Day 1 of A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response
From Wednesday, June 22, through Friday, June 24, 2022, a combined effort by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance and Fearless Canada, brought three full days of testimonies that were streamed online in what was called, “A Citizens’ Hearing”. Testimonies typically began at 9:00am Eastern time, and ended past 5:00pm, apart from the final day. As the proceedings unfolded, I produced written summaries in real time, which were then posted to the Zero Anthropology Channel in Telegram. What follows is an edited compilation of those posts.
The first day opened with a brief introduction by the moderator, Trish Wood (ex-CBC), who spoke of the need for an independent non-governmental inquiry into the many different harms done by the Covid response in Canada. She clarified that this was not a court of law, nor a legal hearing. Three panelists were constant throughout the event, asking questions of invited speakers, and the panelists included David Ross, the president of the CCCA, and Preston Manning, former Leader of the Opposition in federal parliament from 1997 to 2000. What follows are the sessions for the first day, in chronological order.
A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response—Impacts on Students
The first block of testimonies came from students in higher education.
Jaiden Weinrauch, from Saskatchewan, who studied at St. Francis Xavier in Nova Scotia, had just completed her four-year Bachelor’s degree. She was barred from sports, from practice, from spectating—and she spoke of how university policies divided friends. Isolation became the dominant experience. She was prohibited from attending pre-graduation ceremonies. She was blocked from flying home for Christmas, given the federal government’s travel ban against the “unvaccinated,” and she could thus not attend her grandfather’s funeral. On campus, she had to be tested every 72 hours just to attend class, a burdensome obligation. Testing was done on campus, in the middle of a building where everyone could see her walking in.
Very few of her friends and teammates were “unvaccinated”. She pointed to the usually hostile/aggressive wording of communications from the university. She was effectively treated as a “freak”.
She felt blame from teammates, given the StFX Athletics Dept. pushed “vaccination” and stated that those not following were hurting others.
How has her experience changed her? She is leaving StFX with a bitter taste.
Hayley Weinrauch (sister of Jaiden), a student at McEwan in Edmonton, was told to be “vaccinated” by January (2022) or be prevented from taking her classes and completing her degree. Her own doctor yelled at her to get the shot because of her heart condition. He had also previously urged her to get an abortion, because of the same condition. Counter to his pressue, she went ahead and had the baby, who is the joy of her life. Hayley was clearly distraught in recounting these events, traumatized, and she burst into tears in relating these experiences. Constant battles with the school over her decision ensued from her decision not to get the shot. She lost a lot of faith in this society. Extra burdens were caused by restrictions where childcare were involved.
Fellow students spoke of the unvaxxed as inferior people. She was isolated until she found others in her situation online.
Kayla Bishop a student in Ontario, is “vaccine”-injured. She had done research, and found that her risk-benefit analysis did not warrant the shot, and it did pose dangers—she was young, healthy, with no comorbidities. She felt pressured by her university, and the student loan program, to proceed to get the shots. After her second dose, she suffered chest pains. She was admitted to hospital, and there it was discovered that she had developed tachycardia. Less able to focus due to her new condition, and less able to perform in theatre classes given the difficulty of breathing with a mask in class, her studies began to suffer. As a theatre student, her work is physically demanding, so she does not even know if she can do what she went to school to do.
What could Ryerson University (now Toronto Metropolitan University) have done differently? It could have allowed an option for testing to attend school. Universities should not be the ones to instruct people on their medical decisions, Kayla said. Universities mandated, with no discussion with affected students. University administrators did not discuss risks.
She still has chest pains that come and go, and she is far from being in normal health.
Henry Lu, is a student at University of Toronto, and a cancer survivor. At first, in September 2021 or just prior, it seemed the university would allow masking and testing as an option for those attending in person. Soon after, “vaccination” became mandatory for attendance—and every course was pushed to return in person, which mounted the pressure to get '“vaccinated”. He had only one course to finish his degree.
His oncologist only told him the shot was “safe and effective” without discussion about how his cardiovascular system, damaged by chemotherapy, might act as a comorbidity for the “vaccine”. No studies of people in similar circumstances were discussed, and thus no risks were considered.
In Ontario, only those who developed myocarditis from the first shot, or very severe allergic reactions, were even considered for exemption for a second shot.
Henry tried every avenue, every office on campus, to get a hearing. His attempts resulted in nothing. No assistance from either the Student Union or the student newspaper was forthcoming—at most, they only feigned sympathy and concern.
He values his medical privacy, and does not want to discuss it with strangers, normally. Destructive “vaccine” mandate policies are catching all sorts of vulnerable people in their cross-hairs, he explained.
The University has delayed his education by a whole year.
How has his experience affected his thinking about science? It has not shaken his belief at all—their “science” is not real science at all. His oncologist is not a real doctor. Did the university make any economic impact assessment in terms of the future careers of affected students? No. Indeed, he is working in retail, not in computer science. Should he return to studies in the future, he will get less in student loans, because he became a de facto “no show” in his recent class. What the University is doing is absolutely coercive, a negation of informed consent, and they leverage the fact that they have the students’ tuition payments, held as a ransom.
Irvin Studin (Institute for 21st Century Questions) spoke on the crisis in education, which he thinks is the major human catastrophe of this crisis, by far. “Third bucket kids”—are those educated not in person, not by virtual means, but rather receiving no schooling at all. Half a billion children around the world were placed in the third bucket; the estimate for Canada is 200,000. They do not necessarily return when schools reopen. Few were even aware that they had exited when schools went online. The compulsory school system collapsed. No attempt is being made to find these children. In the post-pandemic world, which is crueler, more fastidious, and now with a harsher economic climate, the third-bucket children will fare poorly and it will create a huge underclass that will destabilize Canada in the future. Studin recommends that schools never be closed again—it’s an existential issue. Institutions are continuing to press with “vaccine” mandates, even when governments have lifted them, as if they need to be individually instructed to stop.
The educational system was the most affected negatively, he argues.
In response to questions from the panel, he stated that if a national independent inquiry were to happen, he would agree to help develop the terms of reference for studying the impact on children. There has been a national collapse in thinking, he argued. Ottawa had no involvement at all in matters affecting schools—it was a provincial matter. Chief Medical Officers of Health exceeded their expertise or mandate in pushing for school closures.
James Kitchen, a lawyer, talked about “vaccine” mandates in universities and colleges in Canada, and also concentrated on this in his work for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. Before we had mandates, he explained, we had strong recommendations—which by September, latest by November, became mandates, with threats of expulsion for non-compliant students. He could only try to help some students (with exemptions, mostly religious ones), in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. There was incredible divergence on mandates across the country.
Universities blatantly rejected their human rights obligations with their near-blanket denials of requests for exemptions. Some students took on significant legal costs and were forced into endless games with university administrations. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for why some applications for exemptions were granted, others were not, why some won on appeal. Kitchen explained because there was no rule of law, there was just power, just arbitrariness.
Kitchen did not push any cases for exemption based on natural immunity, on having acquired immunity due to infection. He was instead forced to select, as a sole basis, a legally protected characteristic. There needs to be more government oversight of universities, he answered in a response to a question—perhaps, he was doubtful on this point, given his opposition to government intervention—which could result in reduced arbitrariness. He cited provincial governments that have stepped in to protect free speech on campuses, as an example. Can students take any legal action to recover costs they incurred for seeking legal representation? Unlikely, he thought, given that the courts have taken the side of governments on almost all Covid cases. Human rights commissions have taken a “woke” stance against students who refuse “vaccination”.
A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response—Assisted Living Homes, Hospital Policies, and Other Institutions using “Vaccine” and Mask Mandates
York Hsiang spoke of the situation of his mother in an assisted-living home in British Columbia. His own life, as a medical professional, was adversely affected by the mandates. His mother was admitted to a nursing home in late 2019. In the early stages of the crisis in 2020, there were restrictions on the number of visitors—he was the sole visitor that was designated. Entry was through a back door, where visitors were screened, and were then admitted for a short period of time. Clients at the home were then confined to their rooms. In 2021, with the “vaccine” rollout, his mother was injected. Visitors could return, with an appointment—and had to be “vaccinated”. He acquired natural immunity, and that was not allowed as a substitute. His mother’s condition worsened. He has only seen her three times, and each time was associated with an overdose of sedation—he was allowed only a brief visit, under supervision. Once she had improved, he was once again denied the right to see her. As a result of confinement and isolation, he feels that her dementia has worsened. He argues that the mandates have been overdone. The vax mandate for visitors in British Columbia remains in place, despite its being lifted everywhere else. He is thus unable to monitor the medications being given to his mother.
In response to questions from the panel, he agreed that the nursing homes continued to care for their clients in the best way they knew how. He does not disagree with “vaccinating” the very elderly, who are most at risk from Covid. Nobody at the long-term care facility was prepared to discuss his situation with him—they are following policy guidelines set by the Ministry of Health of BC. They are not in a position to evaluate or question those policies. Again, an absence of any dialogue prevailed in this situation, as it did with students in the previous panel. There is thus no accountability or explanation of the policies. Hsiang argued the need for a separate, independent body to assess these policies. “The police cannot police themselves,” he said. If he had been in charge of that nursing home, what he would have done differently would have been to still limit the amount of visitors, but not to confine the clients to their rooms alone; he would have also examined alternative treatments.
Hugh Akoji, 76 years of age, is a traditional chief from New Brunswick with degrees in mathematics and physics, and a career in fisheries and ocean research. He spoke of his niece who died after her Covid “vaccine” injection. She was 39. When she was four, she had her pituitary gland removed because of cancer—in his view, this compromised her, and she should not have been approved for the shot. She was also on medications (he did not specify). He could not find any official records as to how his niece may have died from the “vaccine,” but he noted that she died from blood clots.
He argued that “science” has been abused during this crisis. He has rejected the “vaccines” for Covid. Regarding his niece, he has no way to confirm the evidence of her death from the “vaccine”—everyone seems to be following a “code of silence,” even his family.
On reserves, there are chiefs that are concerned, and some are starting to ask questions of Health Canada of what is going on with “vaccine” injuries. A single nurse spoke to him about the condition of his niece. He has been denied access to medical records. His presentation was abridged by the moderator.
In response to questions from the panel, he cannot say if the chiefs he knows would ever testify in public at a formal inquiry. He says he would though, absolutely.
Susan van der Rassle (65 years old), spoke from Ontario about her sister (66). Her sister was placed on dialysis for life in 2017, due to being a long-term addict. In 2021, Susan was called by her sister’s clinic to say that her sister had collapsed. “Because of Covid, and because she refused,” her sister was not taken to hospital (the details are rushed, and unclear). When her sister was admitted, Susan could not visit her without being “vaccinated,” until her sister was near death. Her sister had received at least two shots, and likely a third. Currently her sister is “in good form,” and she can speak with Susan. Susan is permitted to speak with her sister online, as long as she does not talk “anything medical”. Another visitor to his sister was also blocked from seeing her because he did not get two shots. As a result, they are given no information.
In response to questions from the panel, Susan says the policy is exactly the same now, regardless of the lifting of mandates and restrictions in the rest of the society. The communication from the clinic (rehab centre) is still “horrid”.
David Shaw spoke of his 16 year old son going behind his back to get “vaccinated”, in order to participate in hockey tryouts. As his father, he has been blocked from attending his son’s hockey events because he did not have a QR code—not having been “vaccinated” himself. He did manage, once, to make his way in and was in there for 35 minutes. He was threatened with arrest unless he left—he did not, and was grabbed by two officers (security working for “corporate services”) and handcuffed, and paraded in front of others as he was removed from the arena. At this point David began to sob in recounting the experience. He was also banned for thirty days from the property.
The night after this experience, he attempted reentry, and was again blocked. This happened three or four more times. He repeatedly said that “those corporate service people are nice people, I have no issue with them”. Subsequently he obtained a religious exemption signed by a lawyer and his pastor—and with that he was allowed in to see his son practice, and without a mask. But now the mask became the issue. He had also confronted Mayor Crombie if he would still have parents arrested for going to watch their children play hockey, when everything else was opening up—this also alerted “corporate services” to apparently target him when he showed up at future hockey events. He was arrested one more time (this time by the police), regardless of his exemption. He was frisked, handcuffed, and they doubted the veracity of his exemption. He referred to the police as “good guys,” even though he got two tickets amounting to roughly $400 in total.
In response to questions from the panel, he said he had few allies, away from hockey—not from the hockey association, the league, or other parents. Everyone remained silent. Then hockey, like other sports, was shut down in Ontario. When it reopened, he was able to attend events. At one point he was banned from all hockey rinks in the entirety of Mississauga—the city even contacted his employer (which had contracts with the city), and he lost his job.
Beverley Perley, took the place of Indigenous scholar and lawyer, Pam Palmater. Perley (56) is an Indigenous elder from New Brunswick and a university-educated nurse. She was unable to appear on camera due to some technical problem. She declared herself “unvaccinated” as well as all her children and grandchildren. The chief of her reserve mandated the “vaccine” to all employees to keep their jobs. People seeking services offered by the reserve, had to be “vaccinated” to receive them. Visitors without a “vaccine” passport were not allowed on the reserve (Tobique First Nation).
Those with whom she spoke on the reserve, that had been injected, were given no information as to why they were getting the shot, what it was for, and certainly nothing was discussed about risks or alternatives (such as traditional medicines). She spoke of using cedar, muskrat, grapefruit and lemon peels to make quinine, etc. Those options were not made available. People were forced to take the shot or lose their reserve jobs. She also mentioned that there is a high rate of illiteracy on the reserve, and most people lacked the most basic tool to be informed about the “vaccines”. New Brunswick had a very low incidence of Covid infections, a fact for which the Premier of the province took sole credit.
In response to questions from the panel, Perley argued that the lack of real choice was a basic act of wrongdoing, especially where people were held hostage to their jobs. She also criticized the lack of informed consent. Perley said it was right to close down the community (the reserve), to prevent “outside influences” from making their situation harder. On the reserve of the Tobique First Nation, they entered “code red” before the province did, because two people contracted Covid outside the reserve and brought it in. She complained of the “uneducated fear” that prevailed among reserve leaders. The chief and members of his council (12 members) discussed among themselves, without community participation—and they simply followed provincial mandates. There was a lack of democracy.
Marjaleena Repo, speaking from Saskatchewan, cannot mask for medical reasons. She is a cancer survivor. “I have been receiving the hard end of the stick for two years,” she says about her life under the mandates in Saskatchewan. Restrictions have not been really lifted in Saskatchewan, as much as they have been “downloaded”: now a theatre can continue to use the “vaccine” passport to restrict admittance. She begins to panic, or faint, when she is compelled to wear a mask. On one occasion, her blood pressure went up to 210 while wearing a mask. She was provided with a mask exemption by her doctor, but it was not recognized by the Saskatchewan Health Authority, the very institution that made provisions for mask exemptions in their regulations. She once had the opportunity to receive radiation therapy, but was told she could have no more opportunities if she did not comply with the mask mandate. She receives limited attention from her oncologist. She relies on public transport, and is denied access because she cannot wear a mask. She has been denied blood tests in the co-op clinic, of which she is a supporting member, because she is not masked. “All around me there is hostility to my person,” she says. “Right now I am fighting for my right to breathe”. She has been ticketed for taking part in a protest to demand children be free of masking, a ticket for $2,800, and she is preparing to fight it in court. However, the courts have a mask mandate, so she may not have access to her own trial.
Janina Krienke, also spoke from Saskatchewan, and also on the subject of masking—specifically concerning her daughter. On March 15, 2021, her daughter developed uncontrollable spasms and was admitted to hospital. On release, her symptoms grew in intensity and severity. In April she developed chronic fatigue, constant low-grade fever, tremors, and numerous other symptoms. On May 16, 2021, she was taken to the emergency room with heart attack symptoms, and nothing problematic was found. Subsequent tests found no problem. Her symptoms continued to worsen. She has been to hospital several times, and seen numerous doctors. Her daughter was offered medication, even though doctors could not identify the cause of her problems. Using private medical clinics, her daughter was eventually diagnosed with severe Hypocapnia, causing acute breathing problems, and was told she should not be wearing a mask. However, her daughter was required to wear a mask during extreme, physical training for “competitive cheer”, for up to 21 hours per week. They found through their private doctors that younger females tend to be adversely affected by masking because of the drop in blood oxygen levels while menstruating. It was only at the end of the presentation that her daughter’s situation was connected to masking.
Chris Schaefer, speaking from Alberta on masking, is a respirator specialist with 28 years in occupational health and safety, and has worked as an advisor and trainer for the military and for emergency departments, given his qualifications in the field of respiratory protection. Schaefer smartly challenged the now popular notion of “masks,” noting that masks have openings in front of the nose and mouth—such as a Halloween mask or a goalie mask. Respirator masks also have openings, using valves that allow for inhalation of clean air. What we have instead used these two years are breathing barriers, or breathing obstructions—not masks. Breathing barriers force us to re-inhale much of our exhaled air, with reduced levels of oxygen. Masks are safe to wear, because they have engineered openings to allow air to circulate; what we have in common use, are not masks.
In response to questions from the panel, he explained that in the field of occupational health there were no studies or impact assessments done on the use of the current crop of so-called “masks”. He warns that these barriers force us to breathe in bacteria and fungi, from the moist and warm environment created under the barrier. There are also hazards to wearing N95 devices, because of the particles that are released and inhaled during prolonged use. On June 20, 2020, he wrote an open letter to Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer of Health and copied it to multiple doctors, on why use of the breathing barriers was a mistake. He never received a reply. He offered to share the correspondence with the panel.
A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response—Employment/Labour
Scarlet Martin is an advanced paramedic from Toronto, who was fired because of mandatory “vaccination”. “I wasn’t seeing the pandemic that was being reported in the media,” she stated. People were being told that hospitals were being overrun. Fear prevailed. She attended numerous calls at homes, from people who died because they had resisted going to ERs, afraid of catching Covid.
She was embarrassed when restaurant owners sent them free meals; people banged pots and pans and cheered them; hand-made cards were sent hailing them as “heroes” and yet the hospitals were nearly empty. Healthcare workers then evolved into bullies, as they parroted rules banning visiting family members: “It’s a pandemic!” Those who had reservations about the “vaccines” were vilified by colleagues. Patients were insulted, judged, and othered. Privately, healthcare workers opined that the unvaxxed should be left to die rather than “burden” the healthcare system.
“Terminate or vaccinate” policies prompted a new wave of harsh treatment and open bullying in healthcare environments. Scarlet voiced her concerns about the safety of the mRNA injections, and asked if natural immunity could be deemed a basis for exemption. She was instead accused of insubordination and misconduct, for voicing questions. She was ordered to turn over her medical ID cards and work keys, and was escorted off the premises. She was humiliated. She was “terminated with cause for wilful misconduct,” which destroyed her career as a paramedic, anywhere. This also prevented her from receiving Employment Insurance benefits.
Healthcare workers that advocate for ethical practices in medicine were effectively banished from the system.
In response to questions from the panel, she said she was shocked by the cruelty displayed by the society, and in the work setting. Patients revealed, in confidence, their “vaccine” status and she watched them burst into tears when they were shamed for their decision by nurses or doctors. In addition to the empty ERs, in contrast with what was reported in the news, she also mentioned that field tents went up—and they never saw a patient. Nurses were told they would be deployed in Covid units, and then the massive crisis that was expected never materialized—and during the first wave of the pandemic, the hospitals were completely empty.
Greg Hill is a 32-year veteran of the Air Force and was an airline captain. He was fired from his job, was expelled from the air force, and was forced to sell his home and move his family. He is the director of Free to Fly, Canada, and works with tens of thousands of professionals in all sectors of air transport. He denounced the loss of trust in entire sectors, in the political, scientific, and medical communities. Questions, if there were any, were silenced. In dealing with a Transport Canada doctor, he noted that participation in medical trials is not permitted when employed in the sector, and was told that the “vaccines” had been “fully approved” by Health Canada (they had not). He asked for information on adverse effects, as Health Canada had just released information about myocarditis—he received no reply.
He personally knows, first hand, of “vaccine” injuries suffered by airline colleagues in Canada, and none of their injuries have been acknowledged. No replies, to hundreds of questions from members of the public, ever came from the Minister for Transport. Transport Canada refused to answer questions pertaining to flight crew health, critical to maintenance of safety in the industry. He ended by quoting Primo Levi: “Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions”.
In response to questions from the panel, he noted that even those who were “vaccinated” cannot afford to speak out and voice their questions for fear that they will still be targeted and perhaps terminated. Given the constant non-response of the authorities, he notes that systems are already in place to deal with that problem (he did not elaborate), but what we need is for people to be ethical and be willing to lose something in the process of defending the good of the wider society—or else lose everything of value further down the line. He praised the continuous, unrelenting, courageous pressure mounted by ordinary Canadians in getting the travel mandates to be lifted/suspended. He says it is unknown whether he will ever fly again.
Sergio Molina, is a Canada Post employee, a letter carrier—on suspension—representing Posties for Freedom. At the beginning of “the pandemic” he was seized by fear of high death counts, but then started noting how little of what the media reported made sense. When the “vaccines” were rolled out, he had accumulated a lot of questions, and doubts. His preference is for holistic health, rather than pinning all hopes on a single product. He also reminded us that in Canada, “vaccines are not mandatory” under the law. He prepared a petition which he sent to his union, with about a hundred signatures, from very early on, demanding that the union do its job of defending them. The union did not. Roughly 6,000 in the postal service did not want to disclose their medical status as the rollout began, but now those numbers have dwindled to about 2-3,000. He decried the authoritarianism taking firm hold of Canada, and he noted that the freedom to make one’s own medical choices is being nullified—except when it comes to abortion (which he condemns).
As a letter carrier, he worked through the thick of “the pandemic”. Letter carriers do not get close to people, so they are hardly those putting people at risk. The union, which has a representative on Health and Safety, simply repeated the mantra that was passed down from that office, as did the corporation. On the work floor, there was name calling, insults, and discrimination over the vax issue. Canada Post is prepared to take back those on suspension, but first has to “prepare” to “receive” them, so the process is slow.
Molina did not want to use his religion to seek an exemption, because he felt it went against his conscience to do so. He should not have to disclose his status to begin with, which was and is his position.
In response to questions from the panel, he noted that the union finally decided to file a grievance, but they used someone from mainstream media who repeated the main talking points of the dominant system, and of course their grievance was defeated—in other words, the union itself betrayed its workers and deliberately engineered their loss. In the meantime, he has taken up other work, and has had significant support from his religious community.
Beau Bedard, a college teacher in Toronto, was put on leave on September 7, 2021, for not complying with mandatory “vaccination”. He told his employer he believed in informed consent, and wanted to get safety data, and pointed out that Pfizer itself said that its Phase 3 trial would not be completed for two more years. He had been teaching online, and could have continued. In fact, only two of his five courses for that semester were in person—but all his courses were taken from him. Once the provincial mandates were lifted, the employer invited him back to work—online, an option which they had previously denied to pressure him to get “vaccinated”. He is taking them to arbitration. He does not know of many colleagues who take unpaid leave. He has also taught this summer, including one course in person, and his employer demanded that he be masked while teaching. He protested that, noting that the “masks” are unsafe and deprive him of sufficient oxygen. To prove his point he contacted a dozen companies that deal with respirators to help show the level of oxygen inside his “mask”; one agreed, and the readings were alarming in terms of the high degree of CO2, and the low level of oxygen inside the “mask” as compared to the surrounding room.
The moderator, Trish Wood, asked if in an institution of higher learning if anyone investigated the science or the data behind the failed “vaccines” and the “masks,” or was it just a case of shut up an do what you’re told. He confirmed that it was the latter—thus it has been a group-think issue rather than an evidence issue.
In response to questions from the panel, he noted how his employer preferred to hire, with little advance preparation, a number of part time teachers to take his courses, and he wondered how much time they would even have had to prepare. His view is that it is likely that the education of students suffered. In the meantime, he found alternative employment—“employers are replaceable too”.
Leighton Grey is a labour lawyer in Alberta. His position is that “vaccine mandates” have nothing to do with either health or science, but are instead political. Specifically, they represent a political attack on the working class.
He currently has a case in court against Deena Hinshaw over lockdown restrictions, which he is targeting as unconstitutional. As for the working class, and mounting frustrations, the Freedom Convoy was the culmination of that reality, he explained. His firm is representing thousands of workers, both unionized and non-unionized, who are being forced to disclose statutorily protected private medical information, or forced to take questionable and intrusive tests. He identified the Prime Minister’s Office as the fountainhead of all these mandates. His firm has cases in provincial and federal courts that involve over a billion dollars in damages claims.
Within workplaces, some are targeted for treatment as inferior, dangerous beings—“the pandemic of the unvaccinated,” being one way they are stigmatized. Involuntary, unpaid leaves of absence are wrongful dismissals, he argued. The federal government further violates “unvaccinated” workers’ rights by denying Employment Insurance payments. He listed a slew of bills, codes, and statutes that have been violated by such policies. He is seeking aggravated and punitive damages for emotional, psychological, and physical harm. He still has come confidence in the legal system, despite known biases (such as those of the Chief Justice who is being challenged by a judicial complaint).
In response to questions from the moderator and the panel, he noted that “vaccine mandates” even violate the Criminal Code, as an assault, plus exposing persons to physical or psychological harm (and he cited the relevant provisions). The effect of the denial of informed consent amounts to psychological harm, to say the least. Are those who issue the mandates liable for damages caused by the “vaccines”? His answer was yes, and there is a (woefully inadequate) compensatory system which at least confirms the liability of the federal government. He says we are still in “early days” of determining the harms caused by these shots, and there is more coming. He expects class action suits will come, and that the pharmaceutical companies have probably already factored in the cost of eventually paying damages, into their calculations of net profit. On the issue of unpaid, mandated leaves of absence, he reiterated that this an orchestrated attack on the working class, and to diminish its power. The refusal of the federal and provincial governments to pay back wages, is further evidence of that deliberate malice.
A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response—Natural Immunity
Audrey Vanderhoek is a registered nurse in British Columbia, and a graduate of UBC. She has had Covid, is “unvaccinated,” and has been fired. Initially, protocols at her hospital were simple: a “mask,” and a temperature check. Then doctors stopped coming in. Then visitors were banned. When they had an outbreak, they could not contain it, and the Covid unit was shut down—then renovated. As a result, numerous workers came in to do renovations, who were not subjected to the same restrictions. She described her experience with Covid, which got progressively worse, and she suffers from long Covid, she said. Sixteen months later, she was on a gradual return to work, and was told that “vaccine” mandates would soon come into effect. She was told that a medical exemption, like a religious one, was next to impossible. Even early retirement was threatened. She was eventually sent home on a leave of absence, and then was terminated for cause, and was not entitled to severance or Employment Insurance payments. Over 20 years of experience was simply dismissed.
“Shameful” and “inhumane” is how she described the experience. She struggled to regain EI, and ultimately succeeded, and it was acknowledged that she had been wrongfully fired. She also learned that Covid infection was to be treated as two doses of the “vaccine”, following her appeals to the Government of BC, the Ministry of Health, and even the Prime Minister’s Office (I missed some of the details here, which were rushed). Her union promised action, but would not say what action that would be. She went from being a “hero” to being ostracized.
The moderator commented: “if it was really about immunity, they would be asking for Immunity Passports and not Vaccine Passports”.
In response to questions from the moderator and the panel, she reflected how much of our behaviour was shaped by the media and the CDC. During her ordeal, she felt pretty much alone in her struggle. One occupational therapist was especially helpful, however.
Dr. Steven Pelech, also speaking from British Columbia, where he is a Professor at UBC, explained that he is conducting a clinical trial with those who have had Covid to identify any antibodies they may have that respond to the virus. He revealed that more than 90% of those they tested have natural immunity, and its a broad immunity against the whole of the virus, multiple proteins of the virus, rather than just the spike protein. In one northern community, 89% of those who had reportedly not been infected, still had antibodies against the spike protein. His argument is that natural immunity is very extensive across Canada. Those who have been “vaccinated” also had antibodies against the whole virus, which indicates infection either pre- or post-injection.
How does that natural immunity stand over time? The fact that we see much reduced numbers for hospitalization suggests that natural immunity is preventing more severe cases. The problem with “vaccination” is that it does not last, hence the repeated injections, each of which has limited duration. An Israeli study, exploring how “vaccines” affected natural immunity from prior infection, showed that they had a reduced number of nucleocapsid antibodies. Thus, continued injection may be reducing natural immunity, rendering individuals more exposed to infection. That is how we see much larger numbers of infection among those with a greater number of injections. Natural immunity’s additional benefit is that it produces cell memory to deal with subsequent infections, generating new antibodies when needed. The case of India, which has not again had severe waves, paints a picture of where natural immunity and/or the widespread use of Ivermectin account for the much reduced severity.
In response to questions from the moderator and the panel, Dr. Pelech noted that we test if a person is infected, and instead we should have been testing for the level of antibodies. A high number of antibodies would have obviated the need for all the other tests. We should have let natural immunity take its course in the great majority of the population, in agreement with the 50,000+ doctors that signed the Great Barrington Declaration. “Vaccine” passports were really just immunity to go out and spread the virus. He ended by noting that the only scientific debate that is happening, is in the courts, between the experts brought in by the competing sides. Trish Wood noted how the WHO itself marginalized natural immunity from the outset. Pelech argues that there is nothing better than natural immunity against the virus itself, rather than just a component of the virus, and that it was astonishing how this basic recognition was sidelined.
A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response—The Emergencies Act
Allan Rouben, a lawyer, discussed the economic measures in the Emergencies Act. He noted the basic questions that are required to be asked, one of which is whether they cast too wide a net. A protesting person or persons must be shown to represent a serious threat to public order. He then read a series of other provisions concerning cessation of use or lending of property to benefit those accused of destabilizing the security of the state. The freezing of bank accounts is seen as an extraordinary remedy, require extensive justification before a court. He quoted David Sacks who published an article in The National Post on February 22, 2022, showing how the use of the Emergencies Act created a class of economic “untouchables”. The economic measures used, Rouben argues, were extreme and unjustifiable—and that is likely why they were revoked, because they could not survive legal challenge. The individuals affected may well have claims for damages, he argued. (Unfortunately, there is a considerable mass of legal detail that I could not grasp, or could not follow quickly enough, and that does not appear in this summary.)
In response to questions from the moderator and the panel, Rouben argued that the media ought to have been doing a much better job in critically examining the blunt use of the Act. Fortunately, there are many cases going before the courts. He is disturbed that the parliamentary inquiry is being sabotaged by the government invoking cabinet confidentiality. In his view, the problem is not with the current legislation, but that government went well beyond what legislation permitted—thus it’s not clear that legislation would fix that problem. And if banks went along with the government, it is because they believed the falsehoods that were published by the media, or were told by the RCMP to flag designated persons—and the RCMP too could be operating under the same falsehoods. Thus the media played a fundamental role in shaping the situation. The banks should have been yelling and screaming, Rouben remarked, about this going against all norms of their business, and there ought to have been checks and balances. (Interestingly, Preston Manning advocated as a resistance tactic, a mass, coordinated, targeted run on a specific bank to send a warning.)
A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response—The Canadian Military
Andrew MacGillivray, of the Canadian Armed Forces, outlined how the federal government is prepared to flush $800 million+ invested in training, and 2,000 years of combined service, for the 3.6% of the CAF which the government is prepared to terminate. There are, at a minimum, 3,200 armed forces personnel who have already said they will not get the “vaccine”, or will not disclose, and are slated to receive “5 Foxtrot” status (discharge). This is at a time when the Canadian Defence Minister has identified a serious and present danger to the country that requires maximum preparedness. (There was more to this presentation, and I have unfortunately had to abridge the material.)
Harold Ristau, a military chaplain, also spoke powerfully of the effects of mandating “vaccines” on the Canadian military. Military chaplains were forbidden from providing guidance on religious exemptions. This is an abuse of chaplain consciences, and is likely unlawful. No exemptions for religious, spiritual, or matters of conscience were allowed. Chaplains were forced to contradict their consciences, compelled to ignore the relationships between cells from aborted fetuses and the “vaccines,” by not advocating for exemptions. Chaplains were thus not expected to support religious accommodation requests. Eventually, they were provided with an assessment tool that precluded “sincerely held beliefs”. Applicants were to be challenged on their beliefs. If a church opposed the “vaccines,” and thus departed from the mainstream media narrative, then government decided that a religious exemption backed by such a church would not be valid. If a church lacked a “vaccine policy” (a formal statement against vaccines), then any exemptions supported by that church were deemed to be invalid. Very few received an exemption. Violating soldiers’ consciences, he argued, is probably the worst thing one could do spiritually and psychologically to these soldiers.
Preston Manning noted that this sounded like a violation of the fundamental right to the freedom of religion. David Ross remarked that there seems to be a widespread failure in the system of command. Padre Ristau said that morale is at an all time low, and the CAF is struggling with recruitment.
A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response—Charter Analysis
Sam Presvelos, a corporate commercial lawyer in Toronto, spoke more as a concerned citizen. The “quarantine hotel” issue in particular alarmed him: people commanded, against their will, to stay in a hotel, struck him as a fundamental breach of democracy. He notes that our rights are not absolute, but are limited—but the problem is that the limitation stated in Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is legislatively weak and ambiguous (“1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”). Our rights mean the most when the threat is greatest, he emphasized. It is not reasonable to suggest that the seriousness of a “pandemic” means that our rights must kneel. The problem with the imprecision of the Charter’s Section 1...is that it is imprecise. The government must use the least restrictive measure in order to not overreach our rights.
Preston Manning said a bill that affected Canadians’ rights should have been presented to Parliament for debate—and not pushed through as an Order in Council. Presvelos says we have lost sight of who is serving whom. That travel rights, domestically, can be suspended by a single individual (Trudeau) is deeply disturbing and an indication of our problem.
Leslie Smith, a lawyer in Ontario for 34 years, and a judge for 17 years, took to task the bias of Chief Justice Richard Wagner against the protesting truckers. She militated for lodging a complaint in the Canadian Judicial Council, because he would be eventually ruling on cases related to the truckers and the invocation of the Emergencies Act, indicating that he has already reached a conclusion (a particularly severe one). Usually, such bias is a basis for appeal—but not when the top justice of the country is involved. This undermines public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. The complaint to the Judicial Council has in fact been filed.
Preston Manning noted that the Chief Justice is also the Chair of the Judicial Council itself. Smith noted that there are multiple procedures of investigation, and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion. Manning said that if this happened in the US, there would have been a motion to impeach the judge. Smith is not sure that process exists for Canadians.