Search this site

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript home-based salon closure, self-employed shutdown, mortgage deferral denial, broker exclusion policy, rapid foreclosure process, housing loss 15 years, temporary homelessness trailer, insulin affordability crisis, diabetes health risk, food insecurity, bylaw enforcement visits, mandate versus law distinction, Rebel News interview, community division, lifelong friendship loss Included in the Report: Ms. Tracy Walker Hair Stylist Personal Experience Witness ID: NCI-W-163 Hearing Red Deer Alberta Date: April 26, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Foreclosure, homelessness, and health hardship resulting from lockdown-related business closure and denial of mortgage deferral. One Line Summary Alberta hair stylist describes foreclosure, temporary homelessness, insulin shortages, and bylaw pressure after lockdown shut her home salon. Synopsis Tracy Walker, a self-employed hair stylist operating a private home-based studio in Alberta, testified that lockdown mandates in 2020 forced her and her husband to cease working, eliminating their income. Although her salon had a separate entrance and limited daily clients, she was prohibited from operating. When she applied for the federal mortgage deferral program, she was informed by her broker that the program applied only to banks and credit unions, not brokered mortgages. Within approximately six weeks, she and her husband were served foreclosure papers despite having no prior significant payment defaults. Ms. Walker testified that after 15 years in their home, they were required to vacate and were unable to secure rental accommodations due to owning large dogs. As a result, they lived in a trailer for nearly two months. During this period, she reported severe financial hardship, including food scarcity and difficulty affording insulin for her diabetes. She stated that she rationed her insulin doses, resulting in weight loss and adverse health effects for both herself and her husband. She also described receiving bylaw visits after publicly stating she intended to continue working, including warnings and surveillance of her property during the holiday season. Although she was issued warnings, she was not ultimately fined. Ms. Walker further testified that her public stance led to the breakdown of a lifelong friendship with a pediatric nurse. She characterized the experience as financially and emotio 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Detailed Commissioner Report Info Referenced in the Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Report ID: Publication Date No. Of Pages: NCI-R-04 April 30, 2024 1267 April 20, 2023 Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Main Topic Purpose and Need for the NCI The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) was established in response to growing public concerns over the Canadian government’s handling of the COVID-19 event. As the COVID-19 emergency measures unfolded, questions arose regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures implemented, including lockdowns, mandates, and the deployment of COVID-19 “vaccines.” These concerns fuelled the need for a thorough examination of the impact these policies had on health, the economy, on society and civil liberties. The NCI, conceived as an independent and citizen led initiative, sought to comprehensively investigate these issues. Its primary purpose was to provide a platform for individuals and experts to share their experiences, insights, and evidence, in order to uncover the truth, hold authorities accountable, and improve future public health responses. On November 28, 2023, the NCI Commissioners released their comprehensive final report, titled Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada . A year later, on November 28, 2024, a supplemental report was issued as part of the NCI’s ongoing efforts to address new and emerging concerns related to the COVID-19 investigation. Having completed its original mandate of investigating the appropriateness and efficacy of the COVID-19 measures, the NCI expanded its focus. After consulting with a broad range of Canadians, the NCI recognized a significant public concern regarding the current state of children's safety in Canada. Consequently, the NCI undertook a new investigation specifically aimed at evaluating and safeguarding the well-being of children across the country. One Line Summary Heading 2 Synopsis Heading 2

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript funeral gathering limits, capacity restrictions, police enforcement presence, potential fines, child funeral service, family exclusion, closure and grieving, religious freedom, church closures, mental health concerns, suicide increase claim, drug overdose increase claim, government mandates, civil disobedience decision, community impact Included in the Report: Mr. Mike Vogiatzakis Funeral Director Personal Experience Witness ID: NCI-W-090 Hearing Winnipeg Manitoba Date: April 15, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Impact of COVID-19 gathering restrictions on funeral services and religious practices. One Line Summary A funeral director recounts defying capacity limits at a child’s funeral, citing the emotional and religious impact of COVID-19 restrictions. Synopsis Michael Vogiatzakis, a funeral director, testified about enforcing a 10-person capacity restriction at the funeral of a six-year-old child during COVID-19 gathering limits. He described standing at the door to prevent additional family members from entering due to the risk of significant fines and the visible presence of police monitoring compliance. After being confronted by a family member questioning the morality of denying entry, he chose to allow extended family inside despite the risk of financial penalty. He testified that authorities approached him afterward and warned that he could face substantial fines for exceeding the permitted capacity. According to his account, no ticket was ultimately issued. He characterized his decision as prioritizing the family’s need for closure and the right to grieve over strict compliance with public health orders. Vogiatzakis further expressed concerns about broader impacts of pandemic restrictions, including church closures and limitations on religious gatherings. He stated that families require spiritual support during times of loss and argued that restrictions contributed to increased social harms, including mental health struggles and substance use. He concluded by encouraging individuals to reflect on their values and stand up for what they believe is right for future generations. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript population analysis, BC CDC reports, age-stratified mortality, median age 87, case fatality rate, percentage misrepresentation, absolute death counts, laboratory-confirmed deaths, PCR case definition change, life expectancy comparison, herd immunity claim, influenza comparison, statistical significance question, data transparency critique, emergency reporting analysis Included in the Report: Mr. William Munroe Population Analyst Expert Witness ID: NCI-W-194 Hearing Vancouver British Columbia Date: May 2, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Statistical analysis of COVID-19 mortality data presentation in British Columbia and critique of percentage-based reporting methods. One Line Summary Population analyst argues early BC COVID data showed age-specific mortality and that percentage-based charts exaggerated small death counts. Synopsis William Munroe, a trained population analyst and former BC Statistics Agency employee, testified regarding his review of British Columbia COVID-19 situation reports beginning March 2020. He explained that a population analyst examines mortality data by age and sex to determine whether deaths are evenly distributed or clustered within specific age groups. He stated that early data showed COVID-19 deaths were concentrated in older age groups, with a reported median age of death of approximately 86–87 years, which he noted was above provincial life expectancy. He emphasized that no deaths were recorded under age 30 by the end of 2020 in the reports he examined. Munroe criticized the presentation of mortality data in BC CDC reports, particularly the use of percentage-based charts comparing COVID-19 deaths to the general population. He argued that expressing small numbers of deaths as percentages created visually exaggerated representations, while the absolute number of deaths—such as 12 or 13 in March 2020 out of a population of roughly five million—was statistically very small. He stated that case fatality rates would have been a more appropriate metric and suggested that the use of percentages without contextual clarification could mislead public interpretation. He further testified that early international data, including data from China, indicated age-specific mortality patterns inconsistent with comparisons to the 1918 influenza pandemic. He stated that median age of death and clustering in high-mortality age groups were evident prior to emergency declarations. Munroe concluded that while population statistics are typically used to inform public policy, the methods and presentation of data during the pandemic did not always meet standards of transparency or methodological clarity. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript Bronfenbrenner systems model, infant attachment theory, social isolation harm, still-face experiment, maternal stress impact, breastfeeding masking policy, developmental milestones disruption, risk-benefit analysis absence, bioethics principles, autonomy violation claim, informed consent concerns, professional censorship, regulatory sanctions, behavioural insights program, Nudge theory Included in the Report: Dr. Keren Epstein-Gilboa PhD Developmental Psychologist Expert Witness ID: NCI-W-278 Hearing Ottawa Ontario Date: May 18, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Impact of COVID-19 public health measures on child development, maternal–infant attachment, bioethics principles, and behavioural influence strategies One Line Summary Dr. Keren Epstein-Gilboa testified that COVID-19 measures disrupted critical developmental processes in children and reflected ethical failures and behavioural manipulation strategies. Synopsis Dr. Keren Epstein-Gilboa, a developmental psychologist and independent scholar, presented behavioural science and systems-based analysis of the effects of COVID-19 measures on infants, children, and families. Drawing on developmental models, attachment theory, and neurobiology, she testified that early childhood requires face-to-face interaction, proximity, and emotional attunement for healthy brain development. She argued that masking, distancing, hospital visitor restrictions, NICU separation, and maternal stress interfered with sensitive developmental periods, potentially affecting emotional regulation, cognitive development, and resilience. She further testified that social isolation and loneliness were long-established risk factors for poor health outcomes and that insufficient risk–benefit analysis appeared to have been conducted with respect to child development. She cited examples including masked breastfeeding guidance, birth partner restrictions, child self-isolation policies, and school closures. She stated that these measures did not adequately account for developmental tasks across age groups and raised concerns about long-term psychological and social effects. Dr. Epstein-Gilboa also examined bioethics principles, particularly autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence, asserting that informed decision-making and respect for persons were undermined during the pandemic. She described regulatory restrictions on healthcare professionals’ speech and framed public messaging within the context of behavioural influence strategies, including the federal behavioural insights or “Nudge” framework. She concluded that systemic ethical failures and psychologically informed messaging strategies contributed to social division and developmental harm. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

7.1.10 Policing During COVID-19 Pandemic: Balancing Authority and Citizens‘ Rights 7.1.10 Policing During COVID-19 Pandemic: Balancing Authority and Citizens‘ Rights Introduction The role of law enforcement agencies in Canada is firmly rooted in the principles of maintaining public safety, upholding the rule of law, and safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens. Policing at various levels of government, from federal to provincial to municipal, forms a critical part of Canada‘s social fabric. Yet, as the nation grappled with the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the actions of law enforcement agencies came under heightened scrutiny. It is critical to understand the role and intent of the police in Canada, emphasizing what they are meant to do and what falls outside the scope of their duties. While the police are entrusted with maintaining order, their authority is carefully controlled by the principles of democracy and respect for individual rights. Many witnesses described actions of the police to enforce government mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic that may have encroached upon the basic and fundamental rights of Canadian citizens. These actions included forced closures of businesses, arrests of citizens, the forceful breakup of peaceful protests, and the arrest and imprisonment of members of the clergy. Canadians must assess whether law enforcement agencies in Canada have struck the right balance between protecting public health and respecting the constitutional rights and civil liberties of Canadian people during these extraordinary times. Witnesses described specific cases and events that have garnered attention, weighing the considerations of public safety, individual freedoms, and the rule of law. In a country that takes pride in its commitment to democracy and human rights, it is essential to critically evaluate the actions of the police in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and reflect upon the broader implications for Canadian society. By engaging in this dialogue, we seek to promote a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by law enforcement and the rights of citizens, ultimately contributing to a more informed and just society. Testimony of Witnesses Witnesses who testified concerning the actions of the police include the following: Chief John Greg Burke Chief Burke described how he was assaulted by store employees for not wearing a face mask, despite his having a medical exemption from wearing a mask. When the police were called, they allegedly assaulted Chief Burke and arrested him. Chief Burke had interactions with both Bedford Police and RCMP. Tom Marazzo Mr. Marazzo described his interactions with the police while attending the truckers‘ protest in Ottawa, which included the alleged assault of a disabled war veteran. Natasha Petite Ms. Petite testified that due to a disability, she was not able to wear a mask. She testified how when she and her mother were shopping, police were called and she was pushed to the ground by police and arrested. Vincent Gircys Mr. Gircys was a retired 32-year veteran of the Ontario Provincial Police. He attended the Ottawa truckers‘ protest, where he acted as a liaison between the protestors and the police. Mr. Gircys testified that the police had committed alleged crimes against various churches. Mr. Gircys also testified that the police services refused to investigate alleged crimes related to the vaccines. Tobias Tissen Mr. Tissen ministered a church in southern Manitoba during the COVID-19 lockdowns. His church was closed down by the RCMP and he was arrested for keeping his church open during the pandemic. Richard Abbot Mr. Abbot was an Edmonton police officer for 25 years. He discussed his experiences and observations of the police actions during the protest in Coutts, Alberta. David Leis Mr. Leis testified regarding the failure of Canadian institutions to protect the civil rights of Canadians. Danny Bulford Mr. Bulford retired after a 15-year career with the RCMP. He spoke about the actions of the RCMP during the protests. He further spoke about a police detective who was disciplined for launching an investigation into suspicious infant deaths potentially related to the vaccines. Pastor James Coates Pastor Coates testified how his church services were disrupted by the police and he was arrested and jailed for keeping his church open during the lockdowns. Discussion of Police Actions Testimony of the witnesses suggested that the police took actions to enforce mandates and rulings that were contrary to section 52.1 of the Canadian Constitution, which included the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Section 52(1) of the Constitution states: 52.(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. Lockdowns, forced vaccinations, restrictions of travel, interruption of church services, and assaults on peaceful protestors are all actions which appear to be inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and/or the Criminal Code of Canada. Citizens‘ fundamental rights were violated under the guise of a public health emergency, despite the government not having to prove the validity of that public health emergency within an objective and independent inquiry, or through open and honest debate. Only one narrative was permitted and any dissenting options were censored and vilified by the media and public officials. Testimony was provided on how significantly people‘s lives were affected, which included death due to the mandates, allegedly through increases in suicides or credible allegations concerning an unsafe medical procedure being forced upon citizens. Testimony showed that information provided to the public by the government and the media misled the people and, in so doing, may have contributed to deaths. Witnesses testified that they were allegedly forced to take medical procedures under threat of loss of employment. It may be reasonable to believe that the actions taken to have people take injections agains their will could be considered a Criminal Code violation. Forcibly subjecting a person to unwanted medical treatment in Canada can potentially violate several provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, depending on the circumstances and the severity of the actions involved. Here are some relevant sections of the Criminal Code that may apply: Assault (section 265): Forcing someone to undergo medical treatment against their will may constitute assault under the Criminal Code . Assault includes not only causing bodily harm but also the intentional application of force without consent. Aggravated Assault (section 268): If the forced medical treatment results in severe bodily harm or endangers the life of the victim, it may be charged as aggravated assault, which carries more severe penalties. Kidnapping (section 279): If the victim is forcibly taken to a medical facility or detained against their will for medical treatment, it could be considered kidnapping under certain circumstances. Uttering Threats (section 264.1): Threatening someone with harm or injury if they refuse medical treatment may lead to charges of uttering threats. Unlawful Confinement (section 279): If a person is forcibly confined to a medical facility or prevented from leaving against their will for medical treatment, this may be treated as unlawful confinement. Mischief (section 430): Interfering with or damaging medical equipment or property related to medical treatment may fall under the offence of mischief. Consent is a crucial factor in medical treatment in Canada, and any medical procedure performed without Informed and Voluntary Consent can lead to criminal charges. However, specific charges and penalties will depend on the circumstances and the evidence available. Legal authorities will thoroughly investigate and assess each case to determine the appropriate charges. The police failed to take action and investigate credible allegations of criminal wrongdoings, despite being presented with evidence of such alleged wrongdoings by multiple sources throughout Canada. Witness testimony indicated that frontline police officers could initiate a criminal investigation on their own and that an investigation of any alleged criminal actions related to the pandemic measures and police actions must have been authorized by senior administrative staff. Testimony confirmed that in a number of instances when police officers took action to investigate allegations of misconduct, these officers were disciplined. The actions of the police services at the various peaceful protests sites, but most notably the Ottawa protest, indicated that the police were being given erroneous information concerning the nature and threat posed by the protestors. Witness testimony described how the protestors were exercising their rights to peaceful protest and that the character and the nature of the protestors was readily evident. Despite this, the police frontline members were replaced by members who had not been in direct contact with the protestors. These replacement members allegedly acted in a completely inappropriate manner using excessive force and violence on an unarmed and peaceful crowd of Canadian citizens. The area where the Ottawa protests took place, in front of Canada‘s Parliament, was monitored by numerous video cameras, so there are likely a great number of recorded videos available which recorded both the actions of protestors and the police. This video record is critical to any investigation into the alleged misconduct of the police. As yet, this video record has not been presented to the public, and we do not know if it is being used in any criminal investigations of the police conduct. Police officers are not robots; they are human beings entrusted with a crucial role in upholding the law and ensuring public safety. In performing their duties, officers are not merely expected to blindly follow orders but, rather, to employ their judgment and analytical skills. They must assess the legality and appropriateness of the orders they receive, all while considering the specific circumstances unfolding before them. Importantly, officers have a solemn duty not to enforce any orders that are illegal or in violation of fundamental rights. This obligation to act appropriately, guided by the reality of the situation on the ground, underscores the importance of independent decision-making within the framework of the law and serves as a cornerstone of democratic policing in free and just societies. It is unknown whether any internal investigations of police actions have been undertaken, despite the level of alleged violence perpetrated by the police on the civilian population. The Commission heard testimony that the police services were experiencing internal struggles with the implementation of the mandates on their own members and that unions representing members were not defending the member‘s rights. This allegedly resulted in low morale and a removal of many experienced officers from the ranks at a time when the services were already experiencing staff shortages and morale issues. Conclusions In conclusion, the role of law enforcement agencies in Canada is deeply rooted in the principles of safeguarding public safety, upholding the rule of law, and protecting the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens. The imposition of the various COVID-19 pandemic mandates posed unprecedented challenges, which brought the actions of these agencies into focus. It is essential to comprehend the intended role of the police in Canada, emphasizing their duty to maintain order within the boundaries of democracy and individual rights. During the pandemic, police actions came under scrutiny, particularly in cases where they may have infringed upon the fundamental rights of citizens. This scrutiny encompassed instances such as forced business closures, citizen arrests, the dispersion of peaceful protests, and even the arrest and incarceration of clergy members. Canadians must carefully evaluate whether law enforcement agencies effectively balanced public health concerns with constitutional rights. The witnesses‘ testimonies shed light on specific incidents where actions taken by the police seemed inconsistent with section 52(1) of the Canadian Constitution, which incorporates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The fundamental rights of citizens appeared to be violated under the pretext of a public health emergency, raising questions about the validity of these measures without objective inquiry or open debate. The impacts on people‘s lives, including alleged harm and death, underscore the gravity of these issues. The testimonies also pointed to potential misinformation contributing to public perceptions and deaths. Additionally, there were allegations of coercive measures, potentially constituting criminal offences. Frontline police officers faced challenges in investigating these allegations due to the need for authorization from senior administrative staff, and instances of officers facing discipline for initiating such investigations were reported. The response to peaceful protests, particularly in Ottawa, raised concerns about police actions and the accuracy of information provided to officers. In assessing the actions of law enforcement during the pandemic, it is crucial to remember that police officers are human beings entrusted with the duty to uphold the law and protect the public. They are not automatons but individuals who must analyze orders critically and consider the prevailing circumstances. They bear the responsibility of refusing to enforce illegal or rights-violating orders. Independent decision-making within the framework of the law is foundational to democratic policing. The situation also raised concerns about internal struggles within police services that affected morale and staffing levels. These issues are complex and multifaceted, warranting ongoing dialogue, investigation, and reflection to ensure that the actions of law enforcement agencies align with the values of democracy and justice in Canadian society. By engaging in this discourse, we strive for a deeper understanding of these challenges, ultimately contributing to a more informed and equitable society. Recommendations Independent Judicial Investigations : Conduct independent and transparent judicial investigations into allegations of illegal activities by law enforcement officers during the pandemic, ensuring accountability and adherence to the rule of law. This investigation must have the power to enforce subpoenas to obtain witness testimony and critical documents. Review and Revise Policing Protocols : Collaborate with law enforcement agencies to review and revise their protocols and guidelines for enforcing government mandates, with a focus on respecting individual rights and freedoms while safeguarding public health. Enhance Training and Education : Provide comprehensive training on handling public health crises to law enforcement officers, emphasizing respect for human rights, de-escalation techniques, and community engagement. Public Awareness Campaigns : Launch public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about their rights and responsibilities during health emergencies, promoting dialogue and cooperation between the police and the community. Community Policing Initiatives : Promote community policing initiatives that foster positive relationships between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve, enhancing trust and cooperation. Clear Accountability Mechanisms : Establish clear mechanisms for holding law enforcement agencies accountable for their actions during the pandemic, ensuring transparency and fairness in the disciplinary process. Civilian Oversight : Strengthen civilian oversight bodies to independently monitor police conduct during public health crises, ensuring adherence to legal and ethical standards. Regular Reporting and Transparency : Mandate law enforcement agencies to regularly report on their activities during health emergencies, providing transparency and accountability to the public, while respecting privacy and security concerns. By implementing these recommendations, authorities can strike a balance between maintaining public safety during health crises and upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens, ensuring a more just and equitable response to future pandemics. 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.

7.5.1 Pandemic Preparedness Plan 7.5.1 Pandemic Preparedness Plan Introduction Pandemics are nothing new, and depending on the definition, there have been about five since the devastating Spanish flu of 1918. There are historical records of other major pandemics; perhaps none are more notable than the Black Death (the Plague) of the late Middle-Ages that decimated a large portion of the European population. These major health crises usually happen in civilizations that have significant international commercial exchanges, when the overall health of the populations are under huge stresses like famine or war. These pandemics have left a profound imprint on the human psyche and a warranted fear of disease and death that, historically, were mitigated by reasonable public control measures such as quarantining the sick. However, these troubled times have also been accompanied by irrational measures like “othering” and “scapegoating.” After millions of years of natural evolution and culture, basic principles of immunity and hygiene were developed to ensure that we live in harmony with the biodiversity that surrounds us in the environment and in our own individual ecosystem made up of our microbiota. Because of the high levels of human interaction across the world, there is a growing awareness that local epidemics can spread to larger geographic regions and become pandemics of global concern. At the international level, there are agreements in place to harmonize the management of pandemics, using the best practices from the international community. Although human beings have an instinctual fear of sick people who could transmit diseases, contact with other healthy human beings is far from being dangerous, despite what some germaphobes obsessively espouse. Unless someone is afflicted by a permanent genetic immunosuppression or transient epigenetic immunosuppression due to poor life habits and comorbidities, the risk is negligible. In fact, contact with other humans, animals, and plants enriches the biodiversity of the microbiota, which in turn educates the immune system—the ultimate foundation of health. Recklessly isolating and cutting people off from interacting with society results in disease. And when people are sick, one essential condition for their healing is human care and a reassuring human presence; this reduces a sick person‘s stress level, which is otherwise immunosuppressive. The threat level of a pandemic ought to be gauged by the excess number of severe cases requiring medical treatments and excess deaths when the treatments failed. It‘s not enough that a new pathogen erupts and produces a local outbreak, which then spreads to more than one country over the span of a few months. If the levels of morbidity and mortality are not significantly manifested above the usual baseline population, it should not constitute a pandemic of international concern. It has to be managed locally with an appropriate epidemic management plan. For respiratory diseases, which affect a significant proportion of the population, it could be challenging to accurately detect cases of a new respiratory virus, such as SARS-CoV-2, as many symptoms can be confused with symptoms triggered by other viruses such as influenza or other coronaviruses. Thus, the counting of excess sick people, above the baseline of other respiratory infections, can be inflated by erroneous attribution resulting from poor diagnostics. The only objective way to monitor a pandemic on the local or global stage is to carry on in-depth analysis of all-cause mortality, as presented by Prof. Denis Rancourt and Pierre Chaillot. The analysis of all-cause mortality, which cannot be biased by subjective attribution factors, leads to the conclusion that there was no COVID-19 pandemic caused by a particularly dangerous respiratory virus. There were excess death peaks in various locations, but these excess deaths were better explained by the health measures deployed for example: the absence of early treatments; the use of ventilators; the use of end-of-life comfort medications like midazolam or Rivotril; the significant reduction in antibiotic use essential for the treatment of respiratory bacterial infection; and by the deaths of despair due to drug abuse and business closures in some sectors of the economy. Interestingly, the analysis of all-cause mortality during the past century cannot detect significant excess deaths during all of the previous declared pandemics with the exception of the Spanish flu. This pandemic happened on the heels of WW1 on stressed populations that were weakened by fear, famines, and countless injuries, including respiratory airway damage due to the massive use of toxic gas. And as we now know that the bulk of the influenza deaths during the Spanish flu pandemic were likely the result of opportunistic bacterial infections, treatable by antibiotics, the likelihood that a new respiratory viral pandemic will manifest a death toll similar to the Spanish flu is fairly unlikely. This begs the question: Why were antibiotic prescriptions so drastically reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for populations that historically suffered from bacterial pneumonia? World Health Organization Guidelines For better or worse, over the past decades we have put in place pandemic plans at the supranational level, under the hospice of the WHO. We can now marshal the best scientific and risk management intelligence in case of a worldwide pandemic that threatens the entire human population. This appears, at first glance, a very noble and desirable objective. Although this approach seems reasonable in theory, there are in practice two major issues with the centralization of pandemic management by a supranational organization of unelected bureaucrats. The first one is the potential lack of accountability inherent in an organization staffed by unelected bureaucrats who may be perceived as are likely to be more loyal to the financial contributors of the organization, rather than to the member states. Since some contributors have major interests in the vaccine industry, this conflict of interest may be perceived to influence the agenda of the WHO, without firewalls to mitigate his unrestrained influence. The second cardinal aspect is that proper management of pandemics cannot be effective if the management is not based on a localized approach. Indeed, many factors like the climate, the population density, age distribution, and cultural differences, to name a few, make the propagation of a disease very different from one country to the other. This cannot be managed centrally by distant bureaucrats that fail to consider the impact of local factors better appreciated by people closer to the terrain. Furthermore, as people are fallible and corruptible, large unaccountable bureaucratic organizations are prone to foster abusive, self-serving policies that are exacerbated by incompetence and corruption. Nevertheless, individuals from these unelected groups, possessing varying degrees of expertise, are appointed to positions of authority without being held accountable to the public. This conundrum cannot be corrected by the tax payer, who ends up financing these programs without real representation. As a result, the populations have little power to implement corrective measures when these programs are not delivering the best public health outcomes. For every developed country, the healthcare system is the most significant budget item paid for by tax payers. As such, autonomy to manage healthcare services and public health measures should be the responsibility of elected officials who are accountable to their electors, not subjugated to supranational bureaucracies. Provincial Pandemic Plans Every province had an alternative pandemic plan available as of 2019 that was quite different than what was actually implemented. The national plan had been updated in 2016 based on sound public health practices that were developed from the hard lessons learned through previous pandemics. These plans were written together with all public health agencies and many other stakeholders, and they warned about the dangers of NPIs (for example, lockdowns). By only considering the details of the mismanaged implementation plan, we are missing the real questions: Was the so-called “pandemic of international concern” properly defined? What was the real magnitude of the threat? According to expert witness Lt. Col. David Redman, we failed miserably because there was no need to deploy these health measures in the first place, and on top of everything, the measures were were not directed at the correct public health outcome. In other words, before crafting, let alone deploying, a grandiose plan of social engineering on a massive scale, we need to ask in simple terms: To what problem is this plan the solution? And if the problem is ill-defined, the solution is most certainly going to do more harm that good, especially in a fake emergency situation that granted permission to authorities to suspend our normal way of living and disregard personal responsibility. We were treated as a hazard, in and of itself, instead of an asset that would be part of the solution. If the plan was to create havoc to destabilize the fabric of society, to produce significant morbidity and mortality while creating massive wealth transfer and concomitant impoverishment of the middle class through inflation and public debt, cynically, it was a success. Strangely, what was actually implemented goes totally against the wisdom of the established pandemic plans that acknowledge that disrupting normal life is very costly both financially and from a public health perspective. Therefore, from the perspective of public health and population autonomy, which are an essential need for the prosperity of a society, the management of the COVID-19 crisis was a total failure. The “All Hazards“ Approach We all live in an environment filled with potential hazards, both short and long term. We need to respond to those many hazards with targeted mitigation strategies framed with risk–benefit analysis for each of these measures, be they passive or active. Obsessively focusing on one hazard is ill-advised and a recipe for collateral damage concomitant with neglecting other hazards or essential needs. By neglecting to present a more balanced perspective of the emergence of a new respiratory virus, the WHO‘s successive announcements, starting early 2020, revealed their intention to act as merchants of fear. On January 20, 2020, based on 1,076 cases, of which only 83 confirmed cases were outside China, (on a population of 6.4B excluding China), the WHO, declared that the window was closing on a health emergency of global reach. This has to be put in perspective with poor case assessment based on confusing symptoms and RT-PCR testing not clinically validated. A RT-PCR (Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction) test is a diagnostic tool used to detect the genetic material (RNA). On March 11, 2020 based on 44,274 cumulative cases, out of a global population of approximately 8.1B people, obfuscating a likely high proportion of recovered people that would have dampened the danger signal, the COVID-19 pandemic was officially declared. This announcement, of a pandemic, precipitated the worst financial market collapse since 1929. It has been alleged that many people took advantage of the initial market crash through insider trading. And based on the WHO‘s fear-mongering, gradually most of the 190 members states of the WHO initiated the ritual of lockdowns for two weeks, which extended to two years, to allegedly flatten the curve. But what curve? In Canada, on March 9, 2020—two days before the pandemic declarations—there were 125 cases in a population of 38.5 million. The way these cases were determined may be suspect, and no information on the severity of the cases was provided. It is not known how or if these reported cases were clinically validated to be caused by the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Presumably this information could not be determined as the virus had not been identified at the time. Without this critical information, the public was led to believe that the virus was potentially mortal for everyone. This fear was magnified by media reports of people dropping dead in the street in China: fear-mongering on steroids. In February of 2020, public health already knew that 95 per cent of people dying from what was later named COVID-19 were over 60 years old and had multiple comorbidities. This means that they should have been focussing on targeted protection. The updates from the WHO showed the same profile every single week starting in March 2020. In Canada, the average age of death with COVID-19 is 82 years old with severe multiple comorbidities. A common characteristic of those who reported died is obesity—83 per cent for the most severely ill—but they didn‘t report this information. Why was this risk stratification Not broadcast by any health authorities. To make matters worse, the health measures discouraged physical exercise. And the stress led to overeating, often of processed food, and increased consumption of alcohol, which contributed to significant unhealthy weight gain of the population. At the time of writing this Report, Theresa Tam was still broadcasting 52,000 deaths in Canada to keep on scaring people. Meanwhile, on the official Canadian government website, the number was 32,659, almost 40 per cent less. Importantly, Canada ranked last of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with 73 per cent of deaths occurring in long-term-care (LTC) homes. And of the deaths in Canada, 93 per cent were of people over 60 years old. At the outset of the pandemic there was a good plan to address this declared public health emergency. It was based on controlling the spread of the disease—not cases—while reducing morbidity and mortality by providing access to appropriate prevention measures, care, and treatment. It also entailed mitigating social disruption through ensuring the continuity and recovery of critical services, minimizing adverse economic impact, and supporting an efficient and effective use of resources during response and recovery. Yet instead of following established emergency plans, many countries followed the game plan elaborated in the Event 201 pandemic simulation, organized in the fall of 2019. Although well intended, the framework of this pandemic plan was misguided by business and military people, along with a few doctors and scientists that had a strong bias in favour of NPIs. The result of their exercise made absolutely no sense to many experts in public health crisis management. Yet Canada followed it to the letter. Only a few states didn‘t: Sweden and Florida. And in spite of the harsh criticism and claims that they would be responsible for unnecessary deaths from COVID-19, both Sweden and Florida were vindicated for not following the script as other states had. Their “all-cause excess mortality adjusted for age“ revealed death numbers much lower than many comparable states that had been more diligent on lockdowns and masks. In Canada, we failed at all of the basic tasks of Emergency Management Plan (EMP). It does not appear that any of Canada‘s health agencies conducted a systematic analysis of peer-reviewed literature of potential treatments for similar coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-1 or MERS. Nor did they conduct in real time, a cost–benefit analysis of the health measures deployed, using the best independent experts who were free of conflicts of interest. When the portrait of a public health crisis is not painted with solid data that is put in the right perspective, the fear instilled in the population by decision-makers broadcasting a distorted picture of events results in massive collateral damage, as we have seen. But it‘s also possible that many fearful people were blinded by the feel-good ideology of “saving lives“ at all costs. The multi-faceted aspects that must have been considered, which included collateral damages both at the individual and collective levels, were ignored. With a narrow mind-set excessively focussed on the alleged danger of COVID-19, the public was trapped in the perceived dilemma of exchanging economic damages for alleged life-saving procedures: the effectiveness of which were only hoped for and not demonstrated. Moreover, the fact that economic stress could lead to bankruptcy and become the gateway for future morbidity, due to anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicide, was also ignored. So whose lives were being saved in the end? Government measures failed to protect our most vulnerable—as evidenced by the death toll in LTC homes—and sacrificed our younger generation‘s future. What can compensate for the precious years of socialization, language learning, and education lost by our children, who will also have to carry the burden of a national debt that ballooned from $750 billion to $1.3 trillion in one year? To have deployed one-size-fits-all public health measures, as if everyone were equally vulnerable, is at best incompetent, if not malevolent. Why was there such a focus on the wrong NPIs? Many officials erroneously assumed it would protect the healthcare system. The push to “protect“ the healthcare system was motivated by the fear that if the system collapsed under the pressure of caring for excess sick people, the ability to provide care for other medical needs would also suffer. Paradoxically, to prepare for the anticipated flood of COVID-19 patients, treatment of other medical concerns deemed not as urgent were postponed by administrative edicts. On top of this, many people forfeited or avoided seeking medical care for other issues for fear of catching COVID-19 in the hospital. On what grounds did the administrative state know that the COVID-19 disease was a greater health threat than all of the other illnesses? Is it because they blindly believed so without proper assessment? That irrational fear fuelled by the increasing number of RT-PCR positive COVID-19 cases, the majority of which were asymptomatic, led to a misplaced focus on future COVID-19 cases. Many of the COVID-19 deaths may have been generated in the first place by denying patients early outpatient treatment for the illness. This was exacerbated by the continual perpetuation of fear and the disruption of normal social life, both of which contributed to the dampening of the immune system. For the most vulnerable, this no doubt led to increased susceptibility to diseases of all kinds, including COVID-19. How Did That Happen? According to the testimony of Lt. Col. Redman, it happened due to: Incompetence: All of the premiers failed to do their own research to gain a deeper understanding of the pandemic‘s true threat. Then, many premiers put the wrong person in charge; premiers should have retained final control of the situation as elected representatives. The medical officers were incompetent by refusing to acknowledge they couldn‘t do it alone. Why did they, against the best practice recommendations garnered from previous pandemic management, use the wrong NPIs? When challenged in court, they could not produce a single cost–benefit analysis to justify it. Hubris: Once you make a mistake, it‘s difficult to admit it. Governor DeSantis did it in Florida, but it‘s rare. After talking to the relevant experts, he admitted: “I got it wrong.“ Without acknowledging the mistake, course correction is very difficult and doubling down seems the only strategy until one is confronted by the evidence from censured documents, such as “The Lockdown Files” in the UK and the flurry of documents from the Twitter files. But these revelations were late coming, and the decision-makers felt they would be off the hook long enough to avoid confronting the consequence of their mistakes. Self-gain: Politicians were on TV every night and the carefully crafted message, vetted by numerous polls, assured them to win their elections by not admitting their mistakes. The spin on the message was: “We did the best we could under the dire global circumstances; nobody could have done better, and now the crisis is behind us, let‘s move on.“ Emergency Management Plan (EMP) and Recommendations And yet, massive collateral damage has been done; we will be experiencing the enduring effects for generations to come. Not acknowledging the damage only makes matters worse as it precludes the implementation of much needed corrective measures and raises the dark prospect of repeating the same mistakes, or even worse, next time. The plan to protect public health in case of a severe threat like a pandemic was diverted and turned on its head to protect the healthcare system. Scared public health officials responded to the scared public by focusing the plan on protecting the healthcare system as a proxy of the public. They failed to recognize that the best strategy to minimize the strain on the healthcare system, be it for physical or mental health conditions, would be to promote good life habits: healthy food, physical exercise, vibrant social life, and other stress reduction practices. That would have reduced the likelihood of people getting sick or progressing to more severe forms of illness. What did they do instead? They failed to acknowledge that seasonal respiratory diseases are in part the result of low vitamin D levels due to lack of sun exposure. They also stopped providing vitamin D levels due to lack of sun exposure, they stopped providing vitamin D supplementation in many LTC homes and prevented people from going outside to get sun exposure and fresh air where the risk of contamination was non-existent. By contrast, these vulnerable people were locked in poorly ventilated indoor environments, denied social activities that included family and friend visits, and were scared non-stop by the media about the danger of the virus. Is that really the best way to prevent progression to severe illness? When people got sick under these poor health conditions-not to mention the poor quality of food in many LTC homes-and because COVID-19 was deemed untreatable, the elderly were offered end-of-life comfort medication.Can that explain why in Canada 73 per cent of COVID-19 deaths were recorded in LTC homes? We must question the wisdom of blindly following the marching orders of the WHO as if infallible, particularly since the WHO seemed to work in tandem with the mainstream media and government-controlled social media to expunge from public discourse any questions about the pandemic plan du jour. As revealed by “The Lockdown Files,” the pandemic was managed by uninformed people, and the WHO became the justification for all of the other states to follow the “clowns in chief,“ as Dr. Didier Raoult put it. From an epidemic perspective, efficient local measures are much more effective; there is not a one- size-fits all approach. This is a clear example of the tension between two opposing governance philosophies: top-down global control under the pretext of security versus subsidiarity manifested in bottom-up local measures that respect liberty and individual responsibility. Recommendations Rectifying the Mistake of Discarding the Emergency Management Plan : The decision to discard the Emergency Management Plan was a significant error that will require rectification. Realigning the Purpose of Pandemic Measures : The objective of pandemic measures should have been to minimize the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on society, rather than solely focusing on safeguarding the healthcare system. Utilizing Hazard Assessment for Targeted Responses : The Hazard Assessment, which continued to identify those most at risk, revealed that lockdowns did not effectively protect them. A more targeted response would have been more appropriate. Learning from Past Pandemics : The lessons learned from previous pandemics were regrettably disregarded. Reevaluating Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) : The use of non-pharmaceutical interventions did not significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19. Employing them during the initial wave could have been seen as, at best, a mistake. After the first wave, it became a matter of grave concern. Recognizing the Unintended Consequences of NPIs : NPIs have resulted in substantial collateral harm and loss of life, often surpassing the impact of the virus itself. Public health was aware of this prior to COVID-19, and yet no cost–benefit analysis was conducted. This constituted a grave error. Holding Leaders Accountable : Public authorities bear responsibility for the response to the pandemic and the perpetuation of fear. Accountability should be enforced. Safeguarding Our Society and Democracy : Failure to revise our Emergency Management Plan and dispel false beliefs in non-pharmaceutical interventions places our society and democracy in jeopardy. 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.

7.2.1 Neglect and Isolation of Seniors in Canada Amidst COVID-19 Interventions 7.2.1 Neglect and Isolation of Seniors in Canada Amidst COVID-19 Interventions Introduction The interventions put in place by the various levels of government and by various “independent“ service providers in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic have destroyed and ended lives across every segment of Canadian society, profoundly impacting every age group. However, one of the most vulnerable populations affected by the mandates in Canada has been seniors. As Canada implemented both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical based measures such as “vaccines,“ social distancing, and lockdowns, significant consequences as a result of these interventions quickly emerged. Among these consequences, the neglect and isolation of seniors have become prominent issues. This section explores the devastating effects of COVID-19 measures on Canadian seniors. Testimony of Witnesses Detailing Neglect and Isolation of Seniors Based on the testimony of witnesses, it was obvious that the various government agencies, private corporations, and citizens in general knew very early on in 2020 exactly who was most at risk from the virus and what focused steps should have been taken to reduce these risks. Based on decades of experience in the treatment of and care for seniors, these caregivers and regulators must have known what devastating impacts would result from the implementation of the interventions; however, many of these agencies, institutions, and individuals continued to devastate our seniors in an inhuman, profound, and intentional way. Many stories of unconscionable neglect and cruelty were brought to the Commission hearings. Testimonies were received from the following witnesses: Dr. Patrick Phillips (Truro, NS) Dr. Phillips testified that the hospitals were empty during COVID-19 and that many persons were neglecting their health or were afraid to go to the hospitals for care. Shelly Hipson (Truro, NS) Ms. Hipson testified that, based on her freedom-of-information requests she was able to confirm that the hospitals and specifically ICU facilities, were not overwhelmed due to COVID-19. Dr. Peter McCullough (Truro, NS; Virtual Testimony) Dr. McCullough testified that there were a number of alternative treatments available, as opposed to a COVID-19 experimental vaccine, very early in the pandemic. He further indicated that alternative methods were less risky in seniors than an untested vaccine. Dr. McCullough stated that there was no evidence that a person who had no symptoms of COVID-19 could transmit the illness to anyone else; therefore, the lockdown of healthy people was unnecessary. Paula Doiron (Truro, NS) Ms. Doiron worked in a nursing home and testified that they were short-staffed and that the situation was chaotic. She further testified that she was not aware of any on-site monitoring carried out by government regulators. Janessa Blauvelt (Truro, NS) Ms. Blauvelt was a licensed practical nurse (LPN) at the hospital. She left her position because she refused to get the injection. She reported much dissension in the workplace due to injection status. Marc Auger (Toronto, ON) Mr. Auger‘s father was in a long-term-care facility and was locked down in his room for long periods of time. As a result, his father‘s dementia got substantially worse. Oliver Kennedy (Toronto, ON) Mr. Kennedy, a recreational therapist for seniors, was terminated for his refusal to take an injection. Richard Lizotte (Toronto, ON) Mr. Lizotte‘s elderly brother, who was in care, reacted to the injection and was taken to the hospital, where he was isolated and not allowed any visitors. His brother was sent to palliative care and died alone. Victoria McGuire (Toronto, ON) Ms. McGuire was a registered nurse who stated that during 2020 and 2021, there were very few people in the hospital and that there was a toxic environment in the hospitals due to animosity against the uninjected. Leanne Duke (Toronto, ON) Ms. Duke‘s father had Parkinson‘s and dementia, and at the time of the pandemic, her father was in a primary-care home. Prior to the pandemic, she was spending two to three hours a day caring for her father in the facility, as the staff refused to provide the proper care required for his stoma. After the lockdowns, she was barred from entering the facility to care for her father. During the lockdowns, her father could not go to medical appointments. She said that most days during the lockdowns, her father was left in his own waste. Lynn Kofler (Toronto, ON) Ms. Kofler was a registered nurse in a long-term-care facility. She witnessed serious injuries in her unit and stated that there were 34 deaths out of a total of 55 residents. She said the facility was in COVID-19 lockdown, despite there being no cases of COVID-19. Cindy Campbell (Toronto, ON) Ms. Campbell had worked 28 years as a nurse. She testified that due to departmental closures at hospitals, there was an excess of staff. She said that prior to the pandemic, the emergency room resembled a war zone and that during the pandemic, the emergency room was very slow. Scarlett Martyn (Toronto, ON) Ms. Martyn was an advanced-care paramedic who lost her job for refusing to get injected. She reported a toxic atmosphere in the hospitals. She said that at the beginning of 2020, hospitals were empty. Once injections rolled out, there was a wave of “sudden death“ calls. Maureen Somers (Toronto, ON) Ms. Somer‘s husband was taken to the emergency with abdominal pains. The doctor was only interested in his injection status and would not provide treatment, because he wasn‘t vaccinated. A second doctor came in on the next shift and did an emergency appendectomy. Martha Voth (Winnipeg, MB) Ms. Voth‘s elderly husband was admitted to hospital with difficulty breathing and shortness of breath. The hospital refused to provide him with O2 therapy and put him on respirator. He died shortly thereafter. Sara Martens (Winnipeg, MB) Ms. Martens‘ elderly husband was in a traffic accident, taken to the hospital, tested for COVID-19, and tested positive. Her husband was in emergency on O2 but was coherent. Once he tested positive for COVID-19, a nurse said they would not be providing him with treatment. The hospital would not let her speak to the doctor. The hospital intubated him and then placed him on a ventilator. He died shortly thereafter. Michelle Kucher (Winnipeg, MB) At the beginning of 2020, Ms. Kucher was working in Selkirk, Manitoba, in the healthcare field. In 2020, Michelle moved in with her mother to take care of her, following a surgery that her mother had in January 2020. Due to lockdowns and loneliness, she died in 2021. Angela Taylor (Saskatoon, SK) Ms. Taylor was an LPN in a seniors home. She talked about the isolation and loneliness of the residents and how so many of the seniors had simply given up on life and died due to the treatment they received during the lockdowns. Marjaleena Repo (Saskatoon, SK) Ms. Repo was an elderly lady who was diagnosed with stage-4 cancer and could not wear a mask. She obtained an exemption but was targeted and victimized by many in the community due to her inability to wear a mask. She was allegedly terribly abused and doxxed by the local radio station. Jody McPhee (Saskatoon, SK) In May 2021, Ms. McPhee‘s elderly father got an injection. Within 45 minutes, they knew he was dying. He drove himself to the hospital; she was not allowed to see him because she was not on a “list.“ Staff said her father died of a reaction to injection. Dr. Christopher Flowers (Saskatoon, SK) The takeaway from Dr. Flowers‘ testimony was: “Pfizer clinical trials did not include any seniors or people with comorbidities.“ Heather Burgess (Saskatoon, SK) Heather was a retired nurse with a mother in long-term care due to Alzheimer‘s disease. Her mother was locked down for very long periods of time with no activities, and even meals were taken in her room, alone. Her mother was not allowed any visitors and thought that she had been abducted. Her mother was in a constant state of terror and tried to run away three times. Eventually, Ms. Burgess‘ mother was injured and died. Judy Soroka (Red Deer, AB) Ms. Soroka was a retired nurse with a back injury. Due to lockdowns, she could not get therapy treatment, and her condition deteriorated. Caroline Hennig (Vancouver, BC) Ms. Hennig was living in Costa Rica at the time of the pandemic and came to Canada to care for her father, who was in poor condition in a long-term-care facility. Over several months, she nursed him back to health and then returned home. Several months after her departure, he stopped communicating and began to fail; he requested to die under the MAID (medical assistance in dying) program. She believed his decision was due to the neglect and lack of care in the facility. Zoran Boskovich (Vancouver, BC) Mr. Boskovich and his wife were forced to take early retirement due to injection mandates. As a result, they will have serious financial shortfalls for the rest of their lives due to reduced pension payouts. Lynette Tremblay (Québec City, QC) In 2020, Ms. Tremblay‘s father was in a long-term-care home. There were no cases of COVID-19 in the home, but the residents were locked down and isolated anyway. No one could visit, and the residents were locked in isolation. In a phone call with her father, he told her that he had tested positive for COVID-19 but had no symptoms. Police were in attendance at the home to prevent anyone from coming in or out of the facility. According to the testimony, when a patient tested positive for COVID-19, all medications and treatments of the patient were withheld. Her father allegedly died due to neglect and isolation. Shawn Buckley (Québec City, QC) Mr. Buckley testified that under the interim order which authorized the use of the COVID-19 injections in Canada, the COVID-19 injections were exempted from providing the safety and efficacy proof that is normally required of any other new drug approved in Canada. Dr. Denis Rancourt (Québec City, QC; Ottawa, ON; Virtual Testimony) Dr. Rancourt and his team reviewed the all-cause mortality statistics for Canada, and he stated that there was no increase in all-cause morbidity due to a virus. The increase in deaths coincided with the lockdowns and the rollout of the injections. Stephanie Foster (Saskatoon, SK) Ms. Foster‘s elderly mother died immediately after being administered the injection at a local pharmacy. Her mother did not want to get the injection but was convinced she had to do it to keep everyone else safe. She said that her mother died immediately after getting the injection, while still in the pharmacy. She further described how no one who was in line for the injection reacted or even left the lineup, they remained in the line, despite what they had seen. No autopsy was performed. Neglect and Reduced Access to Healthcare One of the primary concerns for seniors during the pandemic was the neglect they experienced due to a healthcare system which no longer addressed their needs. The focus on “protecting the healthcare system,“ rather than “protecting the public from the disease,“ resulted in limited resources for other healthcare needs. Steps were taken to dismiss healthcare staff who had refused to undertake an experimental medical procedure. Many healthcare professionals simply quit or took early retirement; many were terminated from their positions. No one was spared these actions—from senior first responders to emergency room doctors to nurses and all level of support staff. Patients in the healthcare system were sent home. Both patients and healthcare professionals were terrorized by the government and media reports concerning the morbidity and infectious nature of the virus which causes COVID-19. As a result, a cruel and toxic environment developed throughout the healthcare system. Many members of the public were so terrified that they would not visit the hospital, even in dire situations, and when they did go to the hospital, they were often given very little care. The situation was even worse if these people had not been injected. The situation was even worse for our seniors. Routine check-ups, elective surgeries, and non-urgent appointments were postponed or cancelled, leaving seniors grappling with delayed medical care. Consequently, many seniors have had to endure prolonged pain, worsening conditions, and deteriorating mental health, leading to an overall decline in their quality of life. Moreover, the fear of contracting the virus has deterred seniors from seeking necessary medical attention, resulting in undiagnosed conditions and unaddressed health issues. This fear-induced hesitation had severe consequences, as conditions that could have been easily managed if detected early, progressed to advanced stages. As a result, the neglect of seniors‘ healthcare needs exacerbated their overall vulnerability during the pandemic. When the injections were developed in late 2020, there was no evidence that they were safe to use in the seniors population, given the fragility and multitude of pre-existing conditions in that population. None of the vaccine testing carried out prior to the interim order included specific tests on populations of seniors. The testing carried out prior to releasing these experimental injections was only on “healthy“ persons. Testing injections on seniors is of paramount importance for several reasons: Older adults have a higher risk of severe illness and death due to COVID-19, making them a priority population for injection. Understanding the safety and efficacy of injections in seniors, is essential to protect this vulnerable group from the adverse effects of the virus and adverse effects of any new type of injection. Aging is associated with changes in the immune system, which can affect the response to injections. Older adults may have a reduced immune response, making it crucial to determine the effectiveness of injections in this population. Additionally, seniors often have underlying health conditions and may take multiple medications, necessitating thorough testing to ensure injection compatibility and safety. Despite the lack of testing and the lack of any safety or effectiveness data related to seniors, this population was threatened, coerced, and terrified into taking the injections. Many witnesses indicated that their loved ones died immediately following the injections. Ensuring the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 genetic vaccines in seniors is crucial for protecting this vulnerable population from severe illness and mortality. Rigorous testing protocols, including clinical trials that specifically included seniors, were never implemented to assess injection safety and effectiveness in this highly vulnerable age group. Isolation and Loneliness Another critical consequence of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical measures has been the enforced isolation of seniors. The unnecessary restrictions on social gatherings, visitation policies in long-term-care homes, and physical distancing guidelines have significantly limited seniors‘ interactions with their families, friends, and support systems. Many seniors who resided alone or in care facilities experienced an overwhelming sense of loneliness and isolation, which had devastating effects on their mental and emotional wellbeing. Isolation not only leads to increased feelings of loneliness and depression but also contributes to cognitive decline and a higher risk of developing dementia. The absence of regular social interactions and engagement can accelerate the decline of seniors‘ cognitive abilities. Additionally, the total lack of emotional support and companionship left many seniors feeling disconnected from their loved ones and the community, which further exacerbated their sense of isolation. The detrimental effects of isolation and loneliness on seniors had devastating impacts on the physical, mental, and emotional health including the following: Physical Health Isolation and loneliness can have a profound impact on the physical wellbeing of seniors. The Commissioners heard testimony that social isolation increases the risk of various health problems. Seniors who lack social connections are more likely to develop chronic conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, and weakened immune systems. Additionally, the lack of social engagement may lead to sedentary lifestyles, contributing to a decline in physical fitness and mobility. Mental and Cognitive Decline Loneliness and isolation can have detrimental effects on seniors‘ mental and cognitive health. The absence of regular social interaction can increase the risk of depression, anxiety, and cognitive decline. Studies have linked prolonged loneliness to an increased likelihood of developing conditions such as Alzheimer‘s disease and other forms of dementia. The absence of stimulating conversations and mental challenges may contribute to a decline in cognitive abilities over time. Emotional Wellbeing Seniors who experience isolation and loneliness often grapple with significant emotional distress. Feelings of sadness, worthlessness, and a lack of purpose can become pervasive. The absence of social connections and meaningful relationships can lead to a diminished sense of self-worth and overall life satisfaction. Emotional wellbeing is closely tied to social interactions, and the lack thereof can have severe consequences for seniors‘ mental health. Quality of Life Isolation and loneliness directly impact the overall quality of life for seniors. The absence of social support networks can result in decreased life satisfaction and reduced enjoyment of daily activities. Seniors may feel disconnected from society and deprived of opportunities for engagement and personal growth. As a result, their sense of purpose and fulfilment may diminish, leading to an overall diminished quality of life. The detrimental effects of isolation and loneliness on seniors cannot be underestimated. Witnesses testified that these effects were recognized and were well known throughout the healthcare community. However, despite this knowledge, healthcare providers wilfully followed the COVID-19 propaganda and engaged in the very activities that they knew would seriously harm or even cause the painful and lonely deaths of the very people they were supposed to be caring for. They knew what they were doing was wrong, but they followed their orders anyway. How these caregivers were able to so easily dehumanize this vulnerable population is outside of the scope of this report. The Commissioners recommend that investigations be undertaken into the treatment of residents of long-term-care homes and about whether owners, staff, or employees should face liability or consequences where residents were mistreated. Testimony was received concerning many seniors who simply gave up living as a result of being isolated, not only from their loved ones but by “healthcare“ staff and caregivers. One witness testified that upon returning home from overseas, she found her father, who was in a care facility, near death due to the isolation and neglect. The witness was able to intervene and nurse her father back to life. Once her father was well and once again in good health (due to her care), she had to return to her home overseas. Shortly after, she was informed that her father had requested and been granted a supervised death under the government MAID program. In her opinion, her father chose to die rather than to face the isolation and neglect that he had previous experienced without the intervention of his daughter. Testimony was received that many seniors with dementia were simply left alone, locked in their rooms for days and weeks or even months at a time. These patients were simply left to rot and eventually die. Many of the witnesses, including staff and family were asked if they ever saw any government inspectors on the premises of these facilities, to ensure that the residents were receiving care. All witnesses stated that they were aware of no such in-person inspections by independent outside agencies. The regulators simply turned their backs on what was going on. It must be noted that a significant part of the problem was the systematic dismissal of any existing care staff who refused to submit to the injections that were mandated by their employers. Some staff were terminated and others simply resigned or retired. These actions left already understaffed facilities with a critical shortage of trained and experienced care staff. The result further eroded the quality and quantity of care that was being provided. Oftentimes family and friends were not aware of the dire situation that had developed within the care facilities, because they were also locked out and were not allowed to visit their loved ones. Phone calls or digital calls were no substitute to seeing what exactly was going on in these facilities, especially considering many seniors were unable to communicate their predicaments. Financial Struggles and Digital Divide Outside of care facilities, independent seniors also faced significant financial challenges during the pandemic. Many seniors rely on part-time work or small businesses to supplement their income, and the economic downturn caused by COVID-19 mandates severely impacted their financial stability. Job losses, reduced hours, and closures of businesses left many seniors struggling to make ends meet, leading to heightened stress and anxiety. Furthermore, the rapid shift to digital communication and online services has highlighted the digital divide among seniors. With limited access to technology and digital literacy, many seniors have struggled to connect with their loved ones, access essential services, and participate in virtual social activities. This exclusion from the digital realm has further deepened their sense of isolation and made it more challenging for them to adapt to the changing landscape brought about by the pandemic mandates. Conclusion The neglect and isolation of seniors in Canada due to COVID-19 measures had significant adverse effects on their physical health, mental wellbeing, and overall quality of life. Addressing the needs of seniors during these challenging times is not only a matter of compassion but also a responsibility society must uphold. By prioritizing seniors‘ healthcare, promoting social connections, addressing financial struggles, and bridging the digital divide, we can ensure that seniors are not forgotten, neglected, or isolated but rather, supported, cared for, and included in the collective response to the pandemic. Given the profound and inhuman treatment that many seniors in care facilities received, it is imperative that a nonpolitical investigation be carried out to determine if criminal charges should be laid and, if so, against whom. Speed is of the essence in undertaking this investigation, since, given the fragile nature of the victims, there may not be many of them left to give evidence. Recommendations To alleviate the neglect and isolation faced by seniors, it is crucial for the federal, provincial and territorial governments, communities, and individuals to take proactive steps. First and foremost, healthcare systems should prioritize healthcare needs of seniors, ensuring that seniors have access to essential medical care and support services. Moreover, efforts should be made to enhance the social connections of seniors. This can include facilitating safe visitation policies in long-term-care homes, promoting intergenerational programs, and encouraging community organizations to provide support and companionship to isolated seniors. Volunteering initiatives, teleconferencing platforms, and community outreach programs can help bridge the gap between seniors and their support networks. Financial assistance programs should be expanded to specifically address the needs of seniors who have been adversely affected by the pandemic mandates. Providing targeted financial support, job training, and re-employment opportunities can help seniors regain their financial stability and alleviate some of the stress they face. Bridging the digital divide among seniors should be a priority. Initiatives aimed at enhancing digital literacy and providing seniors with the necessary tools and resources to access online services can empower them to connect with their loved ones, access information, and engage in virtual social activities. It is imperative that a judicial investigation be carried out immediately to determine if any criminal wrongdoing was perpetrated on our senior populations during the pandemic. Witness statements from staff, seniors, and family must be immediately obtained and archived, to be used as evidence in any future prosecutions. An investigation should be conducted into how the various regulatory agencies abandoned their roles of protectors of seniors and never appeared to visit facilities to check on the operation and level of care being given out. Those caregivers who simply followed the orders given to them to isolate and dehumanize our seniors in their care must be re-educated or removed from the system and not allowed to continue to provide “care“ to seniors. Like other professions , caregivers and administrators working with seniors should be mandated to participate in annual professional development and training programs. 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.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript AstraZeneca first dose, ischemic basilar stroke, multiple TIAs, IRDPQ rehabilitation, Moderna second dose, third dose pressure, hemianopia diagnosis, anterograde amnesia, hemiplegia paresthesia, dyschromatopsia color loss, prosopagnosia facial blindness, hypertension onset, disability pension recognition, vaccine injury program Quebec, physician reporting refusal Included in the Report: Mr. Vincent Cantin Civil Engineering Technician Personal Experience Witness ID: NCI-W-254 Hearing Québec City Québec Date: May 13, 2025 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Severe neurological injury including ischemic stroke and lasting cognitive and visual impairments following AstraZeneca vaccination, subsequent additional doses under medical recommendation, and barriers to injury reporting and compensation. One Line Summary A former civil engineering technician describes suffering a stroke weeks after AstraZeneca vaccination, resulting in permanent neurological disability and challenges obtaining medical acknowledgment and compensation. Synopsis Vincent Cantin, a senior civil engineering technician, testified that he received his first COVID-19 vaccine dose (AstraZeneca) on April 15, 2021, as what he described as a civic duty. Approximately 20 days later, he developed dizziness, numbness, headache, and nausea and was hospitalized with an ischemic stroke involving basilar artery thrombosis. He stated that prior to vaccination he had been in excellent health. He spent approximately 80 days in hospital and rehabilitation at the Institut de réadaptation en déficience physique de Québec and subsequently experienced a total of five strokes and five transient ischemic attacks. During rehabilitation, he received a second dose (Moderna) after physicians strongly recommended vaccination due to his medical vulnerability. He later received a third dose on the advice of his family doctor and to maintain access to medical care and his mother’s seniors’ residence. He reported that the second and third doses did not worsen his condition but did not improve it. Following his stroke, he was recognized as permanently disabled and lost his driver’s licence and employment. Cantin described extensive ongoing neurological impairments, including hemianopia (loss of vision on one side), anterograde amnesia, hemiplegia with body-wide paresthesia, dyschromatopsia affecting colour perception, visuospatial disorientation, prosopagnosia (inability to recognize new faces), and new-onset hypertension. He testified that some physicians informally acknowledged a possible link between vaccination and thrombosis but declined to formally report it. He applied to Quebec’s vaccine injury compensation program but stated that multiple physicians refused to act as required medical representatives, creating barriers to his claim. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Witness Testimony Keywords from Transcript COVID Infection (Early 2020), Shortness of Breath, Chest Pain, Lung Collapse, Pneumothorax, Chest Tube Procedure, Emergency Lung Surgery, Hospital Negligence Allegation, Informed Consent, Rescue Inhaler, Ativan Administration, Autoimmune Conditions, Ulcerative Colitis, Natural Immunity Belief, Vaccine Safety Concerns, Vaccine Mandates, Freedom Convoy Participation, Media Portrayal Critique, Religious Exemption Support Included in the Report: Mr. Scott Spidle Private Citizen Personal Experience Witness ID: NCI-W-031 Hearing Truro Nova Scotia Date: March 18, 2023 Report Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada; November 2023 Main Topic Severe COVID Illness, Lung Collapse, Hospital Care Experience, and Opposition to Vaccine Mandates One Line Summary Scott Spidle testified about severe COVID illness in early 2020 resulting in bilateral lung surgery, alleged hospital care failures, refusal of vaccination based on natural immunity beliefs, and participation in the Freedom Convoy. Synopsis Scott Stephen Spidle testified that he contracted a severe illness in early February 2020 that his family physician and an emergency physician believed was COVID-19. After initial flu-like symptoms, he developed worsening shortness of breath and chest pain lasting approximately four to five weeks. He reported multiple emergency visits and self-treatment with vitamins and tonic water containing quinine. Months later, he experienced recurrent symptoms and was diagnosed with a fully collapsed lung requiring chest tube placement and subsequent transfer for bilateral lung surgery. He described alleged lapses in hospital care during his admission, including limited personal care, a reported incident in which a chest tube was disconnected during transport for imaging resulting in re-collapse of the lung, and delays in transfer for surgery. He testified that a surgeon later told him the condition had significantly reduced his lung capacity long-term. He stated that compared to prior hospitalizations for ulcerative colitis, the level of care during this admission was markedly different. Spidle testified that he declined COVID vaccination, citing belief in natural immunity and concerns about vaccine safety. He stated that two acquaintances died shortly after vaccination, which increased his apprehension. He characterized vaccine mandates as extreme violations of rights and described participating in the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa, where he stated that his experience differed significantly from media portrayals. He also testified that he assisted others in locating information regarding religious exemption applications. 🔎 How to Search the Transcript Click the “Read Transcript” button to open the witness testimony in your browser. Once the transcript PDF is open, you can search for any word or phrase within the document using your browser’s search feature: Windows: Press Ctrl + F Mac: Press Command (⌘) + F A small search box will appear. Type the word or phrase you are looking for, and the browser will highlight every occurrence within the transcript. This makes it easy to quickly locate specific topics, names, or statements within the testimony.

Detailed Commissioner Report Info Referenced in the Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Report ID: Publication Date No. Of Pages: NCI-R-04 April 30, 2024 1267 April 20, 2023 Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Main Topic Purpose and Need for the NCI The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) was established in response to growing public concerns over the Canadian government’s handling of the COVID-19 event. As the COVID-19 emergency measures unfolded, questions arose regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures implemented, including lockdowns, mandates, and the deployment of COVID-19 “vaccines.” These concerns fuelled the need for a thorough examination of the impact these policies had on health, the economy, on society and civil liberties. The NCI, conceived as an independent and citizen led initiative, sought to comprehensively investigate these issues. Its primary purpose was to provide a platform for individuals and experts to share their experiences, insights, and evidence, in order to uncover the truth, hold authorities accountable, and improve future public health responses. On November 28, 2023, the NCI Commissioners released their comprehensive final report, titled Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada . A year later, on November 28, 2024, a supplemental report was issued as part of the NCI’s ongoing efforts to address new and emerging concerns related to the COVID-19 investigation. Having completed its original mandate of investigating the appropriateness and efficacy of the COVID-19 measures, the NCI expanded its focus. After consulting with a broad range of Canadians, the NCI recognized a significant public concern regarding the current state of children's safety in Canada. Consequently, the NCI undertook a new investigation specifically aimed at evaluating and safeguarding the well-being of children across the country. One Line Summary Heading 2 Synopsis Heading 2

Detailed Commissioner Report Info Referenced in the Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Report ID: Publication Date No. Of Pages: NCI-R-04 April 30, 2024 1267 May 19, 2023 Report National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) Investigation: Are Children Safe in Canada April 30, 2025 Main Topic Purpose and Need for the NCI The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) was established in response to growing public concerns over the Canadian government’s handling of the COVID-19 event. As the COVID-19 emergency measures unfolded, questions arose regarding the appropriateness and efficacy of the measures implemented, including lockdowns, mandates, and the deployment of COVID-19 “vaccines.” These concerns fuelled the need for a thorough examination of the impact these policies had on health, the economy, on society and civil liberties. The NCI, conceived as an independent and citizen led initiative, sought to comprehensively investigate these issues. Its primary purpose was to provide a platform for individuals and experts to share their experiences, insights, and evidence, in order to uncover the truth, hold authorities accountable, and improve future public health responses. On November 28, 2023, the NCI Commissioners released their comprehensive final report, titled Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada . A year later, on November 28, 2024, a supplemental report was issued as part of the NCI’s ongoing efforts to address new and emerging concerns related to the COVID-19 investigation. Having completed its original mandate of investigating the appropriateness and efficacy of the COVID-19 measures, the NCI expanded its focus. After consulting with a broad range of Canadians, the NCI recognized a significant public concern regarding the current state of children's safety in Canada. Consequently, the NCI undertook a new investigation specifically aimed at evaluating and safeguarding the well-being of children across the country. One Line Summary Heading 2 Synopsis Heading 2