley's prior statement that objective tests demonstrating safety and efficacy were omitted from these products. Financial incentives at various stages of the testing and authorization process were also discussed, prompting the need for a thorough examination of motivations. McLeod's testimony serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency, objectivity, and independence in the testing and approval of medical products, especially when it concerns a global health crisis. The potential for conflicts of interest and biases within such a critical process can erode public trust and compromise the credibility of the regulatory framework. The reference to Pfizer's past legal issues underscores the necessity for scrutinizing the track record of pharmaceutical companies involved in the development of vaccines or drugs. The public has a right to be informed about any potential historical shortcomings or ethical concerns that might impact the reliability of the products in question. The removal of objective safety and efficacy tests from the products raises alarming questions about the standards applied to these vaccines. Rigorous testing is the cornerstone of any vaccine's credibility and the foundation of public trust. Omitting such tests potentially undermines the credibility of the entire testing and approval process. The mention of financial motivations at various levels of testing and approval emphasizes the need for greater transparency and accountability within the industry. The potential for financial incentives to influence decision-making is a cause for concern and demands further investigation to ensure that public health is prioritized over financial gain. Lastly, the allusion to Statistics Canada data provided during the testimony highlights the need for comprehensive, reliable, and complete data when assessing the impact of any medical intervention. It is crucial to base decisions on thorough and unbiased information to ensure the well-being of the population. In conclusion, Deana McLeod's testimony raises vital questions about the processes, motivations, and ethics involved in Covid-19 vaccine testing and authorization. This testimony underscores the necessity for transparent, objective, and unbiased approaches in these critical endeavours. The concerns raised must prompt a broader discussion about regulatory practices, industry accountability, and the integrity of medical interventions in the interest of public health and safety. Conclusions There appeared to be a disconnect between Health Canada messaging concerning vaccine approval and the actual test used for authorization. As indicated above, safety, efficacy and whether the benefits of the vaccines outweighed the risks did not need to be proven under the Interim Authorization process employed by Health Canada. Despite the novel nature of the vaccines – in particular those using mRNA – the pharmaceutical companies did not have to objectively prove their safety and efficacy. It should be noted that the special authorization process created under the Interim Order was not mandatory, and pharmaceutical companies still had the option to apply for approval under the regular test which required objective proof of safety, efficacy and cost/ benefit. The pharmaceutical companies did not choose to objectively prove safety, efficacy and cost/benefit. They chose to apply under the Interim Order test, and regulators did not require it of them. Of great concern is the disconnect between Health Canada's public messaging about the Covid-19 vaccines as safe and effective when the regulatory authorization process clearly does not require these be objectively demonstrated. Health Canada continues to message to the public that the regular drug approval requirements of safety and efficacy were met. For example, at the top of Health Canada’s website page for the Pfizer vaccine, Health Canada states: All Covid-19 vaccines authorized in Canada are proven safe, effective and of high quality [emphasis in the original]. Recommendations Newly implemented revisions to the Food and Drug Regulations related to the authorization of Covid-19 vaccines must be rescinded as they permanently exempt Covid-19 vaccines from the requirements to objectively prove the Safety or Efficacy as required under the Food and Drug Regulations. The current use of Covid-19 vaccines in Canada that were authorized under the revised provisions of the Interim Order and the newly revised Food and Drug Regulations, should be stopped immediately. A full judicial investigation of the process under which the Covid-19 vaccinations were authorized in Canada must be carried out. Criminal liability, if discovered, may be dealt with under existing Canadian law. All documentation concerning the authorization process and information provided to the regulatory agencies by the manufacturers should be made publicly available. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

Table of Contents VOLUME THREE Table of Contents VOLUME THREE 445 Table of Contents 446 Transcripts 447 Introduction 447 Witness Testimonies 448 About the Transcripts 449 Page numbers have been included in the original transcripts to facilitate ease of reference and navigation for readers. Table of Contents Witness Transcripts 1 Vancouver, British Columbia 1 Day 1 1 Day 2 266 Day 3 511 Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

9.3 Witness Testimony 9.3 Witness Testimony We are honoured to present to you the complete transcripts of the testimonies provided by both lay and expert witnesses during the Regina hearings of this Commission. These accounts form the heart of our proceedings, encapsulating a wealth of experience, knowledge, and insight. They are crucial to our understanding of the issues at hand. Lay witnesses—those individuals who have lived through the events under investigation—provide personal, firsthand accounts that breathe life into our understanding of these experiences. Their testimonies paint a vivid picture of the human impact of these events, revealing the deeply personal and often poignant realities that lay behind the facts and figures. These accounts provide an invaluable perspective that helps us appreciate the complexity and the human dimension of the issues we are exploring. Expert witnesses, on the other hand, provide a different yet equally valuable perspective. Drawn from various fields such as healthcare, education, law, and social sciences, these individuals offer insights grounded in extensive study, research, and professional experience. Their testimonies help us to understand the broader context, uncover underlying mechanisms, and explore potential solutions. Both types of testimonies—lay and expert—are integral to our investigation. Together, they offer a nuanced and multifaceted understanding of the subjects at hand. The dialogue between personal experience and professional expertise deepens our appreciation of the complexity of the issues under review, informing our deliberations and guiding our recommendations. The transcripts of these testimonies, painstakingly prepared by our dedicated volunteer transcription team, offer an accurate, detailed, and enduring record of these proceedings. They ensure that the voices heard during the hearings continue to resonate, informing and inspiring future discussions and decisions. As you explore these transcripts, we invite you to reflect on the diverse perspectives, experiences, and insights they represent. These are the voices that have shaped our work, and we hope they will also shape your understanding of the important issues that have been brought before this Commission. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

2. The Pandemic 2.0. The Pandemic 2.1. Overview of the Pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic was presented by governments and corporate media as a global health crisis that emerged in late 2019; and it significantly impacted nearly every aspect of life around the world. Following is a brief overview of the key aspects of the pandemic: The pandemic is believed to have started in December 2019 in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. The virus responsible for the disease was identified as a novel coronavirus, named SARS-CoV-2. The virus quickly spread globally through human-to-human transmission, facilitated by international travel. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a public health emergency of international concern in January 2020. Later, in March 2020, the WHO further designated it as a pandemic. On March 11, 2020, when the WHO declared the “pandemic,” Canada, a nation of approximately 38.5 million people, had reported only one death—that of an an 80-year-old man—from COVID-19. At the same time, 125 laboratory-confirmed cases were reported. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2020-46/issue-7-8-july-2-2020/Covid-19-epidemiology-january-march-2020.html By the end of March 2020, there was already evidence that COVID-19 mainly affected elderly patients or individuals with pre-existing health issues (comorbidities) and that young healthy citizens did not face a significant risk of death or serious illness from COVID-19. COVID-19 primarily affects the respiratory system and manifests with a range of symptoms, including fever, cough, difficulty breathing, fatigue, and loss of taste or smell. In severe cases, pneumonia and organ failure are manifestations. It was initially believed to spread mainly through respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or speaks. It can also be transmitted by touching contaminated surfaces and then touching the face. Aerosol transmission has been confirmed. Governments and health authorities across Canada implemented various public health measures to mitigate the spread of the virus. These measures included widespread testing, contact tracing, quarantines, travel restrictions, social distancing, face mask mandates, and hygiene practices such as hand washing and sanitizing. These NPIs were designed, planned, and implemented by public health authorities across Canada. The emergency measures organizations that are tasked with responding to emergency situations in Canada were sidelined, despite the fact that these organizations were specifically and extensively trained to evaluate, plan, and execute emergency response across Canada. These NPIs were implemented with grave consequences to the people of Canada. Most notably, previously prepared influenza pandemic plans, including a paper authored by Dr. Theresa Tam specifically advising against lockdown measures, were ignored. It is critically important to further understand that existing protocols for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2-type infections with pharmaceutical interventions were immediately restricted. This was despite the recommendation of Health Canada‘s influenza pandemic plan and the wide availability of inexpensive, effective, and existing pharmaceutical interventions. Healthcare providers were advised not to treat symptoms of COVID-19 until they were severe enough to require hospitalization and were explicitly instructed not to prescribe pharmaceutical medications such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Many physicians, nurses, and healthcare practitioners were punished, suspended or lost their licences to practise for prescribing these specific medications. The Canadian mainstream media aggressively promoted all public health measures, embarking on a continued program of cancellation and/or humiliation of any professional that questioned those measures. The direct actions of the governments in response to COVID-19 put a significant strain on healthcare systems globally. This strain was ironically not due to illness from COVID-19 itself, as COVID-19 cases did not generally overwhelm hospitals or lead to widespread shortages of medical equipment, beds, and healthcare workers. Admittedly, in some regions, healthcare systems struggled to provide adequate care to both COVID-19 patients and those with other health conditions, but that was due primarily to two factors. The first was governments‘ shutdown of healthcare facilities. The second emerged as a consequence of the subsequent suspension and dismissal of healthcare workers who refused to accept the injection that was presented as a “safe and effective” vaccine. Numerous witnesses from the healthcare field testified that hospitals and emergency rooms were “quiet” throughout most of 2020, and it was not until the widespread rollout of the experimental gene therapy referred to as vaccines that the emergency rooms noted increased patient uptake. Many of these later visits to hospitals included alleged vaccine-injured patients or patients whose medical conditions had gone untreated due to their fear of contracting COVID-19. Witnesses referred to this time as flight or fright. In other words, the nation‘s engagement was in a state of paralysis. Albeit, as the evidence revealed, the hospitals in Canada were never overwhelmed. The two weeks to flatten the curve never changed the ability of hospitals to deliver medical services. As indicated earlier, the effects of these cited government interventions during the pandemic had far-reaching economic consequences, with businesses facing closures, job losses, and economic downturns. Many industries, such as travel, hospitality, and retail, were severely affected. Government interventions, such as stimulus packages and financial aid, were implemented to mitigate the economic impact. The pandemic interventions also disrupted education systems, led to the cancellation or postponement of events, and changed the way people work and interact. The unprecedented nature and magnitude of government interventions resulted in a massive expansion of Canada‘s national debt. Both the short-term and long-term effects of these measures will undoubtedly be felt for generations to come. In an unprecedented global effort, multiple experimental gene therapies were developed and presented to the public as safe and effective vaccines. In Canada, these vaccines were approved for use on the public under a newly created approval process that did not require the manufacturers to prove either safety or effectiveness. No specific testing for adverse medical effects of the vaccines on seniors, pregnant and/or nursing women, or children was required or performed prior to the approval and recommendation of vaccines for these groups. Nor were the vaccines evaluated for medium- or long-term safety or efficacy prior to approval. This was in addition to the fact that the mRNA technology had never been previously used in wide-scale human populations. Subsequently, the clinical trials were compromised after only two months of monitoring when, in the Pfizer trial, the placebo arm was offered to be vaccinated, thereby losing the control group for longer-term efficacy and safety assessment. These experimental injections were approved by Health Canada in spite of the significant safety warnings that were evident both during the initial trials and during the post-marketing analysis completed in February 2021. Not only were the safety signals ignored, Health Canada did not have the authority to revoke the approval of the vaccines in any event under the newly created approval process, even if safety signals were identified. The vaccines were rolled out to Canadians in late 2020 in spite of the significant shortcomings. Vaccination campaigns became the focus of public health and the media, with every Canadian being encouraged to get a safe and effective injection, regardless of their age or individual health circumstances. In late 2021, the federal government announced that vaccines would be required for travel throughout the country. The provinces each adopted some form of vaccination pass requiring people to prove they had received the requisite number of injections in order to access basic services and businesses. The federal government announced vaccine mandates for all employees in federally regulated industries, and many Canadian employers put their own mandates in place. Canadians who refused the injections were vilified, ridiculed, bullied, lost their jobs, and were restricted from participating in society. The vaccines were mandated although they did not prevent infection, did not prevent spread, did not prevent death, and caused significant adverse effects, including death. As the virus continued to spread, new variants were reported with different characteristics, including increased transmissibility, yet decreased mortality. These variants posed challenges to the effectiveness of the vaccines as the naturally mutating virus developed resistance to the initially distributed vaccine. Throughout the pandemic, traditional scientific research, collaboration, and communication should have played a crucial role in understanding the virus, developing treatments, and guiding public health responses. Instead, traditional scientific method and discourse were severely censored. Only government and media narratives were permitted. Researchers and healthcare practitioners who presented alternative evidence were ridiculed and publicly shamed, and in some cases, lost their funding or employment. Never in the course of modern medicine or scientific practice has this type of censorship happened on such a scale. Censorship and attacks on medical and scientific process have occurred in the past but never at this level. 2.2. Timeline of Major Events 2.2.1 Introduction In presenting this Report, the Commission recognized the importance of including a basic timeline of major events during the COVID-19 pandemic. This timeline serves as a backbone, a framework that can help readers more fully understand the sequence of events, the scale and speed of the pandemic, and government responses over time. The data included in this brief timeline was derived from witness testimony, publicly available information, governmental reports, press releases, and announcements made by the Government of Canada and relevant health authorities during the specified years 2019 through 2022. This information encapsulated key events, mandates, and guidelines related to the COVID-19 pandemic and reflected Canadian responses to the evolving situation during the specified years. It is essential to note that the information is subject to updates and revisions. Cross-referencing with official government sources is encouraged for the most accurate and current details. The COVID-19 pandemic was a complex and multifaceted crisis that unfolded rapidly, with new developments often arriving in quick succession. For those living through it, the pace of change, combined with the volume of information and guidance issued, could sometimes make it difficult to gain a clear, coherent understanding of the unfolding situation. By distilling the major events into a concise timeline, we offer a simplified overview of the pandemic‘s progression, as well as the corresponding measures and mandates that were put into place by the government. This at-a-glance summary allows readers to grasp the chronology, see the relationship between different events, and understand the context in which decisions were made and actions were taken. Moreover, it provides a basis for more in-depth analysis. Readers can use the timeline to trace the progression of measures taken by the government and relate them back to the individual testimonies, expert analyses, and policy discussions presented elsewhere in the Report. In this way, the timeline becomes an essential tool for understanding the broader narrative of Canada‘s experience of the COVID-19 pandemic. In short, the timeline helps to make a complex and turbulent period of history more comprehensible, enabling readers to better understand and interpret the wealth of evidence and perspectives presented in this Report. 2.2.2. Timeline of Basic Events in Canada 2019 Following is a brief timeline of the events related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada in 2019. Please note, however, that the virus which causes COVID-19 was not identified until late 2019 and the first case of COVID-19 in Canada wasn‘t reported until January 2020. Still, this timeline provides a perspective on the initial global unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic and the beginning responses: March 31, 2019 : Canada reported a federal national debt of $685.5 billion. December 31, 2019: The World Health Organization (WHO) China Country Office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. At this stage, COVID-19 has not yet been identified and is not yet known to Canada or the rest of the world. Prior to this, Canada‘s Public Health Agency was operating under standard infectious disease monitoring protocols. As 2019 ended, however, and more information about the outbreak in Wuhan became available, the situation began to change rapidly, and by early 2020, COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic. In terms of pandemic preparedness, the Government of Canada had in place the Public Health Agency of Canada, established in 2004 in response to the SARS outbreak. This agency was tasked with coordinating responses to public health emergencies. However, the specific guidelines and mandates related to COVID-19 wouldn‘t come into play until 2020. 2.2.3. Timeline of Basic Events Canada 2020 Following is a basic timeline of some of the key events, mandates, and guidelines issued by Canadian governments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. This is not an exhaustive list but provides an overview of the major developments: January 25, 2020: Canada reports its first case of COVID-19 in Toronto, Ontario. March 11, 2020: The World Health Organization declares COVID-19 a global pandemic. March 13, 2020: Many provinces, including Ontario and Québec, announce school closures. March 14, 2020: The federal government urges Canadians currently abroad to return home as soon as possible. March 16, 2020: Canada advises against non-essential travel and begins to implement enhanced screening measures at airports. March 18, 2020: The Canada–U.S. border is closed to non-essential travel. March 23, 2020: Non-essential businesses are ordered to close in many provinces, including Ontario. March 25, 2020: The Canadian Parliament passes an emergency fiscal stimulus in response to the economic impact of the pandemic, establishing the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). March 31, 2020 : Canada reports a federal national debt of $721.4 billion. April 6, 2020: Canada surpasses 15,000 “cases” of COVID-19. May 8, 2020: The unemployment rate increases up to 13 per cent, the second-highest figure on record in Canada. April 9, 2020: Ottawa projects 4,400 to 44,000 Canadians could die of COVID-19. Federal government announces more than one million people lost their jobs in March. April 15, 2020: Wearing masks in public places where social distancing is not possible is recommended by the Public Health Agency of Canada. May 19, 2020: Some provinces, including British Columbia and Manitoba, begin to lift restrictions and enter phase one of reopening. June 2020: Many provinces, including Ontario and Québec, move to phase two of reopening, with certain businesses and public spaces allowed to open with restrictions. July 28, 2020: Remdesivir becomes the first drug to be approved by Health Canada for treatment of patients with severe COVID-19 symptoms. September 2020: Most schools reopen for in-person learning with new safety measures in place, including mask mandates and physical distancing. October 2020: Second wave begins across Canada, resulting in increased restrictions and, in some provinces, the reimplementation of lockdown measures. November 10, 2020: The Manitoba government forces non-essential stores to close and bans social gatherings in an effort to stop a surge of COVID-19 cases. November 26, 2020: Federal health officials say Canada has purchase agreements with seven COVID-19 genetic vaccine producers. December 9, 2020: Health Canada approves the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for use under an Interim Order. December 14, 2020: The first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are administered in Canada. December 23, 2020: Health Canada says the COVID-19 genetic vaccine from USA biotech firm Moderna is safe for use in Canada, and the use of this COVID-19 genetic vaccine is authorized in Canada. This timeline provides an overview of some of the key moments in the Canadian response to the COVID-19 pandemic throughout 2020. It was a year characterized by swift and significant changes as the country grappled with a new and evolving public health crisis. The data was obtained from a variety of sources. 2.2.4. Timeline of Basic Events Canada 2021 Following is a timeline that captures some of the major events, mandates, and guidelines that Canadian governments issued during 2021 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not exhaustive, but it covers significant developments: January 7, 2021: Canada surpasses a cumulative total of 600,000 cases of COVID-19, which include active infections as well as all recovered individuals since the beginning of 2020. January 12, 2021: Canada signs agreement with Pfizer to purchase 20 million doses of COVID-19 genetic vaccine. January 23, 2021: Health Canada confirms it has approved a rapid COVID-19 test from Spartan Bioscience for use across the country. The company previously recalled its rapid testing technology—last spring—over concerns expressed by the federal agency. January 26, 2021: The federal government suspends flights to Caribbean destinations and Mexico in an effort to curb the spread of COVID-19. February 5, 2021: The AstraZeneca vaccine is approved for use in Canada under an Interim Order. February 10, 2021: Public Health Canada signs a contract with Telus to track cell phone location data of Canadians. February 22, 2021: Travellers are required to submit contact information using ArriveCAN app at border crossings. February 28, 2021: Pfizer Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports are completed. March 5, 2021: Canada surpasses a cumulative total of 900,000 cases of COVID-19, which includes active infections as well as all recovered individuals since the beginning of 2020. March 29, 2021 : Canada recommends immediate pause in the use of AstraZeneca vaccine for persons under 55 years of age. March 31, 2021: The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends pausing the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in individuals under 55 due to reports of rare blood-clotting events. March 31, 2021 : Canada reports a federal national debt of $1.0487 trillion. May 5, 2021: The Pfizer vaccine is authorized for use in children aged 12 and up. June 17, 2021: Canada surpasses a cumulative total of 1.4 million cases of COVID-19, which includes active infections as well as all recovered individuals since the beginning of 2020. July 5, 2021: Canada allows individuals that it deems “fully vaccinated” to travel while continuing to restrict travel for everyone else. August 13, 2021: The government announces that all federal employees must be vaccinated. August 31, 2021: Health Canada announces that ivermectin is not an approved treatment for COVID-19. September 7, 2021: Canada starts allowing foreign tourists, that it considers fully vaccinated, to enter Canada. October 30, 2021: Proof of vaccination becomes mandatory for travel on planes, trains, and cruise ships within Canada. October 29, 2021: The Government of Canada mandates COVID-19 genetic vaccines for all employees of federal public services and federally regulated industries, including banking. October 30, 2021: Health Canada approves the pediatric Pfizer vaccine for children aged 5 to 11. November 9, 2021: Health Canada authorizes the use of Pfizer vaccine as a booster shot. November 19, 2021: Canada surpasses a cumulative total of 1.7 million cases of COVID-19, which includes active infections as well as all recovered individuals since the beginning of 2020. November 19, 2021 : Health Canada authorizes Pfizer vaccine for children 5 to 11 years of age December 14, 2021: The omicron variant is identified in Canada. This timeline offers an overview of the key milestones in Canadian handling of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout 2021. This year saw continued challenges but also significant progress, particularly with the rollout of vaccines and the implementation of vaccination policies. 2.2.5 Timeline of Basic Events Canada 2022 Following is a timeline encapsulating some of the key events, mandates, and guidelines issued by Canadian governments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022. This is not a comprehensive list but provides an overview of the primary developments: January 7, 2022: Canada surpasses a cumulative total of 2 million cases of COVID-19, which includes active infections as well as all recovered individuals since the beginning of 2020, amid a surge driven by the omicron variant. January 15, 2022: Ontario and Québec implement stricter measures and lockdowns due to the rapid spread of the omicron variant. January 15, 2022: Public Health Agency of Canada announces that unvaccinated or partially vaccinated foreign national truck drivers coming from the USA by land will not be allowed entry. January 28, 2022: Public Health Agency of Canada recommends children 5 to 11 receive a complete 2-dose primary series of Pfizer pediatric vaccine, and 12 to 17 receive a primary series of vaccines. February 14, 2022: The Canadian Governor in Council directs that a proclamation be issued pursuant to subsection 17(1) of the Emergencies Act declaring that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada that necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency. February 22, 2022: The federal government announces plans to lift pre-arrival COVID-19 testing for vaccinated travellers by the end of February. March 2, 2022: Health Canada approves the Novavax COVID-19 protein-based vaccine for use. March 21, 2022: Most provinces lift the majority of their COVID-19 restrictions, including indoor capacity limits and proof of vaccination requirements. March 31, 2022 : Canada reports a federal national debt of $1.1345 trillion. April 5, 2022: New recommendations announced for a 4th dose (booster) for those aged 80 and older and residents of long-term care/congregate senior living settings. April 6, 2022: The federal government announces a transition from a pandemic response to endemic management of COVID-19. May 1, 2022: The federal government lifts the mandate on wearing masks in federal facilities and on public transportation. June 20, 2022: Canada surpasses 80 per cent full vaccination rate for individuals aged 12 and over. June 20, 2022: Vaccination will no longer be a requirement to board a plane or train in Canada. June 20, 2022: Employers in the federally regulated air, rail, and marine sectors are no longer required to have mandatory vaccination policies in place for employees. August 30, 2022: Schools reopen for the new academic year with minimal COVID-19 restrictions in place. October 1, 2022: International visitors to Canada no longer have to show proof of vaccination. October 5, 2022: Health Canada approves a COVID-19 genetic vaccine for children under the age of five. November 15, 2022: The federal government announces a booster vaccine campaign for all adults. December 2022: Health Canada admits to monitoring 33 million Canadians‘ cell phone data for tracking purposes. December 31, 2022: Canada surpasses a cumulative total of 2.5 million cases of COVID-19, which includes active infections as well as all recovered individuals since the beginning of 2020. This timeline offers a snapshot of Canadian management of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022. The year was marked by the challenges of new variants but also significant advancements in vaccination efforts and a gradual return to a sense of normalcy. 2.2.6 Timeline of Basic Events Canada 2023 Following is a timeline encapsulating some of the key events, mandates, and guidelines issued by Canadian governments in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023. This is not a comprehensive list but provides an overview of the primary developments: January 2023: Canada continues with its booster vaccine campaign for all adults, aiming to strengthen population immunity against COVID-19. February 2023: The government releases new guidelines for managing COVID-19 as an endemic disease, including recommendations for regular vaccinations and ongoing surveillance. March 2023: The COVID-19 vaccination is added to the schedule of routine immunizations for eligible age groups. April 2023: Health Canada reviews the latest global COVID-19 data and advises on any necessary updates to national guidelines and policies. May 2023: Schools and universities prepare for a new academic year with COVID-19 safety measures adapted to the current situation. May 4, 2023: The WHO Director General announces that COVID-19 is now an established and ongoing health issue and no longer constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). June 2023: The federal government reviews its international travel advisories related to COVID-19. July 2023: Health Canada monitors for new variants of the virus and assesses the need for vaccine adjustments. August 2023: Back-to-school plans are executed with updated COVID-19 protocols based on the latest public health advice. In a future timeline, it would be expected that ongoing surveillance, continuous vaccination efforts, and a focus on managing COVID-19 as an endemic disease would be major themes. This “speculative” timeline is based on the assumption of continued progress in managing the pandemic. Real events could deviate significantly depending on various factors, including scientific advancements, viral evolution, and policy decisions. 2.3. Aftermath of Pandemic (2023) The terrible aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic was not due to the virus itself. Rather the terrible effects throughout Canada were the result of the interventions implemented by the various levels of government. The aftermath of the interventions implemented by all levels of government during the COVID-19 pandemic is multifaceted and continues to unfold. Every single person alive in Canada now and for generations to come has and will be impacted by the scope and magnitude of the interventions put in place by all levels of government in Canada. The fundamental fabric of Canadian society was and continues to be shredded by the unnecessary measures that were implemented by all levels of government across Canada. These measures destroyed Canadians‘ trust in themselves, their families, their communities, trust in institutions, and trust in democratic tenets including the rule of law. Public institutions which exist to protect citizens failed to do so. Untold thousands of people died: some due to severe adverse reactions to a coerced experimental gene therapy; others died due to despair, loneliness, addictions, or violence which were exacerbated by the measures imposed by governments. Billions if not trillions of dollars were lost from the economy as a direct and indirect result of the actions of the government. The national debt is at a historic high. Quiet quitting has become a phenomenon. Unemployment, bankruptcy, and insolvency rates reached a peak during the lockdowns, and these increased rates persist to this time. While the full impact of government mandates and measures have yet to be fully understood, here are some key repercussions that have emerged in the aftermath. The interventions imposed by the government during the pandemic have allegedly caused significant loss of life with thousands of people succumbing to the the strains placed on society by either the imposed directives or directly from adverse reactions to the experimental vaccines. The long-term health effects for survivors, including potential complications and lingering symptoms, are still being researched. Health systems are faced with the task of addressing the backlog of delayed medical treatments and prioritizing ongoing healthcare needs. The interventions imposed by governments during the pandemic has had profound economic consequences. Many businesses have closed, and sectors such as tourism, hospitality, and retail have been particularly affected. Unemployment rates have risen and global poverty levels have increased. Governments have implemented various economic stimulus measures to support individuals, businesses, and economies. The full extent of the long-term economic impact is yet to be determined. The interventions imposed by governments during the pandemic disrupted education systems. Schools and universities switched to remote learning, which was ineffective in terms of access, quality, and student engagement. The digital divide and learning inequalities were highlighted during this period. The long-term effects on students‘ educational attainment and skills development are areas of concern. The interventions imposed by governments during the pandemic have taken a toll on mental health and wellbeing. Social isolation, fear, grief, and economic stress have contributed to increased levels of anxiety, depression, and other mental health conditions. Access to mental health services and support has become crucial in the aftermath of the pandemic. The interventions imposed by governments during the pandemic have exacerbated existing social and economic inequalities. Vulnerable populations, including low-income communities, marginalized groups, and those without access to adequate healthcare, have been disproportionately affected. Addressing these disparities and ensuring equitable recovery is a significant challenge in the aftermath. The interventions imposed by governments during the pandemic have underscored the importance of robust healthcare systems, emergency preparedness, and global cooperation. Canada must invest in strengthening the public health infrastructure, pandemic response capabilities, and surveillance systems to better respond to future health crises. The obvious conflict in legislation between Public Health Emergency Planning and Response and the Emergency Measures organizations must be addressed. Much of the damage done during the emergency response was that public health officials were not qualified to undertake the planning and implementation of an emergency response. The people who were qualified and trained to do this were sidelined and the result was devastating. Public Health can never again be tasked with undertaking an emergency response. This responsibility must lie with Emergency Measures organizations to which Public Health will provide technical expertise and support. The global response to the pandemic has highlighted the gross inadequacy and capability of any global organization to direct a public emergency response that must take the needs of particular regions and populations into account. The blind following of orders sent down from a bureaucratic and political organization is directly in conflict with the very successful and long held practise of addressing emergency situations from a ground-up perspective. Federal governments should only serve to provide communications and resources when requested. They should never be entrusted with the actual direction and implementation of emergency plans and actions for Canada, a nation state. It is important to note that the aftermath of the interventions and provincial dictates imposed by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic varied across regions of the country, depending on factors such as extent and scope of the local interventions, healthcare systems, socioeconomic conditions, and vaccination coverage. The recovery and rebuilding process will require sustained efforts and adaptation to address the long-term impacts of the interventions imposed by the government during the pandemic on various aspects of society. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

VOLUME 2 Volume 2 Volume Two contains the six section fo the report which outline the following sections: Volume 2 Volume One contains the six section fo the report which outline the following sections: 7. Analysis 8. Recommendations 9. Conclusions 10. Commissioners Statement Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

7.4 Media Actions During the Pandemic 7.4 Media Actions During the Pandemic Introduction A free and robust democratic society is uniquely and inextricably dependant on the free exchange of accurate and reliable information that is without bias and without government or corporate influence. It is absolutely imperative that a media source declare any known or perceived biases which it may have to the public so that the public can clearly make a distinction between facts and opinion. The Canadian public depended on the media providing fair and accurate information to allow them to properly assess the situation as it unfolded and to allow the public to make critical decisions both for themselves and their families. This report utilizes the following definitions: Media is defined as: The main means of mass communication (broadcasting, publishing, and the Internet) referred to collectively as the media. Examples include cable and over-air television and radio, internet services, as well as print media such as magazines and newspapers. Traditional media is defined as: Print media and broadcast media comprised of state and corporate media companies, encompassing television, radio, magazines, newspapers, and internet content as produced solely by those state and corporate entities.. Internet service provider is defined as: Internet services which include simple access provision to the supply of media companies which provide a “public discussion“ platform. Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press The concepts of freedom of expression and freedom of the press are so important to the development of and maintenance of a democratic society that these freedoms are clearly set out in the foundational documents of Canada. For example, Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as expressed and codified in the Constitution Act, 1982. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-12.html#docCont Within the Constitution Act, 1982 under Fundamental Freedoms, item 2 states the following: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. Item (b) specifically indicates that there is to be “freedom of the press and other media of communication.“ Freedom does not simply refer to the censorship of various forms of media or communication, it also encompasses the absence of interference or influence from the state. A free press is in direct opposition to a paid press which is expressly concerned with and exists to espouse the opinions and positions of those entities that are paying it. The freedom of the press and media extends to all areas of communication (written or spoken) and in the instance of this investigation must include the freedom of scientific research and publication. Consumers in Canada are generally protected from unscrupulous or misleading advertising and information. There are generally provisions to protect consumers from “Conduct Against Consumers,“ which is to protect the public from misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct, et cetera. So the question becomes exactly what type of media coverage did Canadians receive from their traditional media outlets over the course of the pandemic? Did the traditional media examine with a critical eye everything that the government was telling Canadians, or did they simply echo what was being provided to them from government sources? Did the traditional media support freedom within their own newsrooms? Did they permit investigative reporters to examine the claims being made by the government and prepare news stories that were presented to the public? Did the traditional media carefully interview all sides of the issues, and did they take extra care to protect people who presented alternative views to that government narrative? Has the traditional media done anything in the current situation to address any of their real or perceived shortcomings during the pandemic? Testimony Concerning Media Actions During Pandemic Significant testimony was provided to the Commission which clearly demonstrated that freedom of the press and other media no longer exists in Canada, on all levels involving the traditional media sources in Canada. Based on the testimonies received, the traditional and online corporate media did not act independent of government and corporate influence. The dissemination of critical and accurate information concerning the facts related to the pandemic itself, effective measures to treat COVID-19, government-imposed mitigative measures, and the safety and effectiveness of vaccines were almost entirely based on government and industry or government- and industry-influenced or sponsored sources. Active measures were taken by traditional and online media sources to suppress, censor, and ridicule opposing opinions related to the pandemic. The recommendations and mandates were in a constant state of change, and the investigative press took no steps to actively investigate or evaluate the validity of those measures and made no attempts to inform the Canadian people of the realities of the measure being mandated. Without accurate and complete information, the Canadian people could not make critical decisions on medical matters that deeply affected every aspect of Canadian Society. Furthermore, without clear and accurate information, the public were never put into a situation where they could provide “Informed Consent“ prior to accepting any proposed medical treatment that was being foisted on them by the government, medical community, and even their employers and religious leaders. Many Canadians were left at the mercy of what turned out to be an unrelenting cascade of false, misleading, and incomplete information as provided by various government agencies. Many Canadians were not aware, due to exclusionary reporting and outright censorship, of the experimental and untested nature of the COVID-19 vaccines. Many Canadians were not aware of the significant planning that had taken place prior to the pandemic and how the mandates and directives of the government during the pandemic were in conflict with the recommendations of the official emergency pandemic plans. Critical definitions of terms were revised and facts were blurred in order to coerce Canadians into accepting the government/industry narrative. Long understood and trusted terms were used to provide a false sense of confidence for Canadians. Examples include: pandemic, vaccine, biologic, Spike Protein Disease, ambassador, safe and effective, relative efficacy, and absolute efficacy. Traditional media providers and their news broadcasts in Canada are no longer independent of the government and special industry interests as they are either directly funded by government and large industry groups or receive very significant funding through advertising from these organizations. Due to the Canadian government‘s lack of enforcement of the Competition Act , traditional media companies in Canada have been allowed to conglomerate to the extent that little or no independent companies now exist. Most news and media outlets are owned and controlled by a very small cadre of large corporations. This reduces Canadians‘ choice of independent media outlets to near zero. According to testimony received, the CBC alone receives more than one billion dollars in direct government funding; it is not known how much additional funding they receive from government advertising or pharmaceutical industry advertisements. Other traditional media sources in Canada received hundreds of millions of dollars of direct government funding over the course of the pandemic period. It is interesting to note that this funding was not provided to all media firms, only specific media firms, especially traditional media sources. In addition, the days of an independent media in Canada and in most of the Western world are long gone. The days of the independent newsroom or the news outlet that are not owned and controlled by huge multinational interests have passed. Most traditional news sources in Canada are no longer independent, and they no longer permit independent and unbiased journalism to take place within their organizations. Reporters are often specifically directed as to what stories they can and cannot cover, based on a corporate directive. As demonstrated from the Twitter Files release in the United States, government agencies were working hand in hand with large media firms such as Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook to directly censor and/or limit the exposure of opinions and facts that did not support the approved government narrative. The NCI heard very specific testimonies from the following witnesses: Rodney Palmer A veteran journalist, Rodney Palmer presented on the difference between news gathering and propaganda, exposing how CBC shifted away from news gathering to promoting propaganda and fomenting hate. (Toronto: March 30, 2023) In his second testimony with the NCI, Rodney Palmer reported on the bias at CBC in terms of their funding and manipulation of the news. (Ottawa: May 18, 2023) In a taped announcement for the NCI, Rodney Palmer described CBC‘s new Twitter label. (April 18, 2023) Anita Krishna She described her behind-the-scenes journey as a former Global TV director. (Ottawa: May 18, 2023) Jean-Philippe Chabot A former CBC employee, he described how he navigated his vaccine status disclosure. (Ottawa: May 18, 2023) Marianne Klowak A former veteran CBC journalist, she testified on the decline of journalism at the CBC during the pandemic. (Ottawa: May 18, 2023) Jeff Sandes He reported on the changing landscape of journalism. (Vancouver: May 3, 2023) Jeffery Tucker He described the loss of trust in mainstream media during COVID-19. (Winnipeg: April 14, 2023) Dr. Robert Malone He testified on COVID-19 injections and 5th-generation warfare against humanity. (Toronto: March 30, 2023) Cathy Jones She described how the media was complicit in the pandemic narrative. (Ottawa: May 17, 2023) James Corbett An independent journalist, he discussed the international health emergency treaties. (Ottawa: May 18, 2023) The testimony of witnesses allege that the media sources in Canada, which should in a democratic society inform Canadians, did not perform their duties in a non-biased and fair manner. Witness statements describe a corrupt and biased system of reporting that only presented the government and corporate narrative while omitting any reasonable and balanced dissenting information regardless of the source and the credentials of those sources. Many witnesses described being targeted by media for ridicule and, in some instances, with violence. Widely cited is the August 26, 2021, front page of Canada‘s largest newspaper the Toronto Star . In addition, media carried an interview from September 8, 2021, with Mr. Justin Trudeau who stated the following: Yes, there is a small, fringe element in this country that is angry, that doesn‘t believe in science, that is lashing out with racist, misogynistic attacks, but Canadians, the vast majority of Canadians, are not represented by them, Trudeau said. These are simply a few of hundreds of statements and headlines that targeted Canadians with hate and made them potential targets for violence. Few if any dissenting articles were provided in the traditional media to rebut these statements or offer an unbiased review of these statements. In fact, many statements were carried in the traditional media that were factually incorrect and to this date, many of these media outlets have not retracted or condemned the comments made. People who had legitimate opinions that were contrary to the government narratives were savagely vilified in the traditional media. People were called “anti-vaxxers,“ “haters,“ “misogynists,“ “racists,” and “extremists.“ Witnesses testified that the news was being directed from central corporate headquarters and that reporting or investigation of any opinions which were contrary to the government narrative were not to be pursued. According to the testimony of Mr. Rodney Palmer, the news organizations contained within the traditional media morphed into propaganda organizations rather than news-gathering organizations. Mr. Palmer included the following Oxford definition of news gathering: . . . the process of doing research on news items, especially ones that will be broadcast on television or printed in a newspaper. He defined propaganda as Persuasive mass communication that filters and frames the issues of the day in a way that strongly favours particular interests, usually those of a government or corporations. Also, the intentional manipulation of public opinion through lies, half-truths, and the selective retelling of history. According to Mr. Palmer, the CBC were putting forth as “experts“ organizations such as First Draft, who provided propaganda information in place of actual news sources. The information provided by First Draft was in contradiction of other newspaper sources, such as articles in The Washington Post from April of 2020. There were numerous reports in 2020 from publications such as Vanity Fair, which presented credible evidence contrary to reports by the CBC. Mr. Palmer provided an article from the BBC from 2023, which directly contradicted the CBC reporting, and yet no retraction or further follow up from the CBC has been provided. Mr. Palmer cited internal correspondence from CBC concerning pandemic misinformation only weeks into the pandemic, a time when it would not have been possible to discern what was true or false information. There are a number of industry groups that many of the traditional media in Canada are a part of that seem to be focusing on what they deem as “trust“ issues, which Mr. Palmer asserted explains some of the monolithic reporting by many of these organizations. According to Mr. Palmer, CBC took steps to report over 800 pieces of information found on social media that Internet service providers censored. It is difficult to understand how the CBC took on the role of censor. Reporting was skewed toward developing public hate of people who were not in agreement with the government narrative, yet the CBC did not carry out an independent investigation of the information to confirm the truthfulness of the government narrative. Qualifying language was used to promote the government narrative. CBC also used articles to suppress alternative drug treatments for COVID-19. Mr. Palmer cited a CBC Radio News article from September 2, 2021. Anita Krishna testified about the extent of the “hysteria“ that was being promoted in the newsroom, right from the very start of the pandemic, prior to them having any real information available. She further stated that their newscasts were leaving out significant areas of information. In her opinion, the news was misleading, and she brought this opinion to management who disregarded her concerns and chastised her for bringing up alternative information. Anita Krishna also spoke about how the new stories had been slanted to promote certain government narratives, and she had never before seen this level of propaganda and censorship within the newsroom. Testimony from Marianne Klowak indicated that over her 34-year career at the CBC, she was always allowed to pursue stories without much restriction and that approval was always provided on the local level. During the pandemic, journalists were restricted as to what stories they could investigate and report upon as they related to the pandemic. Ms. Klowak indicated that many of her stories were blocked and never made it to air; these included reporting on protests, reported COVID-19 vaccine injuries, safety concerns, and other pandemic-related issues. Conclusions Traditional media sources in Canada did not provide Canadians with fair and balanced news reporting during the pandemic. According to witness David Leis, over 2,000 media outlets in Canada received federal government funding, and therefore, they are under great pressure to support the narrative being promoted by the government. The government would not have been able to institute the unprecedented actions during the pandemic had it not been for the collusion between the traditional media and the government. Traditional media sources promoted propaganda stories, promoted hate, targeted certain Canadians, and provided hateful and dangerous rhetoric. Hateful and terrifying propaganda promoted terror in Canadians and prompted various people, organizations, and agencies to take steps based on that terror, instead of on science. From the early stages of the pandemic until the current time, the traditional media has not yet taken any significant steps to correct the record for Canadians. According to the Government of Canada, following is the definition of terrorism : In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code [1] defines terrorism as an act committed “in whole or in part for a political, religious, or ideological purpose, objective or cause“ with the intention of intimidating the public “. . . with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act.“ Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person‘s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems. Given that the actions of the media caused terror and panic within all sectors of Canadian society and that this terror was the result of a political narrative handed down by the Government of Canada, consideration must be given to evaluate the detailed chain of decisions made, to determine if an act of terrorism was, in fact, carried out. Recommendations Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) CBC as an organization must be held to account for their very damaging and dangerous actions. Significant steps must be taken to prevent this from ever happening again. CBC was originally founded on November 2, 1936. Many of the principles under which the CBC was created and justified, no longer exist. With the advent of the Internet and the incredible reduction in the cost of creating quality content, the CBC no longer has a significant role to play in the promotion of Canadian content or the provision of media services to the rural and remote areas of Canada. The CBC should be stripped to its very fundamental functions of providing information to Canadians with a special focus on French language and Indigenous issues. All other current functions and productions of the CBC must be terminated immediately. All current senior management positions in the CBC must be removed in light of the revised operational mandate. Dismiss all on air staff that participated in the dissemination of propaganda during the pandemic. Replace the CBC Ombudsmen with a Board of Canadians chosen from across Canada, with two representatives chosen from each province and territory. The first task of the Board is to investigate the origins and relationships with the government and industry that influenced the actions of the CBC during the pandemic. Remove the CBC from the “Trusted News Initiative“ and all other related organizations. One of the original functions of the CBC was to support Canadian content, and as such they should return to that role but not to the role as imagined in 1932; it must realize the reality of the 21st century. As such, the CBC mandate would be to help Canadians to develop Canadian content. We propose the following: CBC facilities and equipment, et cetera, might be made available as a resource to private media developers. Utilize expertise that is currently embedded in the CBC to educate and provide training to private Canadian content producers. CBC should use its resources to promote real Canadian content produced by Canadians, not the CBC. A criminal investigation must be undertaken to determine what areas of criminal hate speech law may have been violated based on the reporting of the CBC. Other Traditional “Privately Owned“ Media Other traditional media outlets were as culpable as the CBC, but as private industry players, they do have the right to broadcast in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . It would be extremely difficult to monitor their content on an ongoing basis, and it should not be the role of the government to regulate that content beyond required by current law. However, any and all direct government support to these media entities must be stopped immediately. There is no reason for Canadian taxpayers to be supporting these entities. They are privately owned and as such must survive in the free marketplace as every other private business must. There is an uneasy monopolization of traditional media that has occurred in Canada over the past 30 years. A complete investigation of the traditional media sources must be carried out under all federal legislation that deals with the development of monopolies in Canada. A criminal investigation must be undertaken to determine what areas of criminal hate speech law may have been violated based on the reporting of the traditional media venues. Internet social media platforms must not be censoring or editorializing content on their sites, unless the content is in contravention of the Criminal Code . The Broadcasting Act must be rewritten to accurately reflect the broadcasting environment of the 21st century. The Broadcasting Act should not be used as a tool of the government to censor content or to advance the promotion and production of Canadian content. The act must endeavour to accurately set out the rules and regulations and remove interpretation or development of regulations by an unelected body such as the CRTC. The role of the CRTC must be reviewed, and the CRTC possibly abolished if it is determined that the actual role of the CRTC is to simply develop regulations which are not specifically contained in legislation. Bolster press freedom and other media communications protections by enacting comprehensive legislation and constitutional provisions in alignment with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , which ensures and upholds the rights of free expression, access to information, and editorial independence. Safeguard journalists from intimidation, harassment, and threats to their personal safety through effective law enforcement and judicial mechanisms. Ensure that public broadcasting organizations , such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, operate independently and are insulated from political interference with editorial decisions made by experienced journalists. Promote a diverse and inclusive media landscape that reflects a wide range of perspectives and avoids undue concentration of ownership or control. Increase transparency in the allocation and utilization of public funds provided to the public broadcaster. This includes clearly disclosing the criteria and decision-making processes for funding distribution. Establish independent bodies or committees to oversee and evaluate the disbursement of public funds, ensuring accountability and preventing undue influence. Foster the development of non-profit and community-based media organizations to diversify the media landscape and provide alternative sources of information and perspectives. Establish grant programs or tax incentives to support the sustainability and growth of non-profit media outlets, enabling them to operate independently of government influence. Promote media literacy education initiatives that equip citizens with critical thinking skills to evaluate media sources, distinguish between fact and opinion, and understand the importance of independent journalism. Promote adherence to professional journalistic standards and ethics , including accuracy, fairness, and accountability. Support self-regulatory bodies , such as the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ). Enforce ethical guidelines and provide recourse for individuals who believe they have been misrepresented or harmed by media coverage. Engage in international forums and collaborations to advocate for press freedom and protect independent journalism globally. Support initiatives and organizations that promote freedom of the press and other forms of media and provide assistance to journalists facing threats or persecution. Encourage citizen participation and engagement in media governance, including public consultations, forums, and advisory panels, to ensure diverse perspectives and community interests are taken into account. By implementing these recommendations, Canada can foster a media landscape that is independent, diverse, and accountable, serving as a cornerstone of democracy and providing citizens with reliable, unbiased information. It is crucial to uphold the principles of press freedom and support traditional media outlets in their role as watchdogs and providers of independent journalism. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

7.5.8 Canada‘s Future Approval of New Pharmaceuticals 7.5.8 Canada‘s Future Approval of New Pharmaceuticals Introduction The Commission heard testimony regarding Canada‘s intended changes to the process under which certain pharmaceuticals are given approval in Canada. Based on the testimony, the Commission has concerns that the Government of Canada intends to apply a fast-track approval system to bring other, new pharmaceutical products to Canadian markets based on a new regulatory framework that appears to limit or eliminate the need to prove safety and efficacy. Deanna McLeod She explains how a new, expedited pathway allows for changes in traditional clinical trial processes. These changes remove the need to prove drug safety with level 1 evidence (RCTs). (Winnipeg: April 13, 2023) As discussed elsewhere in this Report, normally, vaccine development has a timeline of 5–10 years which involves first demonstrating safety in cells, tissues, and animals—through in vitro and animal testing—followed by three phases of human trials. This system is intended to test and prove the safety of drugs prior to approval for use in human populations. The NCI heard that in-vitro and animal testing—prior to human trials—is critical to demonstrate safety in non-humans prior to proceeding to test in humans. This provides some degree of safety when designing studies in humans to monitor potential safety issues. This is a cornerstone of the clinical development process. The process follows the precautionary principle to determine possible safety signals to be monitored, not only in the short-term but also over time. When Health Canada considers approving a drug, the drug company must demonstrate safety through each of the phases of testing. Approval is generally based on randomized-controlled trials, which are the only evidence that can prove safety and efficacy. In order to receive authorization to market a drug in Canada, a manufacturer must demonstrate safety, efficacy, and that the benefits of drug outweigh the risks. The precautionary principle that underpins today‘s approval regulations resulted from regulatory reform implemented after the drug Thalidomide caused widespread harm to women and babies—as a result of being approved to treat morning sickness without first demonstrating that it was safe. The precautionary principle is particularly important in the area of drugs known as biologics since these products have the ability to affect the human body in a profound way. The NCI heard that an abundance of caution should govern the testing and approval of novel biologics, which include gene therapy. The standard for safety testing set out by the FDA for biologics is 15 years. Industry-Designed Backdoor Approval The NCI heard that starting in 2016, industry-advocacy groups pushed for changes to the regulatory framework in Canada. Pressure was placed on Canada to attract new investment by overcoming barriers to innovation. The barriers to innovation include Canada‘s high safety standards for drug approval. This spurred the formation of several initiatives such as the Advisory Council for Economic Growth and the Health and Biosciences, Economic Strategy Table to study and produce reports relating potential reform of Canada‘s regulatory process. A new regulatory pathway was subsequently created as a type of backdoor approval for certain drugs. The new pathway allows for expedited clinical trials and product authorizations. The new process was adopted into law by burying it in an omnibus bill in December 2020. Under this new rule, the Minister of Health can designate a drug to follow the new approval process. Notably the Minister of Health in Canada at this time had no medical background but was an economics expert. Therefore, Canada‘s new approach to advanced therapeutic treatments is to Maintain appropriate, yet flexible, regulatory oversight, Promote innovation in drug and medical device development, Ensure high standards for patient safety, product quality, efficacy, and effectiveness, and Reduce barriers to bringing advanced therapeutic treatments to market in Canada, thus providing access to new, potentially life-changing treatments It is notable that three of the four points above relate to promoting economic development and profit relating to therapeutics. The COVID-19 vaccines were the first therapeutics that followed this new process. The concerns that have arisen from the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines demonstrate exactly the problem with prioritizing innovation and economics over safety. The Commission heard testimony that the Government of Canada intends to use this expedited approval framework for more novel products in the future. The motivation behind creating this new regulatory process appears to be economic, namely, to grow Canada‘s economy and attract foreign investment. While these may be laudable goals, the Commission is concerned that prudent safety standards are being sacrificed in order to meet economic goals. Recommendations A. Revocation of New COVID-19 Regulations: The Commission recommends that the new regulatory process be revoked and that Health Canada return to approving all therapeutics on its historical safety requirements. B. Maintain Rigorous Safety Standards: Prioritize patient safety by maintaining rigorous safety standards for drug approval. The safety of new pharmaceuticals should be thoroughly demonstrated through preclinical and clinical trials before approval. C. Transparency in Regulatory Changes: Ensure transparency in any regulatory changes related to pharmaceutical approvals. Changes in the approval process should be subject to public consultation and should be clearly communicated to stakeholders, including healthcare professionals and the public. D. Independent Expertise: Appoint experts with relevant medical and scientific backgrounds to key positions in the regulatory process. Decision-makers, such as the Minister of Health, should have a strong understanding of medical and scientific principles to make informed decisions about drug approvals. E. Balancing Innovation and Safety: Find a balance between promoting innovation and ensuring safety. While innovation is important for advancing healthcare, it should not come at the expense of patient safety. Consider the potential long-term effects of novel drugs on public health. F. Monitoring and Post-Market Surveillance: Strengthen post-market surveillance of approved pharmaceuticals. Continuous monitoring of drugs once they are on the market is crucial to detect and address any safety concerns that may arise over time. G. Independent Safety Review: Establish an independent body or commission responsible for conducting safety reviews of pharmaceuticals, especially novel biologics and gene therapies. This body should be free from industry influence and focused solely on patient safety. H. Public Health Impact Assessment: Conduct thorough assessments of the potential public health impact of new drugs, particularly in the context of pandemics or health emergencies. Consider both short-term and long-term consequences on public health. I. Ethical Considerations: Incorporate ethical considerations into the approval process. Ensure that the potential benefits of new pharmaceuticals outweigh the risks and that patient autonomy and Informed Consent are respected. J. Regular Reviews of Regulatory Frameworks: Periodically review and update regulatory frameworks to adapt to advances in medical science and changing public health needs. Regulatory changes should prioritize safety while facilitating timely access to beneficial treatments. K. International Best Practices: Benchmark Canada‘s regulatory processes against international best practices. Learn from the experiences of other countries with strong pharmaceutical regulatory systems. L. Public Awareness and Education: Enhance public awareness and education about the drug approval process, including the rigorous testing and safety measures in place. Informed patients can make better decisions about their healthcare. M. Monitoring Economic Impact: While promoting economic development is important, closely monitor the economic impact of regulatory changes. Ensure that economic goals do not compromise patient safety, and make necessary adjustments if conflicts arise. These recommendations aim to strike a balance between promoting innovation and safeguarding patient safety in Canada‘s pharmaceutical approval process. It‘s crucial to prioritize public health and long-term safety while fostering an environment conducive to innovation and economic growth in the pharmaceutical industry. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

4. Objectives of the Inquiry 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. To invite and secure testimony as to the appropriateness, efficacy, legality, and constitutionality of government responses to COVID-19. 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. To consider the issue of civic and criminal liability for any damages or harms caused by government responses to COVID-19. To make publicly available to Canadians all findings, submissions, and testimonies certified by and formally presented through the Inquiry. 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. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

1. Executive Summary Intentionally Left Blank Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.

5.1.11 Influence of the United Nations on Educational Direction in Canada 5.1.11 Influence of the United Nations on Educational Direction in Canada Recommendations Enhance Transparency in Policy Development: Ensure that policies incorporating global frameworks, such as those from UNESCO, are publicly debated and subject to thorough consultation with parents, educators, and local communities. Global educational framework suggestions, should only be considered in he context of the Canadian and local community context, and must not be adopted without thorough community consultation and buy in. 2. Prioritize Parental Involvement: Create formal mechanisms, such as advisory councils, to ensure that parents are actively involved in decisions about curricula influenced by transnational agendas. Take steps to encourage parental participation. 3. Balance Global and Local Perspectives: Adapt international educational frameworks to reflect Canada’s cultural identity and regional priorities, ensuring that they align with community values. Understand that Canada’s schools are not compelled to follow global frameworks, schools in Canada are for Canadians, and must reflect Canadian values as well as the value and needs of the local community. Promote Public Awareness of Policy Origins: Educate the public on the origins and goals of transnational educational initiatives to foster informed dialogue and understanding. 5. Implement Accountability Measures: Establish accountability frameworks to evaluate the impact of global initiatives on Canadian education and ensure they meet the needs of students and families. 6. Encourage National Dialogue on Educational Priorities: Facilitate open forums and discussions about the future direction of Canadian education, allowing different voices to contribute to shaping policies that reflect the nation’s values and aspirations. Hold local and national referenda on educational policies and the influence of global organizations such as the United Nations. These recommendations emphasize the need to maintain Canadian sovereignty and community-driven values in education while engaging with global ideas responsibly. By ensuring transparency, accountability, and meaningful parental involvement, Canada can safeguard its educational system from uncritical adoption of transnational agendas and ensure that all policy decisions reflect the cultural, social, and democratic principles of the communities they serve. Report Content Reader Page 📄 Note to Readers The content presented on this page has been adapted for online viewing and navigation. Due to formatting limitations within the web display system, certain elements—such as layout, spacing, and visual structure—may differ slightly from the original report. For the complete and fully formatted version, we encourage you to download the official PDF available on the Report Information page. The PDF reflects the report exactly as it was originally written and published.