Day 3 of A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response

The final day of hearings focused on family law in the context of courts that simply uphold, without any question, state doctrine on the Covid so-called “vaccines” and that in almost all instances in Canada have denied the choice of parents who are against the shots for their children, when another parent is for them; the economic and personal impacts of the mandates, particularly where business owners are concerned; the flaws and failures of the public health response, with expert testimony from Ontario’s former Chief Medical Officer for Health; testimonies from elected representatives; expert testimony from a prominent whistle blower on Pfizer’s safety trial data; and, the development of an agenda for the “next steps” taskforce. This brought to a close this powerful round of citizen hearings, with more promised for the future.

[Click here for the report for Day 1]
[Click here for the report for Day 2]

Related press coverage:

Friday, June 24, 2022

A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response (Day 3)

In the opening panel discussion, Preston Manning commented that perhaps the most serious and longest-lasting impacts of government policies of this period will be on children. Trish Wood remarked about how many of these impacts should have been foreseen. The incredible harms caused by these policies affect Canadians’ health, where health is understood as more than just the prevention of disease. The code of silence that prevails across the society is an additional barrier to overcome. David Ross, head of the CCCA, expressed how impressed he was with the courage of ordinary Canadians who spoke at the hearings. He calls for the restoration of our nation, and restoration of what it means to be Canadian. He hopes that those who participated in the hearings will be a source of courage for others to come forward and share their stories. Manning noted how everyone wanted answers from the authorities, explanations, and their common experience was “no reply”. Eventually there will have to be an official investigation, where people are compelled to answer questions, in front of a body that has the status of a court. Wood spoke of the usefulness of applications under the freedom of information act. There has been a collapse of trust in institutions that should have been protecting Canadians from harm. Doctors who advocated for their patients were equally stonewalled by the guardians of their profession. Advocacy has been on behalf of institutions, and a medical product, rather than citizens.

A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response (Day 3)—Family Law

Myriam Bohemier, the only Quebec participant in the hearings, is a Montreal lawyer, who spoke in English but was aided when necessary by the translation assistance offered by Richard Girgis of Fearless Canada. Bohemier spoke on family law issues of relevance. She discussed parents who disagree with each other, where one does not want their children to be jabbed. The parents who do not want the injections have “less rights than a serial killer” in a legal proceeding, and they have no defense. Parents who protest against the jabbing of their children, in family law courts, are formally treated as “conspiracy theorists,” and their arguments are dismissed. Only a single Ontario judgment was favorable to dissenting parents—but in Quebec, all judgments have ordered “vaccinations” and have humiliated dissenting parents as “conspiracy theorists”. February, which was likely the darkest month of these two years in Quebec, saw three judgments that prohibited parents from relying on experts to challenge public “recommendations” on “vaccination”. Judges decided to ensure 100% adherence to “public health recommendations”. Bohemier tried to gain a full hearing on the merits of this decision, but the courts treated the injections as an urgent matter in an “emergency”. Judges rely on affidavits, public policy documents, and the Facebook pages of the “conspiracy theorist” parents, in devising their rulings. The only exemption would be for children where the family doctor swears that the injection would be contraindicated. Otherwise, anti-injection parents have zero defense. When Bohemier tried to introduce documents produced by experts critical of the “vaccines,” the judge assured the opposing lawyer that he would disregard all documents coming from outside Canada; in other cases, judges have called into question the expertise of opposing doctors, thus dismissing their reports from submitted files. In some cases judges barked at dissident experts, “tell me ‘yes’ or ‘no’: is it safe?”. The unfairness of judges has also been shielded from appeals. Parents supporting injection, were relieved of any duty to provide scientific support for their choice.

In response to questions from the panel, on parental rights, Bohemier said it is an established right for parents to exercise vigilance and care of their children, and have parental authority. But on questions that affect “the nation,” some parents are clearly robbed of their authority. Is there any public movement protesting the bias of the courts? Richard Girgis noted that Quebec probably had the biggest protest movement in Canada, from the spring of 2020 onward, and the Conservative Party of Quebec gained enormous ground by challenging the pandemic policies; there were massive protests, on every issue of relevance—masks, lockdowns, jab mandates, etc. Despite this, the media and the National Assembly of Quebec were effectively locked in step behind the government. Quebec media in particular were viciously slanderous against protesters and dissidents. Bohemier is a member of Reinfo Covid, which has 10,000 members.

Bohemier has tried to use freedom of speech rights on the part of protesting parents, to defend them against their inputs being nullified. Bohemier has decided to make a documentary of the procedures to be followed by protesting parents. “We are not ‘complotistes’ (conspiracy theorists), but rather ‘questionistes’ (questioners)”. Bohemier has even been assailed as a “complotiste” by rival lawyers in cases. Judges have dismissed basic facts—such as the mRNA “vaccines” being experimental—or have (ironically) accused her of being melodramatic by describing “vaccination” as an issue with life or death consequences. Bohemier is also preparing a letter of protest on how Chief Justice Richard Wagner who, since September of 2021, imposed a policy requiring “vaccination” of all his fellow judges, plus making disparaging comments about the Freedom Convoy. She asks: “do we still have a right to a fair trial?”. Judges in Quebec argue that they cannot substitute for executive decisions, says Girgis, which means that right out of the gate they have sworn themselves against exercising any kind of independence. In the end, Bohemier says, children are losing their rights to their parents.

A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response (Day 3)—Economic and Personal Impacts

Karen Kobel is “vaccine” injured and is also a struggling yoga-pelates business owner in British Columbia. Her pelates business was severely affected by the lockdowns. She and her dancers tried to counter isolation by dancing outside of nursing homes, sometimes getting those inside to follow along dancing with them, to get them moving. A nursing home was right across the street from her yoga studio, so when they danced in the streets some of the residents of the home would come out on their terrace and follow along with them. In other cases, they went to nursing homes and danced outside of the windows of residents. Her husband was also diagnosed with PTSD after months of isolation, and was also cut off from his gym and his Jujitsu practice. The mandates had an especially heavy emotional, psychological, physical, and financial toll.

As business owners, they were forced to use “vaccine passports”. Yoga literally means unity and community—and now she was being told to turn people away, based on their personal and private health decisions. From a calm and serene environment, her dance studio now became a site of conflict and exclusion. She also suffered from “vaccine” side effects, and was still denied a letter of medical exemption, and found herself locked out of establishments. Her doctor told her there simply are no exemptions.

In response to questions from the panel, on whether the government of British Columbia asked her for any impact statement on what their policies effected on the ground, she said there was no such request for information. She has personally lost roughly $200,000 because of the lockdowns, and government compensation probably amounted to just a single month’s rent. Karen was applauded for her creative thinking, her resilience, by being determined to expand her business into a more holistic health centre, including mental health, and exploring a broader range of alternative health options.

Josh Shulman, also in BC, was the owner of the Smugglers’ Smokehouse restaurant until he had to close it. “As a country we deserve some answers as to why all this went down the way it did….this has been extremely traumatic for us, as a country”. He refused to continue taking government loans and grants, “digging into government coffers,” which also meant losing direction over his business. Mandates were imposed; goalposts were constantly shifted; and there seemed to be no end in sight. He and his wife opted to sell, and cover their debts. He now has nothing left. And it has nothing to do with any business failure on his part; his catering events grew enormously up to 2020, he had seen growth year after year until “the pandemic”; they had expanded to a second location—and then the switch was turned off. He is not sure how to even calculate his losses. They were hit from every direction: total shutdown (with delivery only), to capacity limits. The media had individuals so frightened, that all of his employees asked to be laid off so they could collect CERB. He was unable to get his employees back when slight reopenings were allowed. Being a small business, he never qualified for any wage subsidy.

It was all stressful, so much work, and all decisions were taken out of his hands. There was also no daycare facility for his children. He tolerated the initial “two weeks” of lockdown—but the restrictions then continued. With the capacity limits that ensued, it was impossible to make money. The “vaccine passport,” which required him to ask about—to police—people’s private health status, was unacceptable. We now live in a world where anything can happen, he said, “and the government can swoop in and say that everything is closed”.

In response to questions from the panel, he noted that his surveillance of events in other countries alerted him to what was coming in Canada, and were excellent indicators. The BC government has never asked him for any sort of impact statement. He knows of other restaurant owners in his same situation, and had to shut down permanently. Fellow restaurateurs who protested the “vaccine passports,” paid for it dearly. His decision was simply to close down rather than enforce segregation, which was utterly pointless from a health perspective, and created nothing but hatred for the “unvaccinated”. His distrust of government has now reached a zenith.

Lyndie Hill, in Penticton, BC, has a business focused on adventure tourism and a gym camp. After years of forest fires and floods, 2020 was due to be her best year yet—but it all came to a crashing halt. Within the first three days of the lockdown, she lost $60,000 worth of business, and a 95% loss of business through the first quarter of the following year, and overall a 60% loss of business to date. So many of the rules were utterly nonsensical. She saw mental health in her community crumble. Parents had no place for their children, since her summer camp was restricted. She had to work under capacity limits, social distancing, and then “vaccine passports” for her indoor gym. She was instructed she would not be allowed to host a planned festival (which was just skills courses and events), so she changed the name to “Skills Courses and Events,” and it was then allowed. She took wage subsidies, loans, etc., and still had to mortgage her house to continue. The “vaccine passport” issue was particularly loathsome, especially when having to turn away kids. As a member of the Penticton Chamber of Commerce, she has seen the damaging impacts on many businesses from the entire region. In her field of tourism, the impacts have been severe.

The segregation, the isolation, the 100% fear “in your face, all the time,” the “daily terror tally” of how many people have Covid, everyone walking around in masks—there was no way of getting away from it all. She observed how this had an awful impact on everyone.

In response to questions from the panel, on whether the government asked for any impact assessment from her, she said simply: “No”. In the various school boards and community bodies to which she belongs, she regularly asked if anything was being done to redress all the negative impacts of the restrictions—and essentially nothing is being done. Now that “it’s all over,” as many seem to think, “everything is just being brushed under the rug” and the damage is being ignored. Her business was a kind of hybrid gym and tourism business, and government one-size-fits-all approaches, the blanket policies, placed an undue burden. They are expected to immediately repay government loans, and no private banks will touch them, especially now in this financial crisis. “No one was looking ‘big picture’ and planning for the health of our community, holistically”.

A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response (Day 3)—The Public Health Response

Richard Schabas, a retired medical professional in British Columbia, declared himself a strong advocate for vaccines in general, and Covid “vaccines” specifically, and has had three shots. He said this to clarify that nothing he is saying should be confused with “anti-vaccine” sentiment—but he is against mandates. He then outlined his extensive academic and professional background, one with extensive and lengthy experience in medical panels and public health bodies. Schabas stated, “I have looked on in horror” at what has been done in the name of public health. Covid mortality was mostly an issue for the frail elderly, but the biggest burden of the crisis has been borne by the young and healthy. Public health in the past was more holistic—it included physical, mental, and social well-being. That has been reduced to a matter of Covid “case” counts. The public health he practiced in the past in Canada was based on persuasion, not coercion—now, any public health measure immediately becomes a mandate. The irony is things such as “vaccine passports” have backfired. Those who did not want to be forced, became hardened by such measures, and the passports had no impact on preventing surges. In March of 2020 we uncritically accepted speculative mathematical models. Models, until then, were always understood to be imperfect at best, but suddenly they were taken as definitive: there would be four million deaths in the summer of 2020, we were told. That was false, as were all major modelling predictions for the past outbreaks of the last 20 years or so. Public health measures induced panic.

In 2019, the WHO’s document on non-pharmaceutical interventions should have been the basis for our response—but it was not. Our lockdowns were not based on any evidence. Mask wearing by asymptomatic persons—no evidence this was effective, said the WHO in 2019. Active contract tracing was not recommended. Surface cleaning was not deemed effective. Quarantining those who are assumed to have been exposed, made no sense—a wasteful and punitive measure, this was also not recommended by the WHO. In Ontario, the belief was that home quarantine quelled the 2003 SARS outbreak—false. Border closures, testing travelers, etc.—none of these were recommended by the WHO.

We panicked, imposed lockdown measures, and there was no clear goal. Our hospitals were largely empty in April and May of 2020. Then we had to lockdown to wait for the “vaccines”. Then we had to lockdown to wait until everyone was jabbed. Then we had to lockdown because of variants. We never had a clear idea of what we were trying to accomplish.

The Canadian plan for influenza emphasized not just minimizing deaths, but also minimizing disruptions. We used fear as a tool of public health policy, which was fundamentally wrong and destructive. We invoked fear deliberately. We cancelled dissenting views, at a time when there were so many uncertainties. A long-time contributor and frequent guest, he was personally cancelled by the CBC because his views were “akin to a climate change denier”. Colleges of physicians and surgeons shut down any doctor who questions the dominant policy. There has been no commitment to finding out if the measures work, or to develop a better science.

We have done great damage to ourselves. The worst is what we have done to our children, the group at lowest risk from Covid 19. Ten or twenty years from now, people may look back with horror. We have terrorized the elderly. We have deprived many of them of family contact during their final years. We have denied basic human rights, such as the freedom to protest, to practice religion, freedom of speech has been suppressed, and the right to bodily autonomy has been denied.

We need to make a real effort to learn the lessons of what has happened. We need to review our public health institutions.

In response to questions from the panel, he noted how British Columbia had the least stringent lockdown, and Quebec the most stringent—and BC had one third the mortality of Quebec. He also said that the debate here is not much different from the debate about influenza vaccination, where the frail and elderly and targeted. Why didn’t we take that approach? Instead we became obsessed with the notion that we could stop and control this virus, bordering on Zero Covid, if not being explicitly that kind of policy in the minds of some. We would have had less mortality, with less disruption to our society, if we had taken that approach. If a national investigation were to occur, it cannot be led by one person, nor can we promote group-think. He advocates for panels of credentialed experts rather than “mavericks with crazy ideas”. Politicians and public health officials have not done a good job in public messaging; there was no need for more fear-mongering and panic. Our job should have been to promote the idea of, “keep calm and carry on”. If leaders were not panicky, then they were criticized in these past two years: “Don’t they realize that everybody is going to die?!” Ridiculous and absurd predictions were made. There needs to be a reckoning. Many cried “fire” in a crowded theatre. David Ross applauded the presentation.

Schabas said that fear and intimidation won over common sense. There has been no admission of mistakes. He hopes that people have had enough with lockdowns and will not do it again. He is glad for the example of Sweden, which stuck to basic principles, whose Covid mortality is in the bottom third of European countries—and it is false that Sweden was some sort of Covid disaster. Sweden’s chief public health officer is also wholly independent of government, unlike the heavily politicized CDC in the US, which has now become the source of some of the worst, the sketchiest “research”. Public Health Canada is also an agency of government, and is federal rather than national.

A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response (Day 3)—Cross-Partisan Panel: Stories from Constituencies

Dean AllisonColin CarrieNadine Wilson, and Steve Van Leeuwen, are all elected representatives. Dean Allison an MP from the Niagara area, reflected on cross-border realities. One of his constituents is married to someone across the border, and the multiple barriers (tests, quarantines) were both ineffective and needlessly obstructive. He also described some of the failures that occurred in hospitals in his region, where individuals died needlessly from things such as sepsis, and were denied any advocacy from family members.

Nadine Wilson, a Saskatchewan independent MLA, had disagreements with her government; she said was told by her constituents that their communities had effectively been killed by the lockdowns. People lost respect for and trust in their menacing government, which threatened to “hurt” them for resisting the “vaccines”. People were isolated, segregated, blocked from travel in their own country. Some of her constituents simply fled the country, for Nicaragua, Montana, and elsewhere.

Steve Van Leeuwen, a deputy Mayor and acting Mayor and owner of a car dealership, said the biggest frustration was with the fear that was promoted in communities, and citizens not having anyone to advocate for them. Municipal councils resisted any questioning of the mandates and restrictions coming down from higher levels of government. He was removed as deputy Mayor for questioning, and was taken to the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario—a nine-month proceeding that cost the community tens of thousands of dollars. All his communications were scrutinized. The final report absolved him, and even noted that the information he was sharing was correct.

Colin Carrie heard mostly from suffering constituents, especially those who exercised their personal choices. He bemoaned the loss of democracy. More and more people are distrusting governments and courts. Canadians are being treated as if they were stupid. He decried the media cancelling those who do not espouse the dominant agenda. We are losing our democracy, trust in our institutions, even increased divisions in families, and doctors being stripped of their licenses, he noted.

What could be done to acknowledge the pain and difficulty experienced by Canadians? Colin Carrie said his office stayed open 24/7 to answer constituents’ questions. The despair and suffering the hearings have aired, are real. Governments have not listened to what people needed. Dean Allison conducted Zoom meetings with chambers of commerce, especially during the early period when people most feared Covid, and made sure to stay in touch. Nadine Wilson also tried to assist those in distress with the malfunctioning of the healthcare system, whose surgeries had been cancelled and so forth, as well as helping students who suffered discrimination by advocating for them and hiring lawyers, and she also introduced bills. Steve Van Leeuwen, as a business owner as well, noted that many citizens did not really understand what was legal—the government changed the rules affecting businesses 76 times in Ontario. The number one thing people are looking for is protection from this ever happening again in the future, and that it must be prevented from recurring.

In terms of a national investigation, what terms of reference should it follow? Colin Carrie wants to see accountability. He denounces the misleading fear-mongering, and nudging, to get people to conform to “vaccination”. We need to look at negligence, even criminal negligence, for those officials who did not do their due diligence. Dean Allison wants to see the pandemic plans that were in place before 2020 (and were then tossed aside), restored and respected, and he wants to know why they were thrown out. Nadine Wilson focused on the media and its misinformation—there needs to be a list published in a prominent place of all propaganda pieces published by the media, that can be accessed by the public. There should be serious consequences for health agencies, and for doctors who failed to advocate for patients. Steve Van Leeuwen agrees with the principle of accountability. “What did you know about the harms caused by your policy, and what did you do?” He presented pages of documentation and videos from CCCA to his council—so now they cannot say, “I did not know”.

How many of your colleagues were approachable and accessible to their constituents? Colin Carrie repeats that the best thing that could have been done was to stay open, but cannot really comment on other MPs. Most want to turn the page, and just say that this is all over. Nadine Wilson noted that because of the official propaganda, she was the only one of the 61 MLAs who questioned the dominant policy. Steve Van Leeuwen found hopelessness and helplessness among municipal councilors. One councilor who voted to have him investigated has completely changed his mind and told him that he will forever live in shame knowing what he did, and is now questioning everything. Dean Allison noted how much peer pressure is a reality, well past adolescence. He has been ridiculed nationally and locally for quoting Dr. Pierre Kory and advocating for Ivermectin, and most elected representatives will not want to be exposed to such treatment. Let us just debate using the data, he urged.

A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response (Day 3)—Pfizer Safety

Brook Jackson, worked at Ventavia which conducted clinical trials for the Pfizer “vaccine”. She was hired as their regional director in 2020. She oversaw the research staff and ensured that data integrity and quality assurance were maintained. The “vaccine” trial was two months into enrolment when she joined. This study was observer-blind, meaning the person that was injecting was the only one aware of whether the patient was receiving the product or a placebo (saline injection). Thus the observing doctor would not affected by such knowledge in devising a treatment for the patient or diagnosing a patient. Ventavia lacked the infrastructure for enrolling more patients, as per Pfizer’s urging, and she knew they could not be safely overseen—but Pfizer pressed for more because it was in a hurry. She shadowed one of the research staff to ensure informed consent, that standard operating procedures were being followed, but what she witnessed was not full informed consent—the form was rushed through, to hasten injection. It was not a thorough process.

She was at Ventavia only 18 days before she was fired. She had documented misconduct. Much of what she documented was sloppy work, and breaches of data integrity, as well as lack of concern for patients’ welfare. She found informed consent forms that were apparently forged. She found fabrication of data. Some adverse events were not reported at all. There was an insufficient number of research staff. Staff were unsure about what to capture as adverse events. Thus the numbers on adverse events, which would be needed to prove safety to obtain Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA, were incorrect. She also found that the product was not being stored at the required temperature as detailed by Pfizer. Pfizer was in a rush, to be first to market, and tolerated these deficiencies—“money was a driving factor”. She filed a complaint with the FDA, and was then fired.

On September 25, 2020, she listed 14 problems in her FDA complaint which was then filed online. Six hours later, the Ventavia COO terminated her on the spot. From the FDA she first received a canned response. On September 29, she spoke with a FDA inspector. The inspector seemed attentive. No FDA inspectors ever went to Ventavia’s site, however. In total, the FDA only inspected six of 154 sites. She plans to raise this fact in a court case. She has a large volume of documents and audio tapes to support her case.

If she had not taken the steps she had, did Ventavia have any safeguards in place? She answers essentially in the negative—it depended on whistle blowers existing, or the FDA doing its job, or Pfizer doing its own internal audits. The FDA never investigated her allegations. To fix this system, she advocates for more oversight. The FDA failed to do its duty.

Regarding the training of staff, Jackson affirmed it was insufficient. There was also an insufficient number of staff. Making sure that the product was prepared properly, diluted, and so forth, was not attended to—staff only had retail and restaurant experience, no medical experience.

Staff were also grossly overworked; one had worked 70 hours of overtime in a two-week period. Chaos reigned.

With only six of 154 sites visited, the results of the Pfizer safety study are not reliable. Even in the inspection reports of the sites that were visited, FDA officials state they could not complete their investigations due to Covid restrictions, and the trials had not yet finished. Data integrity did not matter to Ventavia or Pfizer. Why did Pfizer include that data knowing that it was flawed?

Jackson has over two decades of experience in clinical research, and management of clinical trial sites. She has never seen misconduct like she witnessed at Ventavia. She urges for more regulatory oversight. In one example she specified how Pfizer asked for the adverse event information to be changed, so that the adverse event (heart attack leading to pneumonia) was instead blamed on Covid, which was contracted after the event.

Jackson’s lawsuit, a false claims act, was filed in January of 2021, when she realized that her claims would not be investigated. This allows her to file suit on behalf of the government, against those defrauding the government. In January of 2022, the Dept. of Justice refused to take over the case or get involved. While the explanation that followed was a bit complicated, the fact remained that the lawsuit is proceeding. Defendants were served in April of this year. August 6 is the due date for her amended complaint.

A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response (Day 3)—Next Steps Taskforce

The panel comprised lawyer Shawn Buckley, Fearless Canada’s Richard Girgis, and CAERS’ Max Daigle.

Preston Manning affirms that the intent is to follow up on these meetings. The first step is to share the videos and testimony of this hearing. The second step is to continue these hearings to examine more areas of impact, and to expand the current Hearings website, and perhaps host monthly one-day hearings. Those who wish to participate would register through that website. The third step is to promote the need for an independent, non-government, national investigation. Fourth, we must compile, review, and assess suggestions for next steps.

Buckley identifies a cultural problem: the culture of fear, of silence, of total conformity. One of the things that has facilitated the capture of people on the front lines, and our institutions, is this Canadian cultural problem. Our cultural move to total conformity has undermined our institutions. Girgis says that since Covid there has been a silencing, and perhaps it exacerbated an underlying cultural weakness. Daigle says fear must be removed from the equation.

Girgis notes how with regulatory agencies, and courts (especially in Quebec), there is a complete lack of independence from executive or legislative power; instead, what we see is uniformity in response, and in thought. The media have created this atmosphere of uniformity of thought. Manning argues for the Judicial Council to be flooded with complaints on the lack of independence of the judiciary—even if the Chair of that Council, the Chief Justice, is notably biased. Buckley notes that as much as two thirds of Health Canada’s budget comes from revenue in the form of fees paid by pharmaceutical companies.

David Ross says that these hearings have been a good first start. We need to get dialogue going and to maintain the dialogue. We need to collect stories, and also hold elected officials accountable.

The Hearings terminated at 2:20pm.