5.4 Digital Safety and Exposure 5.4 Digital Safety and Exposure Recommendations To address the critical issues raised during the Vancouver NCI hearings regarding children’s digital safety and exposure, the following recommendations are proposed. These measures aim to create a safer online environment, foster digital literacy, and strengthen parental and societal protections for children in digital spaces. Implement Age-Appropriate Content Restrictions: Enhance Content Moderation Standards: Require digital platforms to enforce stricter guidelines for content targeting minors, ensuring that inappropriate material, such as explicit sexual content, graphic violence, or gender ideology is effectively filtered and removed. Age Verification Systems: Mandate the use of advanced age verification technologies across social media platforms, gaming networks, and streaming services to prevent children from accessing content unsuitable for their developmental stage. Clear Labelling of Content: Introduce a standardized labeling system for online content, helping parents and educators identify age-appropriate material more easily. 2. Promote Comprehensive Digital Literacy Education: Integrate Digital Literacy into School Curricula: Develop comprehensive educational programs that teach students about online safety, recognizing harmful content, managing their digital footprint, and understanding privacy risks. Parental Digital Literacy Training: Provide accessible workshops and resources for parents to equip them with tools and knowledge to monitor their children’s online activities effectively. Collaboration with Experts: Engage child development specialists and digital safety experts in the design of educational content to ensure programs are evidence-based and age-appropriate. 3. Develop Robust Parental Control Tools: Enhanced Parental Control Features: Advocate for technology companies to create intuitive, customizable tools that allow parents to set time limits, block harmful content, and monitor their children’s online interactions in real time. Universal Adoption of Family-Friendly Filters: Encourage mandatory inclusion of family friendly filters as default settings on devices and platforms commonly used by children. Education on Parental Controls: Provide detailed instructions and support for parents on how to implement and use parental control tools effectively. 4. Strengthen Privacy Protections for Minors: Limit Data Collection from Minors: Introduce stringent regulations to prohibit digital platforms from collecting personal data from users under the age of 18 without explicit parental consent. Simplify Privacy Policies: Require platforms to present privacy policies in child friendly language and ensure transparency about how minors’ data is stored and used. Penalties for Non-Compliance: Impose significant penalties on companies that fail to comply with privacy standards, ensuring accountability in protecting children’s online identities. 5. Increase Awareness and Resources for Recognizing Cyberbullying: Public Awareness Campaigns: Launch national campaigns to educate children, parents, and educators about recognizing, preventing, and addressing cyberbullying. School-Based Support Systems: Implement peer support groups and access to counsellors to help children manage the psychological effects of cyberbullying. Reporting and Redress Mechanisms: Ensure that schools and digital platforms have clear and accessible processes for reporting cyberbullying incidents, with timely responses and support for victims. 6. Enhance Safety Measures for Online Gaming and Social Media: Restrict Private Messaging for Minors: Require platforms to implement restrictions on direct messaging features for minors, ensuring these tools are only used in safe, monitored contexts. Prohibit Anonymity in Child-Targeted Platforms: Eliminate anonymous user accounts in platforms catering to children, minimizing the risk of exploitation by predators. Regular Audits of Gaming and Social Networks: Conduct routine safety audits of popular platforms to identify and address risks related to grooming, exploitation, or exposure to inappropriate content. 7. Review and Audit Educational Materials: Independent Reviews of School Resources: Mandate regular audits of digital and educational materials available in schools to ensure they are age-appropriate and legally compliant. Parental Involvement in Curriculum Development: Require that parents and community stakeholders have opportunities to review and provide input on educational content related to digital safety and gender issues. Compliance with Canadian Law: Ensure that all school resources meet the standards set by Canadian law, particularly regarding the prohibition of exposing minors to sexually explicit materials. In-School Access to Online Materials: Parental consent must be obtained before schools grant students access to online materials. Schools should actively monitor students’ online activities during school hours, and parents must be kept informed of their child’s internet usage and any content accessed. 8. Foster Parental Involvement in Policy Decisions: Establish Parent Councils: Create formal advisory councils at the school district and provincial levels to represent parents’ concerns and perspectives in decisions related to digital safety policies. Transparent Decision-Making Processes: Ensure that public consultations are held before implementing policies that affect children’s online exposure, providing clear communication to parents about the rationale and evidence behind these decisions. Empower Parents Through Advocacy Resources: Develop online platforms and toolkits that empower parents to advocate for their children’s safety in digital and educational spaces. By implementing these comprehensive recommendations, Canada can establish a safer and more supportive digital environment for children. These measures will empower parents, strengthen regulations, and equip children with the tools they need to navigate online spaces responsibly, ensuring their safety and well-being in an increasingly digital world. 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.

5.7.3 Traditional Childhood Vaccine Safety Concerns 5.7.3 Traditional Childhood Vaccine Safety Concerns Recommendations Based on Dr. Perro’s testimony, the following measures are recommended to address the concerns raised: Systemic Reforms: Ban glyphosate and other harmful chemicals from food production, including aluminum, mercury, cadmium and lead. Increase transparency and data collection on environmental and dietary toxins. Ensure that every baby formula contains NO glyphosate and harmful chemicals like aluminum, mercury, cadmium and lead. Ensure that every vaccines contains NO glyphosate and harmful chemicals like aluminum, mercury, cadmium and lead. 2. Dietary Interventions: Promote organic, whole food diets and reduce reliance on processed food. Advocate for breastfeeding and the reduction of the use of infant formula. 3. Public Education: Launch campaigns to educate parents about environmental and dietary toxins. Encourage traditional, nutrient rich diets and sustainable farming practices. Teach Nutrition and agriculture in schools for children to learn how to grow and cook their own food to be healthy. 4. Regulatory Improvements: Strengthen oversight of pesticides, vaccines, and chemical additives. Mandate rigorous evaluations of chemical safety in food and water. 5. Research and Monitoring: Support independent studies on the health impacts of chemical exposures. Monitor long-term outcomes of environmental and dietary interventions. By implementing these measures, Canada can mitigate the toxic assault on its children and create a safer, healthier environment for future generations. Based on Dr. Dickson’s testimony, the following measures are recommended to address the concerns raised: 6. Suspension of Fluoridation Programs: Stop water fluoridation as the risks to health are higher than the benefits. Fluoride should be banned in every products as the risks outweighs a lot the benefits that are almost inexistent. It is a toxic waste. 7. Enhance Public Awareness: Launch educational campaigns to inform the public about the potential risks associated with fluoride exposure. These recommendations underscore the urgent need to protect children from harmful environmental exposures by reforming food, water, and healthcare policies. Grounded in expert testimony, they call for the elimination of toxic substances such as glyphosate and fluoride, the promotion of nutrient-rich, organic diets, and greater public education on environmental health. Through stronger regulation, informed awareness, and holistic prevention strategies, Canada can foster a healthier future for its children. 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.

5.1.4 Student Mental Health and Emotional Well-being 5.1.4 Student Mental Health and Emotional Well-being Recommendations Reintegration Programs for Social and Emotional Development: Implement structured programs to help students rebuild social skills and emotional resilience, with a focus on those who experienced significant isolation or disengagement. Provide group activities, mentorship opportunities, and peer-support systems to facilitate social reintegration. 2. Enhanced Access to Mental Health Resources: Increase the availability of community-based mental health professionals, including counsellors trained to address COVID-19-related stressors. Conduct regular mental health check-ins to identify and support students struggling with anxiety, depression, or other challenges. 3. Support Programs for "Third Bucket" Children: Develop specialized support initiatives for students who did not return to school post COVID-19, offering academic catch-up sessions, social skills workshops, and mental health counselling. Partner with community organizations to provide alternative educational or vocational pathways for these students. 4. Age and Content Appropriate Curriculum Content Guidelines: Establish developmental guidelines to ensure that sensitive topics are introduced at appropriate stages, reducing confusion or distress among younger students. Facilitate open discussions in classrooms, allowing students to express their thoughts and ask questions in a supportive and nonjudgmental setting. 5. Mental Health Education Integration: Incorporate mental health education into the school curriculum, teaching students how to recognize signs of stress, manage emotions, and make resources available to them. Train teachers to recognize early signs of mental health challenges and provide immediate support or referrals. 6. Strengthened Parent-School Communication: Improve communication channels to keep parents informed about health policies, curriculum updates, and mental health initiatives. Organize regular parent-teacher meetings and workshops to foster collaboration and trust between families and schools. Encourage parental engagement at the school board level. 7. Community-Based Mental Health Collaborations: Partner with local mental health organizations to expand access to resources and provide additional support for students and families. Establish referral networks to connect students with specialized services beyond the school environment. By adopting these recommendations, we can address the mental health and emotional well-being challenges faced by students, ensuring they have the tools and support needed to recover and succeed. 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.

7.5.2 Follow the “Science“: Real Science or Scientism? 7.5.2 Follow the “Science“: Real Science or Scientism? Introduction From the start of the scientific era, which followed the Renaissance‘s rediscovery of ancient Greek wisdom, to the industrial revolution that propelled us into unprecedented prosperity, our societies have increasingly depended on science and technology. In a world that‘s becoming more materialistic and moving away from traditional spiritual practices that used to provide the foundation for our understanding of life‘s meaning, we‘ve even come to revere our technological achievements almost like sacred objects.. In a materialist world devoid of transcendence, the primary goals are the incessant accrual of power, status, and money, with everything they can buy. And everybody is closing the door of their golden cage while willingly accepting entrapment in it with all of their material comforts. Paradoxically, as material comfort has become the ultimate hollow goal of life, the general knowledge of science and technology that underpins our material way of living has not received the attention required to equip citizens and decision-makers alike to propose optimal solutions in the face of complex problems. To put it in simple terms, from the general public to the political class and everything in between, including the media, there is insufficient literacy in mathematics, the sciences, engineering, technology, and so on. Yet to those who master these disciplines, immense power awaits as they strive to capture the benefits of a growing monopoly on knowledge and technology. Hence, a new pseudo-religion and its mantra, “Follow the science,“ has subjugated the non-critical-thinking crowd. As explained by many witnesses, confusion due to poor understanding of the scientific process as well as poor knowledge of cutting-edge science in epidemiology, virology, and immunology in the political class, institutions, the media, and not to mention the general public, was at the root of the mismanagement of this public health crisis. It was a situation exacerbated by widespread corruption, as we have witnessed. Data, Information, Evidence, and Knowledge Most people have been mesmerized by all the data yet fail to understand the distinction between data, information, evidence, and knowledge. Data is raw facts, statistics, context-free numbers. Information is data that has been processed to provide a proper framework of the context. Evidence is yet another level in which the information is framed to generate testable hypotheses upon which evidence can be fortified. From validated evidence, a body of knowledge accumulates over time as the evidence underpinning it withstands the trial of repeated testing and reproducibility. Needless to say, during the pandemic, authorities frequently fed the public data that was of questionable quality, validity, interpretation, and scrutiny. Meanwhile, the mainstream media, clueless at the best of times, happily disseminated and endlessly commented upon the data with an air of authority. Tragically, the population was misled by propagandized misinformation: not through so-called misinformation spreaders on social media but rather through the orchestrated work of official channels, in concert with mainstream media and the censorship of social media. When a fact is yet to be verified, it is best to specify that all the explanations proposed are hypothesis yet to be verified. A golden rule in research is that one does not develop hypotheses on hypotheses but on validated facts--all of the relevant known and verified facts, that is to say, on observations and the description of phenomena validated by the scientific method. In addition, the methodology of the research and the population on which it was carried out are to be considered before making generalizations. The sample choice, the experimental protocol—which hypotheses were tested—and the statistical analysis of the results are of paramount importance when it comes to generalizing a negative or positive result from a study to a complete population. Cross-correlations, observer biases, sample size, and many other factors must also be considered. The study of human beings is complex and the study of an entire population even more so. In the end, ideally, rather than the observation should be free and unbiased. When our observations are unbiased, we avoid getting bogged down by more confusion than knowledge—even if for some it is more reassuring or gratifying to formulate fanciful, often simplistic, explanations to the detriment of scientific rigour. The most insidious of ignorance is not what we do not know but what we hold to be true without question and which turns out to be false. Science is constantly evolving through rigorous exploration of new theories, which are bound to gradually change in nuance or be invalidated by new evidence. Thus, the “consensus“ of the moment, supported by the majority of scientists, may eventually prove to be outdated or downright false in the light of new empirical findings. This is compounded because too often results published in very good peer-reviewed journals have proven to be non-reproducible. How much of a problem is that? This is unfortunately very common in medical research as revealed by the famous article: “ Why most published findings are false,“ written in 2005 by eminent epidemiologist John Ioannidis, one of the most cited scientists in the world in the field of clinical medicine and social sciences. This article, the most downloaded from the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, is the most consulted article on the site with more than three million views. It has become an essential reference in relation to the difficulties linked to the reproducibility of scientific studies. Since the publication of this shocking article, a multitude of studies have come to corroborate this worrying observation. In general, however, these difficulties are poorly documented because the system in place does not favour the dissemination of such information. Indeed, it is very difficult to publish results invalidating what has already been published in the scientific literature. This, therefore, singularly complicates the practice of scientific research and sets up researchers to embark on the wrong track. This pre-mature publication of studies that cannot be faithfully reproduced is a serious problem, and it was was greatly exacerbated in the COVID-19 era as a large number of experts from all walks of life rushed to contribute to the scientific effort to confront the pandemic. Discernment to avoid going astray requires research training and experience, which the vast majority of media commentators, who have little or no practical experience in scientific research, lack. Any well-trained researcher is perfectly aware of the limitations unverified and unconfirmed data and examines with great circumspection studies that have not been reproduced by independent teams protected from conflicts of interest. Minimally, before fully embarking on a research project, it is necessary to begin by reproducing the crucial results at the basis of the hypotheses to be explored. Ultimately, it‘s not primarily about being right or wrong; it‘s about fostering dialogue to gain a clearer collective understanding and to implement solutions that can improve the resolution of stubborn issues stemming from complex systems, which challenge our overly simplified analyses. Despite anything the mainstream media, social networks, or our politicians might postulate, it is important to recognize that one cannot lie with physics or biology. We must be cognizant of what nature reveals to us, avoid the pitfalls of ideological filters that hide or distort reality, and act accordingly. We must be extra vigilant not to be bogged down by confusion, which is all the more comfortable when it is widely shared. Scientism We must make a clear distinction between the belief system or ideology of reductionist materialist science and the pursuit of knowledge that science engages in with an open-minded approach to all new discoveries. This quest for knowledge, the which is built up through accumulated observations, the development of explanatory theories, experimentation and the generation of new data that confirm or invalidate current theories, should not be restricted to the physical material world alone. The quest should encompass the entirety of reality, including the metaphysical and spiritual realms. However, this is where most materialistic scientists encounter difficulties. Despite new neurological evidence supporting both the placebo and non-placebo effects, many materialistic scientists still find it challenging to recognize the influence of the mind on physical health. In this emerging pseudo-religion that materialist science has taken on, often presenting itself as the sole valid path to knowledge, we find ourselves marvelling at the immense capabilities of humanity. It‘s hard not to believe in our potential to achieve remarkable feats, given the extraordinary progress we‘ve made since the Industrial Revolution. We succumb to hubris, a trait warned against in ancient tales like the Tower of Babel or the story of Sisyphus, who challenged death. Armed with our science and advanced tools such as computers, we create models aimed at describing nature in immense detail, with the ambition of making highly precise predictions. In doing so, we believe we can alter the course of events with surgical precision, if needed. We believe that everything would only have beneficial effects, without collateral damage. And we take ourselves for demiurges who can only make good decisions. This intoxication of power pushes the limits of our ignorance into a blind spot. And the most ignorant are those who are convinced that they know enough but who understand only very superficially the evolving knowledge of science and especially its limits. With their pseudo certainty, they derive narratives used to justify decisions and actions that cannot be doubted because they have followed the science. Any opposition to this scientific orthodoxy being decried as “conspiratorial“ or backward is easy to denigrate, ignore, or censor. And the hunt for heretics is relaunched as in the days of the Inquisition. It is as if the questioning of the dominant “consensus“ of “accepted” science, of which the media is the mouthpiece, was in essence unscientific, ignoring that science fundamentally progresses according to an iterative process that does not sit well with a fixed dogmatism promoting a doxa to which we should adhere. Knowledge is Not Wisdom Wisdom invites us to cultivate the humility stemming from our ignorance, which is far greater than what we think we know. Complex phenomena cannot be reduced to simple causes that are supposedly invested with such high explanatory power that we can predict the future with an easily deployed computer model. For models to be valid, they should consider all parameters that can affect the system, as well as the degree of their combined interactions. We often forget that at our stage of knowledge, these models have limited predictive power. They have to be constantly refined by empirical data, which is often difficult to obtain. However, it is sometimes possible to obtain the data when we take the trouble to compile and analyze relevant observations and the empirical tests of our theories. Retrospective and prospective studies are essential for closing the loop on our often risky predictions. These studies should teach us humility in the face of our cognitive limits and should influence us to exercise caution when we attempt to predict the future. Unfortunately, the need to communicate, often on a daily basis, a simple message that is accessible to people who may not have the expertise (or the attention span) to appreciate the complexity of these systems, can lead one to propose simplistic, reductive explanations. Those can produce the illusion that we understand what is happening well enough to intervene only positively on the system. As Albert Einstein advised: we must strive to formulate explanations that are as simple as possible but not simplistic. In our scientific exploration of complex phenomena, it is crucial to take advantage of the long experience of our ancestors who learned to develop strategies which, although imperfect, nevertheless made it possible to face difficult conditions whose complexity overwhelmed them. In other words, we must learn from past experiences, with their share of errors, so we do not have to rediscover knowledge already acquired at the cost of painful historical attempts at trial and error. We must also be careful not to consider that new theories are necessarily better because they are more recent. The hegemony of these theories du jour is more often due to the philosophical, psychological, and cultural bias of the time than to their scientific merit. There is a great body of ancient knowledge and wisdom that could be more valid than the new theories because it has stood the test of time. One must be wary of theories that deviate into militant ideologies under the guise of science. Above all, let‘s remember that while science describes nature with ever-increasing acuity, it is powerless to advise what to do with this necessarily partial and provisional knowledge and technology. Knowledge may be one of the important elements of the process, but it is certainly far from sufficient to access wisdom. One wonders what sort of world we live in when people refuse to be exposed to different viewpoints and quickly resort to denigration and censorship as a way to protect themselves from information that would challenge their worldview—our “religion.“ Our world seems to be under the influence of two dominant ideologies: scientism in synergy with wokeism. Both ideologies are completely at odds with science. The COVID-19 crisis exposed profound societal issues that existed before but had not been widely recognized. The pervasive sense of fear, especially among baby boomers, about death had in many ways numbed our ability to fully embrace and celebrate life. We saw a form of intergenerational prejudice during this pandemic in the willingness to mortgage the lives of the youngest to reassure the oldest. This obsessive fear was rooted in the disconnection of the meaning of our lives as revealed in all the mythological, religious, and spiritual accounts of humanity, for millennia. In the dominant materialist narrative that we inhabited, there was nothing outside of the material dimension, and after the physical death of our bodies, that would be nothingness. This nihilism was frightening. It was also a source of fragility that the authorities exploited in order to govern through fear. Recommendations Considering the critical reliance of our modern society on science and technology, there is a need to distinguish knowledge derived from the rigorous scientific method from beliefs often influenced by ideologies and propaganda. To help distinguish between the two, we recommend the following: A. Basic training in epistemology and critical thinking should be incorporated into both humanities and scientific or technological education curricula. B. Experts who participate in public forums should undergo scrutiny based on the following four fundamental criteria: Demonstrated cutting-edge knowledge and expertise, as evidenced by their involvement in past or ongoing scientific research, providing proof of their understanding of the subject under discussion. Lack of conflicts of interest. Willingness to engage in evidence-based public debates with other experts who may hold differing opinions. Such engagement should involve using rhetoric that avoids ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, or invoking the mislabelled “scientific consensus.“ The detailed, unedited credentials of these public figures must be made known and available to the public. This will enable the public to ascertain the credibility of such experts. 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.

6. Conclusions 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.

4.1.9 Freedom of Speech and Academic Expression for Students Freedom of Speech and Academic Expression for Students Introduction The freedom of speech and academic expression within educational settings plays a vital role in fostering critical thinking and the open exchange of ideas. In recent years, however, there have been concerns about the degree to which students can exercise these freedoms, particularly on controversial topics. Testimonies from the Vancouver NCI hearings highlighted perceived limitations on students' rights to freely express opinions, particularly if their views diverge from mainstream or institutionally endorsed perspectives. Witnesses argued that limitations on freedom of expression within schools hinder students' personal development, critical thinking, and engagement with different perspectives. Discussion of Witness Testimonies Alex Newman Overview of Testimony Alex Newman, a journalist and educational advocate, provided testimony emphasizing the suppression of free speech within schools. He argued that educational environments have increasingly adopted ideological frameworks that discourage dissent and marginalize students holding alternative or unpopular viewpoints. Newman highlighted specific examples of students and families feeling pressured to conform to dominant narratives, particularly on sensitive and controversial topics, to avoid social or institutional repercussions. Newman underscored the critical importance of fostering open dialogue and critical thinking in educational settings, arguing that limiting students’ ability to engage with different perspectives undermines their intellectual and personal development. He also expressed concerns about the role of authority figures in shaping discussions, which can inadvertently or deliberately create biased learning environments. Key Points of Testimony Ideological Influence in Schools: Highlighted how certain ideological agendas in educational curricula can marginalize dissenting views. Warned against the risks of creating echo chambers within schools that discourage critical thinking. ◦ Impact on Students: Noted that students often feel compelled to conform to prevailing narratives to avoid conflict or ostracism. Argued that suppressing free speech stifles creativity, intellectual exploration, and emotional resilience. Advocacy for Open Dialogue: Called for policies that encourage respectful discourse and the exploration of different viewpoints in educational settings. Barry Neufeld Overview of Testimony Barry Neufeld, a former school trustee, shared his personal experiences of being targeted for expressing dissenting views on educational content, particularly the SOGI 123 program (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity). Neufeld described facing significant backlash for his advocacy of parental rights and his opposition to certain aspects of progressive education initiatives. His testimony highlighted the broader challenges of maintaining freedom of expression within educational governance and the risks faced by those who voice unpopular opinions. Neufeld emphasized that the suppression of dissenting views, whether among students, parents, or educators, sets a dangerous precedent for intellectual and democratic freedom in schools. Key Points of Testimony Targeting of Dissenting Voices: Described the personal and professional backlash he faced for expressing dissenting views on controversial educational content. Highlighted how institutional and public pressures can silence voices advocating for alternative perspectives. Parental Rights in Education: Advocated for the involvement of parents in decisions about educational content and policies, emphasizing their role in shaping students’ values. Criticized the lack of transparency in implementing certain programs and the dismissal of parental concerns. Broader Implications for Free Speech: Warned that suppressing dissent within educational systems erodes democratic principles and fosters an environment of intolerance. Paul Jaffe Overview of Testimony Paul Jaffe, a legal expert, discussed systemic challenges and legal principles related to freedom of speech in various contexts, including education. While his testimony did not specifically focus on student expression, Jaffe’s insights on the legal and societal importance of free speech provide a broader framework for understanding the issue. Jaffe argued that institutions, including schools, have a responsibility to protect freedom of expression while fostering respectful dialogue. He noted that overly restrictive policies can create environments of fear and self-censorship, undermining the educational mission of encouraging different perspectives and critical thinking. Key Points of Testimony Legal Frameworks for Free Speech: Highlighted the balance between institutional authority and individual rights within educational settings. Emphasized the importance of creating clear policies that protect free speech while maintaining respectful discourse. Institutional Neutrality: Advocated for schools to act as neutral spaces for dialogue rather than endorsing specific viewpoints. Warned against the risks of creating policies that inadvertently silence dissent or promote ideological conformity. Discussion and Analysis of Issues Raised by the Witnesses Pressure to Conform to Institutional Narratives Alex Newman testified that students often feel significant pressure to align their beliefs and opinions with institutional or curriculum driven narratives. He pointed to topics like gender identity and social justice as areas where dissenting perspectives are often unwelcome. Students who express alternative viewpoints or ask critical questions are at risk of facing social ostracism, academic penalties, or subtle disapproval from authority figures. Newman noted a growing trend in schools where specific ideological perspectives are prioritized and presented as unassailable truths. This approach discourages intellectual exploration, limits exposure to alternative viewpoints, and stifles students’ critical thinking skills. An educational environment that prioritizes conformity over dialogue risks producing students who are hesitant to question or engage with controversial issues, which is detrimental to their intellectual growth. Encouraging open and respectful discussion on all topics, with educators facilitating constructive debate, would cultivate a healthier academic environment where students feel safe to express multiple/different views. Consequences for Divergent Opinions Barry Neufeld’s testimony highlighted the challenges of expressing dissenting views within educational systems. As a school trustee, Neufeld faced public and professional backlash for opposing the SOGI 123 program, including accusations of bigotry and hate speech. He described these responses as attempts to silence dissent rather than engage with alternative perspectives. Neufeld’s experiences underscore a broader issue: the potential for dissenters, whether students, parents, or educators, to face social and institutional penalties for expressing unpopular opinions. In a school environment, such consequences can deter students from openly discussing their beliefs, leading to self-censorship. Witnesses emphasized the importance of fostering an environment where divergent views are engaged with respectfully rather than dismissed outright. A balanced approach that includes open dialogue and mutual understanding would protect freedom of speech and contribute to an academic setting that reflects the actual opinions of the community. The Role of Schools in Teaching Critical Thinking Witnesses, including Newman, stressed that schools have a fundamental responsibility to teach critical thinking and foster engagement with different perspectives. Educational systems that restrict discussion on controversial topics fail to prepare students for the complexities of civic life and public discourse. Newman argued that presenting certain ideologies as beyond question undermines the educational goal of fostering independent thought and intellectual inquiry. Critical thinking extends beyond content mastery; it equips students to evaluate information critically, question assumptions, and form reasoned judgments. Restricting debate on sensitive topics risks producing students who are ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of a pluralistic society. Promoting open dialogue and encouraging students to consider multiple perspectives will better prepare them for active citizenship and the challenges of engaging in a democratic society. Balancing Respectful Discourse and Freedom of Speech Witnesses recognized the challenge of balancing free speech with the need for respectful discourse in schools. Newman expressed concern that the emphasis on creating "safe spaces" often results in overly restrictive environments where certain viewpoints are implicitly or explicitly prohibited. While respect is crucial, limiting discussions to avoid discomfort undermines the core purpose of education: fostering intellectual curiosity and preparing students for real-world complexities. Ensuring that discussions are conducted respectfully is essential, but this should not lead to an environment where students feel unable to express different opinions. Educators play a key role in moderating these discussions, ensuring that all perspectives are heard and treated with respect. Establishing clear guidelines for respectful discourse, paired with robust protections for free speech, would create a framework where students can engage in meaningful and open dialogue without fear of reprisal. Conclusion The testimonies presented at the Vancouver NCI hearings underscore the critical importance of protecting freedom of speech and academic expression for students. Witnesses expressed concerns that current educational practices often prioritize conformity over dialogue, discouraging students from exploring diverse perspectives or engaging in controversial topics. This environment hinders the development of critical thinking and the intellectual resilience necessary for active citizenship. Schools play a pivotal role in shaping the next generation of thinkers, leaders, and citizens. Upholding freedom of speech within educational settings enriches the learning experience, fosters intellectual differences, and strengthens democratic values. By promoting open dialogue and respecting all perspectives, schools can better prepare students for the complexities of civic and social engagement. Recommendations Promote Open Dialogue on Controversial Topics: Create forums or structured discussions where students can explore sensitive issues in a respectful and constructive manner. Provide educators with tools to facilitate discussions that allow for diverse viewpoints and critical inquiry. Implement Policies that Protect Student Expression: Develop clear policies ensuring students can express their views without fear of academic or social penalties. Address instances where institutional practices inadvertently suppress dissenting opinions. Create a reporting system in which students can safely report inappropriate or threatening conduct of school personnel. Consider the installation of classroom cameras to ensure that classroom interactions remain transparent, respectful, and aligned with institutional standards, while providing an objective record in cases of disputes or misconduct. Provide Training for Educators on Moderating Sensitive Discussions: Offer professional development to equip educators with skills to manage discussions on controversial topics effectively. This professional development must be ideologically neutral and reflect the morals of the community in which the school is situated. Emphasize the importance of maintaining neutrality and fostering an open environment. 4. Incorporate Critical Thinking Skills into the Curriculum: Embed critical thinking and media literacy in educational programs to help students evaluate information and form independent judgments. Encourage analytical discussions that challenge assumptions and promote reasoned debate. Foster a School Culture that Values Intellectual Diversity: Promote a culture where different opinions are respected and intellectual exploration is encouraged. Recognize and celebrate differing perspectives as an essential component of learning and personal growth. Establish Clear Guidelines for Respectful Discourse: Develop standards for maintaining respectful dialogue, ensuring all students feel safe and heard while protecting freedom of speech. These standards should focus on the manner in which ideas are expressed, rather than the content of the ideas themselves, which is protected under free speech rights. These recommendations aim to cultivate an educational environment where freedom of thought and respectful dialogue are foundational values. By supporting open discussion, protecting student expression, and equipping educators with neutral facilitation tools, schools can nurture intellectual diversity and critical thinking, empowering students to engage meaningfully with complex issues while feeling safe, supported, and heard. 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.

5.1.8 Student Consent and Pressures in Medical Decision-making 5.1.8 Student Consent and Pressures in Medical Decision-making Recommendations Establish Clear Criteria for Assessing Capacity: Develop standardized, evidence-based criteria to evaluate a minor’s ability to understand medical risks, benefits, and long-term implications of their decisions. Healthcare providers should not be the ones who assess the minor’s maturity. Health care providers must respect parental authority unless the child refuses a treatment which is vital to the child’s well-being. In which case a panel should review the case and recommend a course of action. Include cognitive and emotional developmental markers as part of the capacity assessment process, recognizing that minors’ ability to provide informed consent evolves with age and context. 2. Reinforce Parental Involvement in High-Stakes Decisions: Amend the BC Infants Act to require parental consent for high-risk, irreversible, or experimental medical procedures involving minors. Establish policies that prioritize a collaborative approach between parents and healthcare providers to ensure decisions align with the best interests of the child. Provide parents with comprehensive, transparent information about medical procedures offered to their children to empower them as advocates in the decision-making process. 3. Healthcare should not be provided in schools. 4. Create Supportive Decision-Making Frameworks: Develop structured frameworks that allow students to discuss medical decisions with trusted adults, including parents and healthcare professionals, in a supportive and non-coercive environment. Encourage open dialogue that respects the concerns and questions of students while reinforcing the protective role of parents. Implement safeguards to ensure students are not unduly influenced by authority figures or peers when making health decisions. 5. Monitor the Psychological Impact on Students: Establish systems to evaluate and monitor the psychological effects of autonomous medical decision-making on minors, particularly for high-stakes medical procedures. Offer accessible counselling services and mental health resources to address anxiety, confusion, or stress experienced by students faced with significant health choices. Conduct longitudinal studies to assess the long-term psychological impact of policies that bypass parental involvement in minors’ medical decisions. 6. Prioritize Ethical Frameworks for Informed Consent: Require healthcare providers to undergo ethics training specific to informed consent practices for minors. Develop tools to ensure that consent is truly informed, including age-appropriate explanations of medical risks and benefits and the explicit inclusion of options to decline treatment without repercussion. Establish independent oversight mechanisms to review cases where minors make autonomous health decisions, ensuring decisions were made ethically and without undue pressure. 7. Reinforce Ethical Decision-Making Education in Schools: Introduce ethics education for students that promotes critical thinking and the ability to question information, helping them better navigate complex decisions. 8. Address the Role of Moral Framing: Design communication strategies that avoid moralizing or framing vaccination or medical compliance as a moral obligation to prevent unnecessary guilt, confusion, or coercion in minors. 9. Promote Autonomy Through Family Collaboration: Ensure that policies designed to empower minors work in tandem with parental involvement, fostering autonomy through informed, family-based decision-making. These recommendations aim to strike a balance between supporting student autonomy and safeguarding their well-being through informed, collaborative decision-making. By reinforcing parental involvement, standardizing capacity assessments, and fostering transparent communication in schools, the proposed measures promote ethical, developmentally appropriate medical consent practices that prioritize the best interests of children and families. 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 Education and School Environment 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.

1. Executive Summary Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction Canada‘s federal, provincial, and municipal governments‘ responses to COVID-19 were unprecedented. The policy, legal, and health authority interventions into the lives of Canadians, our families, businesses, and communities were, and to a great extent remain, significant. In particular, these interventions have impacted the physical and mental health, civil liberties and fundamental freedoms, jobs and livelihoods, and overall social and economic wellbeing of nearly all Canadians. Given the enormity of these mandates and the resultant consequences, these circumstances demanded a comprehensive, transparent, and objective national inquiry into the appropriateness and efficacy of these interventions to determine what lessons can be learned for the future. No Canadian government has shown appetite for a fulsome review of the measures implemented. It is also questionable whether municipal, federal, and provincial governments would or could conduct a fair and unbiased review simply because it is their own actions and responses to COVID-19 which should be under investigation. The preceding description of the genesis of the National Citizens Inquiry represents a somewhat sterile description of the requirement to hold an inquiry into governments‘ responses to the “pandemic.” That description, although absolutely valid, was formulated prior to the commencement and subsequent completion of the National Citizens Inquiry hearings. Those individuals who participated in the hearings or watched even a small fraction of the more than 300 sworn testimonies have had their lives transformed forever. Many of the testimonies were heartbreaking. Others revealed a sometimes terrifying depth to which this nation has fallen. Over the 24 days of hearings, witness testimonies provided an overall sense of how Canada has been transformed by government actions to address the pandemic. Our country underwent a dramatic transformation within a short timespan. Sweeping lockdowns and restrictions on rights and freedoms that would once have been considered unthinkable in our country were adopted with incredible speed and with no room for public comment or debate. This was, in and of itself, a phenomenon. The testimony objectively demonstrates that an unprecedented attack was carried out on the basic rights, freedoms, and way of life of Canadian citizens. Not since World War II have so many lives been lost due to measures imposed on Canadians by their government. It is important to appreciate that this statement is based on sworn testimonies of the events and experiences described by the witnesses and that these testimonies, as incredible as they are, do not capture the full breadth of the events that took place. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in late 2019, presented governments worldwide with an unprecedented opportunity to change the direction of their respective nations. With the official narrative to contain the spread of the virus and prevent healthcare systems from being overwhelmed, many countries resorted to implementing strict non-pharmaceutical interventions. These interventions, which included widespread business closures, travel restrictions, and stay-at-home orders, were initially introduced as “temporary” and “emergency” measures to mitigate the immediate impact of the virus. In the early stages of the pandemic, there was a widespread sense of urgency and fear surrounding the unknown nature of the virus. Public Health experts quickly became the face of governments, and citizens were left grappling with the need to balance public safety with individual freedoms. The severity of the situation, as described in government messaging and daily state-media broadcasts, led to a general willingness among the population to accept stringent interventions as a necessary evil. During these early stages, public health messaging informed Canadians that the primary goal was to “flatten the curve” and prevent healthcare systems from collapsing under the strain of a sudden surge in COVID-19 cases. Based on the government messaging presented to the public, the notion of lockdowns seemed logical and justifiable to curb the rapid transmission of the virus. Moreover, the suppression of effective existing treatments in favour of the new, experimental genetic therapy “vaccines” further underscored the need for non-pharmaceutical interventions. Canadians have since learned differently. Nevertheless, at the time, the unknowns were still too numerous to ignore the messaging that we now can conclude as biased and inaccurate, similar to, if not actual, propaganda. Testimony from experts confirmed that by late March of 2020, the government already knew the true nature and risks of the virus known as SARS-CoV-2. The government knew that it primarily affected the elderly and individuals with comorbidities, and they therefore were aware it was not unusually deadly or virulent to the vast majority of Canadians. Nevertheless, governments persisted in their imposition of emergency measures. As time went on, the long duration of lockdowns and their impact on daily life began to generate debate and dissent. Economies suffered severe contraction and losses, businesses closed permanently, and livelihoods were disrupted. The societal and psychological toll of prolonged lockdowns became increasingly apparent as people grappled with issues such as mental health, educational challenges, and social isolation. Governments undertook unprecedented levels of spending—a reality that will impact generations of Canadians to come. Many people lost their lives due to fear, loneliness, and depression. Many others had scheduled surgeries cancelled. The doctor–patient relationship was severed when medical appointments were no longer conducted in person. Many had adverse reactions to an experimental biologic injection that many were forced to take against their will. Many people were terrified by the government messaging that increasingly encouraged people to turn on each other. Friends, families, and communities were torn apart. The government resorted to name-calling and public shaming, and in so doing, altered the social fabric. Society, as it was known, had now become toxic and, in many ways, dangerous. As a result, the incidence of suicide, violence, and despair increased to unprecedented levels. As the pandemic persisted, differences in the way various countries approached the pandemic started to become known. Some nations adopted more targeted and localized measures, while others implemented broad and strict nationwide lockdowns. These varying approaches contributed to a diverse range of experiences and public perceptions. Citizens began to undertake their own research—coming together and realizing that historical pandemic-management practices and emergency plans, which had withstood the test of time, had been discarded by Canadian governments and replaced with unsupported measures and mandates that appeared to be politically-driven. Although the government had done extensive emergency planning well in advance of 2020, these emergency plans were simply ignored, and those professionals who were trained to implement emergency measures were sidelined. In summary, governments in various jurisdictions throughout Canada were able to introduce draconian lockdown measures in a relatively short period of time. Admittedly, governments were not alone in this endeavour. The excuse of combatting a ”novel virus ” combined with a fear that healthcare systems would be overwhelmed to persuade the public to accept any and all measures that were brought forth. However, as time progressed, the long-term consequences and societal costs associated with prolonged lockdowns could no longer be hidden from the public. Claims about consequences and social costs are incredible claims to make.Just three years ago they were unthinkable. Once the reader has had the opportunity to thoroughly review the contents of this Report and watch the recorded testimonies, there is no escaping the validity of these assertions. 1.2 Reasons for a National Independent Citizens Inquiry Canadians demanded an independent inquiry into government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic as a result of a wide variety of considerations that include the following: The scope and magnitude of the COVID-19 response were/remain unprecedented. The impacts were national, and the responses of the governments affected the vast majority of Canadians. Canadians have many legitimate questions concerning how the response was managed and what scientific and policy advice governments relied upon—questions to which the governmental response thus far has been non-existent or unsatisfactory. Calls for the governments themselves to commission an inquiry have gone unheeded. The governments cannot be expected to objectively and impartially conduct the required investigation of themselves—hence the need for a National Citizens Inquiry. It is necessary to solicit, receive, and evaluate first-hand personal testimony from those impacted by governments‘ responses to COVID-19. It is important that this testimony be sincere, honest, and free of coercion or censorship. It is necessary to solicit, receive, and evaluate testimony from scientific, medical, legal, and other appropriate experts that may differ from the narrative communicated by governments and mainstream media. It is necessary to ascertain where governmental responses to COVID-19 were effective, ineffective, or counterproductive and where alternative methods could have yielded much better or more appropriate results. It is necessary to establish accountability for the impacts of measures undertaken and to ascertain the social and economic costs of those measures. It is necessary to ensure that our governments manage any future declared public emergencies effectively and they exercise related emergency orders or powers in a transparent, responsive, democratic, and effective manner. 1.3 Guiding Principles The National Citizens Inquiry was established under strict guidelines, which include the following: Independence: The Inquiry must be truly independent. Inquiry Commissioners were selected on the basis of experience, competence, and credibility, and not for any pre-conceived positions they might hold on the issues dealt with by the Inquiry. Citizen-Supported: The authority of the Inquiry must rest on a mandate received from significant numbers of Canadian citizens across the country who have made repeated calls for an independent and objective review of governments‘ pandemic measures. This mandate was further reinforced by such citizens adding their names to the Petition of Support for a National Citizens Inquiry provided on the Inquiry‘s website: www.citizensinquirycanada.ca . Open and Transparent: The Inquiry‘s investigation and related activities were undertaken in an open and transparent basis, free of biases or preconceived conclusions. Truthfulness: All persons who participated in the Inquiry were only able to submit oral or written testimony under oath, dutifully sworn before the Commission representatives. Evidence-Based: The deliberations and conclusions of the Inquiry are evidence-based, with any and all testimony received (including that containing extreme claims and conspiratorial charges) being subject to cross examination. The submitted evidence for all arguments, claims, and/or positions are publicly available through the Inquiry‘s website. Respect: The Inquiry insisted that all participants exhibit mutual respect for the evidence, opinions, beliefs, and statements before the commissioners, in accordance with the principles of facilitating reconciliation and healing. 6. 1.4 Purposes of the National Citizens Inquiry To inquire into much needed dialogue with Canadians. To listen to Canadians concerning the impacts of government health and policy measures impacting their personal lives, including their physical and mental health, families, and communities (particularly children and seniors), jobs and livelihoods, businesses, and their fundamental freedoms and civil liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution. 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 the governments‘ pandemic measures and strategy, what information was known or knowable by governments, and what, if any, alternative approaches could have been taken. To receive and evaluate testimony from legacy and independent media to understand what information was known or knowable beforehand and whether the information conveyed to the public was factual, objective, and without bias. To invite input from healthcare officers and other governmental officials as to the rationale behind the healthcare protection measures adopted—including mandates, lockdowns, and public health orders and actions—and the strategies employed to secure public compliance. To invite and secure testimony as to the appropriateness, efficacy, legality, and constitutionality of governments‘ 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 governments‘ responses to COVID-19. To investigate rulings and judgments against citizens for the personal choices they made, and to investigate institutional policy changes that led to the perception of discrimination. 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. 1.5. Structure of the National Citizens Inquiry The National Citizens Inquiry consists of two main components: the Commissioners and the Support Group. 1.5.1 The Support Group is a purely administrative committee that facilitates the NCI‘s logistics, such as booking venues, maintaining the NCI website, or raising funds to support this initiative. The Support Group drafted the initial Terms of Reference for the Inquiry, which were reviewed by the Commissioners. The Support Group had no role in the substantive aspect of the Inquiry (e.g., asking questions of witnesses, considering evidence, or advising the Commissioners). The Support Group is represented across Canada through Regional Subcommittees. These committees carried out the local planning and organization needed to host the NCI hearings, accommodate witnesses, and provide logistical support to the Commissioners. Support Group and Regional Subcommittee members were all unpaid volunteers who stepped forward from across Canada and all walks of life. 1.5.2. The Commissioners were solely responsible for hearing testimony, asking questions, and issuing a comprehensive report inclusive of recommendations, if any. The NCI‘s Commission consisted of four Commissioners. The Commissioners elected a Chair to lead the Commission. Commissioners were solely responsible for hearing witness testimony and preparing this Report. The Commissioners were identified by Canadians and reviewed and appointed by the Support Group on the basis of their credibility, demonstrated objectivity, and competence in one or more relevant areas (e.g., law, medicine, science, ethics, public policy, journalism, etc.). It was essential that the Commissioners be objective and non-biased. Commissioners were supported by a Secretariat staff comprised of lawyers and other professionals. Upon the conclusion of the hearings, the Commissioners have written this Report. 1.6. Selection of Commissioners It was critical that selected Commissioners were, and are, seen to be credible in all regards and in particular that they were, and are, as objective, competent, and trustworthy as possible to Canadians on whose behalf the Inquiry was conducted. The invitation to nominate or apply to be a Commissioner was posted on the Inquiry‘s website ( www.citizensinquirycanada.ca ). The posting included a brief description of the nominees‘ desired characteristics (e.g., independence, objectivity, competence, etc). Nominations/Applications were received and evaluated, and those who were most qualified to serve were invited to do so. Commissioners signed a Declaration of Understanding and Neutrality indicating that they accepted the Inquiry‘s Terms of Reference and commitment that their conclusions and recommendations would not be pre-determined but would be based solely on testimony provided to the Inquiry. The names and biographies of the selected Commissioners are posted on the Inquiry‘s website. The Commissioners selected their own Chairperson, Ken Drysdale. 1.7. Instruction to the National Citizens Inquiry The National Citizens Inquiry was instructed and authorized to carry out the following: To include the activities of all levels of government (federal, provincial, and municipal) within the scope of its investigations. To complete its investigations and to issue a final report of its findings and recommendations within one year of the commencement of its operations. To adopt such procedures and methods as it may consider necessary for the proper conduct of the Inquiry. While the Inquiry is not a court, the Commissioners adhered to court-like procedures with respect to receiving evidence (e.g., instructions to witnesses, cross examination) and legal counsel. To sit at such times and places in Canada, as it may decide, for the purpose of holding in-person hearings, to conduct virtual hearings as necessary, and to receive written as well as oral testimony. To seek additional input and advice from experts and grassroots sources as deemed necessary. To issue interim reports as well as a final report and such other communications as the Commission considers necessary to keep the public apprised of its work and to correct any misconceptions or misrepresentations thereof. To understand that its interim and final reports are the primary output of the Inquiry, which the Commissioners must be prepared to publicly explain and defend. To immediately upon its formation establish a system to account for the revenues used to finance the operations of the Inquiry and the expenses incurred, and to make this accounting public at the conclusion of the Inquiry. 1.8. Public Hearings 1.8.1 General Principles of the Public Hearings The Public Hearings were conducted under the following Rules and Procedural Principles: Proportionality: The Inquiry allocated investigative and hearing time in proportion to the importance and relevance of the issue to the Inquiry‘s mandate and the time available to fulfill that mandate so as to ensure that all relevant issues are fully addressed and reported on; Transparency: The Inquiry proceedings and processes were carried out in a manner that was as open and available to the public as was reasonably possible, consistent with the requirements of national security and other applicable confidentialities and privileges; Fairness: The Inquiry balanced the interests of the the public‘s right to be informed with the rights of witnesses testifying to be treated fairly; Timeliness: The Inquiry proceeded in a timely fashion to engender public confidence and ensure that its work remained relevant; and Expedition: The Inquiry operated under a strict deadline and conducted its work accordingly. Detailed Rules of Practice and Procedure are available on the NCI Website: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NCI-Commission-Rules-FINAL.pdf 1.8.2. Locations and Schedule of the Public Hearings Public Hearings were held in locations from coast-to-coast in Canada as follows: Truro, Nova Scotia March 16, 17, 18, 2023 Toronto, Ontario March 30, 31; April 1, 2023 Winnipeg, Manitoba April 13, 14, 15, 2023 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan April 20, 21, 22, 2023 Red Deer, Alberta April 26, 27, 28, 2023 Vancouver, British Columbia May 2, 3, 4, 2023 Québec City, Québec May 11, 12, 13, 2023 Ottawa, Ontario May 17, 18, 19, 2023 Members of the public who wished to testify at the hearings were invited to apply through online application forms that were available on the NCI website: https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/testimony/ Members of the public were offered the option of testifying in person or via live video broadcast. Over 900 members of the public (lay witnesses) applied to testify. One hundred forty-seven expert witnesses applied or were nominated to provide testimony (some were nominated more than once). Approximately 300 members of the public testified at the hearings. Many more members of the public are currently providing additional testimony outside of the Public Hearings, which will similarly be included in the Commission Record, but which will not form part of the record considered when preparing this Report. Testimony was ”invited” from representatives of all provincial/territorial and federal levels of governments across Canada. Subpoenas were issued and government witnesses were given the option of testifying either in person or on video conference at any of the eight hearing locations. Sixty-three members of government, regulators, and authorities were subpoenaed to attend and testify. Not one representative of any government in Canada appeared to testify at the public hearings. All subpoenas sent were either ignored, declined, or not picked up. As a result of the lack of government representation at the hearings, the Commissioners were unable to hear governments‘ defences of their measures. The inquiry sought to obtain government positions through the consideration of non-oral evidence, such as sworn affidavits of government officials—obtained from various court proceedings. Where such materials have been considered, they form part of the official record. It was this sworn evidence as well as their actions, press releases, statements of policy, and press conferences that were utilized to represent government positions. Actual recorded statements and press conferences, et cetera, were aired at a number of the hearing locations. Despite the fact that the actions taken by all levels of government represented the most profound intrusion into the lives of all Canadians, not a single government representative took the opportunity to address the Canadian people and explain their side of the story. As a citizen-led initiative, the Commission did not have the ability to compel the government witnesses to appear through judicial subpoenas. 1.9. Identification and Classification of COVID-19 Interventions For the purposes of this Report and based on the testimony provided at the Public Hearings, the COVID-19 measures that were implemented by governments were summarized into four major categories. The categories are based on the actual or perceived effects that the measures had on the lives of Canadians. There is significant overlap between each of these categories. It‘s important to note that the particular expertise and knowledge of each Commissioner may be reflected and embedded differently within this overlap, as well as each Commissioner‘s personal and professional response to witness testimony. This is intentional and deliberate so that the voices of all Canadians can be fully represented in this Report. The major categories are: Social, meaning those measures that largely impacted the social fabric and interaction of Canadians in their daily life activities. These include measures that restricted public meetings, movement, and ability to interact and meet with other people. Civil , meaning those measures that impacted the civil rights and freedoms of Canadians, including the imposition of restrictions by the governing authorities and, as well, the imposition of forced mandates by both government and non-government entities. These impacts were assessed at the personal, institutional, and organizational level. Economic , meaning those measures that impacted the economic wellbeing and performance of individuals, businesses, and organizations in Canada. These could include restrictions to employment, the shutdown of businesses and organizations deemed non-essential, and the overall impacts of the measures on our society as a whole. Health , meaning those measures that impacted the health and wellbeing of citizens of Canada. These issues might include such things as forced medical procedures, lack of access to patients because of the mandates: many doctors were treating via zoom, and injuries resulting from forced medical procedures and isolation. 1.10. Assessing the Effects of the COVID-19 Interventions This Report relies on the testimony of the witnesses to assess the effects of the COVID-19 interventions. The interventions have been grouped into two basic categories as follows: Pharmaceutical Interventions This Report defines a ”pharmaceutical intervention” as a course of treatment to help prevent, control, or mitigate a pandemic through the use of over-the-counter or healthcare provider prescription medication. This might include such things as vaccine, anti-virals, and antibiotics. Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions This Report defines a ”non-pharmaceutical intervention” (NPI) as a course of action taken either by individuals or communities to help prevent, control, or mitigate a pandemic through the use of other means, excluding over-the-counter or prescribed medications. This might include the implementation of masking policies, lockdowns, closures of public facilities, and quarantines. Actual first-hand testimony of witnesses describes how each of the measures affected them personally or how they have been involved in the evaluation of the interventions. Transcripts of the testimonies, grouped into the various hearing locations are provided in Volume 3 of this Report. The actual recorded testimonies, transcripts, and submitted evidentiary exhibits are also provided on the NCI website. 1.11. Assessing the Appropriateness and Efficacy of These C-19 Interventions Assessment of the appropriateness and efficacy of the interventions is based on the outcomes observed. Testimonies from physicians, scientists, researchers, statisticians, legal scholars and practitioners, lawyers, judges, teachers, commentators, and Canadians from all walks of life were used to assess the appropriateness of the interventions. The Commission heard from a wide variety of witnesses, from locations across Canada and beyond, with a diversity of expertise and experience. At times, testimony was limited as certain witnesses would not testify out of fear of reprisals. In addition, since all representatives of government either refused to appear or simply would not acknowledge the subpoena, their testimony was never heard. This Report relies on first-hand testimony received from everyday Canadians and from leading experts in a wide range of fields of study. 1.12. Lessons to Be Learned 1.12.1.Recommendations Detailed analysis and commentary on each aspect of the pandemic response is provided in “Section 7. Analysis” of the Report. The Commissioners set out and describe each area of review, reference some of the testimony upon which the analysis and commentary is based, provide conclusions based on that analysis, and then provide specific recommendations to address the issues identified. In ”Section 8. Recommendations,” for ease of reference, the recommendations set out in ”Section 7. Analysis” are itemized and presented in a simple format. Recommendations vary widely depending on the subject under consideration. There were no restrictions or limitations placed on the scope or nature of the recommendations made. 1.12.2.An Ode to Truth and Integrity Collectively, we‘ve been paying too much deference to our material comfort, and not enough to truth. Accommodation with half-truths, lies by omission, blatant lies, or complicit silence has created a culture in which the institutions have gradually rotted from within. The COVID-19 crisis has revealed that our Western societies are on the slippery slope towards totalitarianism that cannot happen without the consent and the active participation of the governed. We are all responsible for what‘s happening, one way or another. Without clear separation of powers between independent institutions—the executive branch of government, the administrative branches of government, the judiciary, and healthcare providers—there can be no proper checks and balances. These checks and balances are essential to foster a culture of accountability. Without proper accountability, society is left at the mercy of incompetence and corruption working hand-in-hand to maintain and strengthen the power of the institutions in place. Restoring a vibrant culture of accountability and thriving on truth is the only way to rebuild the most important asset of a prosperous and benevolent society: trust. Trust cannot be demanded; it has to be earned by word of truth and integrity of actions. One of the gravest dangers in democracy is the tyranny of the majority that has forgotten the primordial importance of truth and liberty grounded in individual responsibilities that cannot and should not be outsourced to the administrative state. Unless a true safe space is created for the flourishing of new ideas, freely challenged by rigorous debates, societies will eventually crumble in obsolescence. The relentless search for truth, which is the best possible alignment with the laws of nature, is not a democratic endeavour in and of itself. Before becoming widely accepted, a new scientific discovery (or a new, potentially truthful idea), is unique and cannot be subjected to the vote of the majority that is completely oblivious to this new truth initially. If we kill these new ideas before they have the chance to be accepted widely, we will impede the progress of society. The only way to confirm if a new idea, a discovery, or a hitherto unknown law of nature is really true is to subject it to the free exchange of ideas in debates. Not to censor it arbitrarily by fiat, bringing forward an ill-proclaimed scientific consensus. Consensus is a way of functioning when much uncertainty remains, and yet a decision has to be made, especially in a state of perceived emergency. Crisis occurs when institutions are poorly managed or somebody wants to take advantage of imposing decisions without proper vetting, using the pretext of emergencies, real or perceived. When society is in a constant state of crisis, one has to question the competence and/or the motives of the ruling class, including the administrative state. We have to protect as sacred the path and the institutions that have been used for centuries in the rigorous scientific process. Money and corresponding institutions should facilitate this process, not subjugate it. People working as unelected officials in the administrative state should not end up being the masters of our destiny but rather the civil servants of the institutions at the service of the people. We are learning the hard way that dysfunctional institutions can and will fail us when we need them the most. As engaged citizens, we must embark and take part in a major reform of our institutions and not leave it to elusive others. Let‘s not be discouraged by the magnitude of the tasks at hand. We owe it all to our children and grandchildren. 1. Conclusions Administrative State: Is the State benevolent or guilty of malfeasance? As the famous Nobel laureate physicist, Steven Hawking, judiciously said: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” In Canada, the administrative state used—and continues to use—the illusion of knowledge to maintain power. This was evidenced throughout the three-year COVID-19 experience when bureaucrats and administrators alike were perceived as all powerful. However, this illusion was only an image accomplished through an elaborate and inextricably intertwined web of deceit, much like the tactics of the sorcerer‘s apprentice. Meanwhile, politicians were more than happy to impose popular but ill-advised, half-baked health measures, justifying these emerging policies as well-intended measures to protect public health. Sadly, the majority of people succumbed to the measures out of fear, a lack of unbiased and objective information, and questionable trust in long-standing institutions. In this context, as long as most people perceive benefits from the government narrative, everything will be done to protect the illusion of the effectiveness of the ill-advised health measures. But as we witnessed, the administrative state, to achieve this end, relied on poor modelling and statistics full of omissions while ignoring scientific knowledge and understandings. The administrators also dismissed the wisdom of true experts who have credentials considerably above the pretended expertise of technocrats who systematically censored any dissenting voices threatening their usurped authority. This is best illustrated by the numerous accounts of ignorance of epidemiology; their ineffective, unjustifiable non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs); their willful ignorance of state-of-the-art medical practice; and last but not least, their superficial knowledge of the intricacies of the immune system. The only way out of this conundrum is through our constitutionally protected freedom of speech, wherein widely held beliefs, thoughts, and opinions are respected, and likewise, conversations, debates, and dissenting voices are heard. This should be particularly true in the scientific and medical professions. We know the very essence of society is human interactions, and embedded therein, relationships. Because human societies thrive on narratives that present distorted views of reality and define culture according to unwritten rules, new narratives need to emerge. These are particularly critical when societies face a major crisis, like a pandemic. Sometimes, low-resolution representations of reality need to be updated and subsequently redefined by rigorous debates to orient better decision-making and implement more effective solutions to vexing problems going forward. This Report is an attempt to craft a more balanced and objective narrative based on the hundreds of testimonies heard during the 24 days of hearings across Canada. Why? Because Canadians deserve to hear the concerns raised and to determine their own informed opinions regarding the health crisis we have just faced and the appropriateness of the mitigation measures used by government authorities. It will be up to readers to determine for themselves whether this new narrative is a more comprehensive representation of reality than the messaging delivered by governments and the mainstream media during the three years of the COVID pandemic. Specifically, this Report examines the health, civil, economic, and societal issues resulting from the COVID-19 response. The Report also makes specific recommendations to improve the management of any future health crises. What, How, and Why? This Report focuses on answering questions that are in the realm of scientific and forensic investigations. “What” happened? “How” did it happen? And although the ”why” deserves attention too, the Commissioners have determined that it is beyond the scope of this investigation. Still, this existential question will undoubtedly be the subject of many scholarly books for decades to come. By way of further explanation, asking why is certainly not mundane to the Inquiry as it strikes many sensitive cords for most people, whether philosophically, psychologically, or spiritually. However, going down that slippery slope can lead into a maze where one looks for ulterior motives, where there arises a need for, or requires, soul-searching and psychological discussion, which is outside the borders of rigorous scientific investigations. Attributing motive is not part of the playbook of the scientific method. What is required are open and honest debates to foster our collective understanding of what happened and how it happened. In any healthy debate, one has to stay focused on the data, the information, and the knowledge before the wisdom can blossom. This is why forensic investigations are critical—so that conclusions can be reached, apart from agendas and ulterior motives. It is for this reason that the Commissioners have agreed to abide by the witness testimonies to the best of their ability in seeking the truth. These are the truths we have sought throughout the hearings. Moreover, through engaging in this cross-country experience, we can come together as a nation, restoring the very principles and freedoms that have defined Canada since 1867. 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.

6.3 Economic 6.3 Economic 6.3.1 Economic / Social Impacts Recommendations The financial and economic consequences of COVID-19 measures, as highlighted by the Regina hearings, reveal a multifaceted crisis affecting employment, mental health, and social stability. To address these issues, the following recommendations are proposed: Policy Reform and Transparency: Review and reform EI adjudication processes to ensure fairness and transparency. Eliminate any bureaucratic manipulations that deny rightful benefits to terminated employees. 2. Support for Mental Health: Increase funding for mental health services to support individuals experiencing psychological distress due to employment and financial instability. Provide targeted support for those affected by mandate-related job losses. 3. Protection of Medical Ethics: Reinforce the importance of medical ethics, including Informed Consent and doctor–patient privilege. Protect doctors from disciplinary actions when they provide evidence-based medical opinions. 4. Legal Protections for Employment: Implement legal protections for employees who face termination or discrimination based on vaccination status. Ensure fair treatment in the workplace and provide avenues for recourse. 5. Financial Assistance and Support: Provide financial assistance and support programs for individuals facing long-term disability or severe health complications due to vaccination or COVID-19 measures. 6. Community and Social Support: Foster community support networks to reduce the social isolation and stigma associated with vaccination status. Encourage public engagement and dialogue to rebuild trust and social cohesion. By addressing these recommendations, policymakers can mitigate the financial and economic impacts of COVID-19 measures, thereby creating a more equitable and supportive environment for all affected individuals. 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.

5.1.3 International Health Regulations and Treaties Update 5.1.3 International Health Regulations and Treaties Update Introduction The World Health Organization (WHO) has prepared amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). The World Health Assembly (WHA) has agreed on a series of amendments to the IHR in June 2024. These amendments are purported to strengthen global preparedness, surveillance, and response to public health emergencies—including pandemics. Here are the key changes: 1. Pandemic Emergency Definition: A new definition for a pandemic emergency has been introduced. This definition covers communicable diseases that pose a high risk of widespread geographical spread, exceed health system capacities, cause significant social and economic disruption, and require coordinated international action. This builds on the existing mechanisms of the IHR, including the determination of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) 2. Strengthening National and International Capacities: The amendments include commitments to bolster national and international capacities for disease surveillance, information sharing, and response. This includes creating a more robust framework for coordinating efforts across countries and ensuring that preparedness is a collective endeavour. 3. Equity and Solidarity in Access to Medical Products: A strong emphasis has been placed on equity and solidarity to ensure that access to medical products and financing is strengthened globally. This involves establishing a coordinating financial mechanism to support pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, particularly to assist developing countries. 4. Enhanced Transparency and Monitoring: The amendments stress the importance of transparency and monitoring. An independent body will monitor compliance and accountability, inspired by models used in climate change agreements and international law. This aims to ensure that actions are taken to meet global health goals and standards. Witness Testimony James Roguski’s Testimony: James Roguski, a researcher and activist, raised several concerns about the proposed revisions to the IHR: Assumption of Safety and Efficacy : The revisions assume that the actions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic were safe and effective, which may not reflect the varied outcomes and impacts that were experienced globally. Financial Obligations : Developed countries or nations could be compelled to finance the development of pharmaceutical capacity in less wealthy countries, raising concerns about the financial burden on these nations. Vague Pandemic Emergency Definition : The definition of a pandemic emergency can be considered vague, allowing the WHO Director-General to declare an emergency without stringent requirements for statistics or risk assessment. This could lead to the misuse of emergency declarations. Potential for Emergency Powers : An emergency declaration by the WHO Director-General could be used by local governments to invoke emergency powers, potentially leading to overreach and misuse. Global Authority and Uniform Solutions : There are concerns about a single global authority diagnosing pandemics and prescribing one-size-fits-all solutions, which may not be appropriate for all member states. Risks to Canadians’ Rights The proposed amendments to the IHR and the development of a global pandemic treaty pose several risks to Canadians’ rights: Sovereignty and Autonomy : The ability of the WHO to declare emergencies and prescribe health measures could infringe on national sovereignty, limiting Canada’s ability to make independent public health decisions tailored within its specific context. Financial Burden : Obligations to finance global health initiatives could place a significant financial burden on Canada, diverting resources from domestic priorities. Civil Liberties : The potential for emergency declarations to be used by local governments to invoke emergency powers raises concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the potential for government overreach. Equity and Fairness : While equity in global health is crucial, the mechanism for ensuring it must be fair and transparent. Wealthy nations like Canada must balance global responsibilities with domestic needs. Transparency and Accountability : Ensuring that the WHO’s decision-making processes are transparent and accountable is vital to maintaining public trust. Canadians need assurance that global health decisions are made based on sound science and not influenced by political or financial interests. The amendments to the IHR and the proposed global pandemic treaty pose significant risks that need careful consideration. It is crucial we ensure that these changes do not infringe on national sovereignty, impose unfair financial burdens, or erode civil liberties. Transparent and accountable decision-making processes along with a fair balance between global responsibilities and domestic needs are essential to protect Canadians’ rights while contributing to global health security. Recommendations 1. Safeguarding Sovereignty and Autonomy Recommendation : Ensure National Oversight and Decision-Making Implementation : Establish a national review board comprising public health experts, legal advisors, and representatives from civil society to oversee and evaluate any WHO declarations and recommended measures before they are implemented domestically. This board should have the authority to approve, modify, or reject WHO recommendations based on national interests and contextual factors. Rationale : This approach requires that international directives are tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of Canada, preserving national sovereignty while participating in global health initiatives. Recommendation : Advocate for Clear and Specific Criteria for Emergency Declarations Implementation : Work with other WHO member states to refine the definition of a pandemic emergency within the IHR. Ensure that the criteria for declaring an emergency are specific, transparent, and based on robust scientific evidence and risk assessment. Rationale : Clear criteria will prevent the arbitrary or politically motivated declaration of emergencies and ensure that such declarations are based on concrete data and genuine public health threats. 2. Addressing Financial Burdens Recommendation : Negotiate Fair Contribution Frameworks Implementation : Engage in negotiations to establish a fair and proportional financial contribution framework for global health initiatives. Contributions should be based on each country’s GDP, public health expenditure, and capacity to contribute, thus ensuring that the financial burden is equitably distributed. Rationale : This ensures that wealthier nations like Canada contribute fairly without compromising their domestic health priorities and financial stability. Recommendation : Enhance Accountability and Transparency in Funding Utilization Implementation : Implement stringent accountability mechanisms to track and report on the utilization of funds contributed to global health initiatives. Regular audits and public disclosures should be mandatory. Rationale : Ensuring transparency in how funds are used will build trust and that contributions are used effectively and efficiently in achieving intended public health outcomes. 3. Protecting Civil Liberties Recommendation : Enact Strong Legal Safeguards Implementation : Develop and enact legal safeguards to protect civil liberties during public health emergencies. These should include strict criteria for the invocation of emergency powers, time limits on restrictive measures, regular reviews by independent judicial bodies, and the imposition of criminal penalties against the offending officials should violations be determined. Rationale : Protecting civil liberties ensures that public health measures do not lead to unnecessary or prolonged restrictions on personal freedoms and rights. Recommendation : Establish Independent Oversight Mechanisms Implementation : Create independent oversight bodies to monitor the use of emergency powers and public health measures. These bodies should include representatives from the judiciary, civil society, and human rights organizations. Rationale : Independent oversight will help prevent abuse of power and provide measures that are proportionate, necessary, and in line with human rights standards. 4. Ensuring Transparency and Accountability Recommendation : Promote Open and Inclusive Decision-Making Processes Implementation : Ensure that WHO decision-making processes are transparent and inclusive; involve a wide range of stakeholders; and include member states, public health experts, and civil society organizations. Regular public consultations and disclosures should be mandated. Rationale : Transparency and inclusivity in decision-making processes build trust where diverse perspectives are considered—leading to more balanced and effective public health policies. Recommendation : Strengthen Whistleblower Protections Implementation : Implement robust protections for whistleblowers who report on public health issues, corruption, or misuse of power within international health organizations and domestic health institutions. Rationale : Protecting whistleblowers encourages the reporting of wrongdoing and ensures that issues are addressed promptly, thereby maintaining the integrity of public health responses. 5. Balancing Global and Domestic Responsibilities Recommendation : Prioritize Domestic Public Health Needs Implementation : While contributing to global health initiatives, safeguard priority of public health needs. Establish clear guidelines for balancing international commitments with national health priorities. Rationale : Maintaining a balance between global responsibilities and domestic needs ensures that Canadians’ health and well being are not compromised while supporting global health efforts. Recommendation : Foster Global Partnerships and Collaborations Implementation : Develop partnerships with other countries and international organizations to share best practices, resources, and expertise. Participate in joint research and development initiatives to enhance global and national health capacities. Rationale : Collaborative efforts can lead to more effective and sustainable public health outcomes, benefiting both Canada and the global community. By implementing these recommendations, Canada can mitigate the risks associated with the proposed IHR amendments and the global pandemic treaty. These measures ensure that national sovereignty, financial stability, civil liberties, transparency, and accountability are upheld while contributing effectively to global public health efforts. 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 Recommendations Summary 5. Recommendations Summary The intention of this section of the report is to provide a convenient and easy reference or listing of all of the recommendations made in Section 5. Each of the separate subsections contained in Section 5 are reproduced here, but only the recommendations themselves are included. For a detailed discussion of the rationale for the recommendations and the basis in testimony, we refer the reader to Section 5. 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.