British Columbia Political Sham: “Report” on COVID-19 Measures Skewed in Favour of Tyrannical Government

COVID-19: Lessons Learned Review

By David Lindsay, CLEAR

Silence over what went wrong

On March 16, 2022, the B.C Gov’t appointed a Commission comprised of three (3) people to analyze the Gov’t’s actions in relation to COVID-19. That Report was issued last week, in November 2022.

Notwithstanding the claims by the B.C. Communist Government’s Minister [of Public Safety & Solicitor General] Farnworth that the Report upheld the Gov’t’s response, this is pretty far from the truth.

Here is the stated summary of their Report:

We were tasked with undertaking an operational review of the B.C. government’s pandemic response to help government prepare for future events. The review looked at preparations for the pandemic, the processes used to make decisions, government communications related to the pandemic response, and the implementation of response measures. Our findings include things that went well and things that could have been improved, because there are lessons to be learned from both.

(My emphasis. What about things that went wrong – and there was lots of them?)

We approached our task through a combination of research and
engagement. Our research examined the operational context within which government responded to the pandemic, public health and emergency management best practices, the events that took place during the pandemic, and how B.C. compared with other populous provinces in terms of several outcome indicators. We engaged broadly with the public, government, stakeholders, and Indigenous people and organizations to understand the response from a range of perspectives.

Before even examining this Report and its conclusions and findings, what does this Summary actually admit? I will come back to this at the end of this article – no cheating!!!

Many of the findings are quite irrelevant to our discussion here, such as people being dissatisfied with the time between announcements from [Provincial Health Officer] Bonnie Henry at her press releases, and the timing of the Orders being issued.

The primary foundation of this Report is the assumption (or Gov’t direction) that there was a global pandemic.

Biased findings

All findings, Part 3 What We Found, are based on the assumption that there was a pandemic. Nothing in this Report analyzed the accuracy of the Gov’t’s claims of a pandemic, nor challenges the truthfulness of the Gov’t statistics and claims.

For example, when the first Emergency Orders were issued on March 16 and 18, 2020 (Henry and Farnworth), only three people had allegedly died of COVID19 in B.C. That is not a pandemic. Simply because the World Health Organization (WHO) issues an order of a pandemic, does not mean, factually, that there is a health emergency of that nature in B.C. Does it mean B.C. is required by law,
because Canada is a member of the WHO, to issue such an Order?

Nor did the authors of this Report examine the fact that the Emergency Order by Minister Farnworth was issued without jurisdiction to so do, as the Emergency Program Act of B.C. only applies to natural disasters, not to viral infections or pandemics.

Nor did the authors of this Report consider that the PCR test utilized by the B.C. Gov’t has a documented 97.5% false positive rate and how this would have affected the statistics in relation to deaths and health effects.

Nor did the authors of this Report consider as to why the Gov’t determined to use PCR in the first place, and why it decided to use 35+ cycles in its use.

Nor did the authors of this Report consider Bonnie Henry’s previous admissions in evidence in Ontario and admissions in B.C., that masks do not prevent viral transmissions.

In examining these issues, all findings were made as admissions that the Gov’t narrative was correct, when in fact of course, they were not.

Opposition ignored

Why did the authors fail to contact organizations, groups or individuals opposing the Gov’t narrative, and seek out their reasons for so doing and their supporting materials? If the authors were charged with determining if the statistics released by the Gov’t were correct to support the restrictions, the results would have been much different, and even further against the Gov’t narrative.

Indeed, the Terms of Reference for this Commission, stated the following: (Appendix “A”):

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all aspects of the BC government and the broad BC public sector throughout 2020, 2021, and into 2022… The scope of the review excludes an assessment of economic recovery and public policy decisions made by government to deal with the consequences of the pandemic and decisions made by the independent Provincial Health Officer. The review will, however, look at how these decisions were made. (my emphasis)

These Terms set the foundation for this Committee that:

  • There was a pandemic for COVID-19;
  • The Committee was prohibited from doing a review or assessment on the decisions that were made by the Gov’t and Bonnie Henry

Considerations, noted above and others in relation to the PCR test, mask effectiveness, vaccine orders, distancing orders, lockdown decisions etc., could not be examined by the Committee and thus Henry et al continue to remain unaccountable for them, and the Report conclusions are skewed in favour of the Gov’t as a result, as was intended by the Gov’t.

The Committee was given instructions, directly and via how to conduct their investigation by the parameters set for this report, to achieve results the Gov’t could rely upon to its benefits, while simultaneously minimizing all opposition.

Electorate’s unwanted “vitriol”

As expected, it is a political sham which fails to get to the nature of COVID itself, the falsified stats, false PCR test results, etc.
This is the problem associated with these commissions – the Gov’ts appoint the authors, arbitrators or adjudicators, and the Gov’ts set the Terms and Conditions, what they can inquire into and what they cannot, to assure, as best they can, that they are unaccountable for their actions, while claiming to the public that this “independent” committee determined that they were doing a good job.

Interestingly, whether people wanted longer and more comprehensive
restrictions or those who wanted none at all, a large majority of the people believed that the Gov’t failed in its response. Indicative of the quantity of people opposing the lockdowns and restrictions,
the authors admit that:

A vast majority of respondents want a review of the actual decisions made to respond to the pandemic, which is beyond the scope of this review.

The extreme level of vitriol directed at decision-makers by many
respondents was shocking.

This indicates that the vast majority of people did not trust the Gov’t reports and statistics, and disagreed with the restrictions and lockdowns.

Statement #4 was worded: I trusted COVID-19 information provided by Gov’t
This resulted in a whopping 74% disagreement of Gov’t information!

Statement #6: Overall the B.C. Gov’t managed the pandemic well
Disagree: 74% Agree: 18%

The authors then stated:

A relatively small number of people commented on the enforcement of provincial orders and felt that government should have been more assertive.

From the above alone, it can be seen that despite the selective people involved, the vast majority did not trust or believe the Gov’t, and believed that the restrictions were excessive.

Crème de la crème

Now the crème de la crème. With regards to my opening insights into this Report. Though the authors claim to have engaged the public through an online survey, (p. 45), this was not publicly announced very well, and most members of the public were completely unaware of it. Over 15 000 people responded, (p. 45), but it is not stated where these people originated – were they all union/gov’t employees, or with a vested interest in the outcome, or within the large group of people who believed the Gov’t narrative? It appears that this survey was publicized to the organizations set out in Appendix “E” to the

The authors of this Report admit to their awareness of the existence of many opposition groups to the lockdowns and restrictions. (p. 36, 37). However, they made no attempts to reach out to any of them.

None of these groups contacted have expressed opposition to the Gov’t narrative, statistics, or pandemic claims. All of them, in one way or another, cooperated with and/or supported the Gov’t due to financial or legal considerations. The authors made no attempt to contact Vaccine Choice Canada (Ted Kuntz), Action4Canada (Tanya Gaw), CLEAR (David Lindsay), Unity and medical doctors, or any other individuals or groups opposed to the Gov’t narrative and restrictions.

Despite the lack of participation by professional groups and people opposing the Gov’t narrative in this Report, there is clearly widespread opposition against the Gov’t. If people opposing the Gov’t narrative had been contacted and involved, these statistics and findings would have significantly increased in our favour and there would have been many adverse findings against the Gov’t, such that they would have had to truly justify their decisions and false statistics.


After perusing this document, the following findings became clear:

  1. It is based on the false assumption that there was a pandemic and a response was needed (the BC Emergency Program Act does not allow for declarations of emergencies for viruses – only floods, earthquakes etc.)
  2. No attempt was made to determine if the experimental injections themselves were safe after being developed in only months.
  3. No attempt was made to determine if Bonnie Henry’s stats were correct or not to support their emergency actions, restrictions and lockdowns.
  4. The incredible amount of public distrust and anger was visible, even though groups like ours who vehemently opposed these lockdowns and restrictions, were never consulted or our reasons considered.
  5. All participating groups and individuals were corporations, unions, Gov’ts and Gov’t bodies, and others who are predisposed, either via bias (benefits such as employment or subsidies, or contracts), in favour of the Gov’t narrative. (Appendix “A”, p. 3). The lack of opposition is indicative of a study attempting to get hoped for Gov’t supportive results. Despite this, the results were, as the authors admit, shockingly against the Gov’t.

By piotrbein