Shaun Newman Podcast - #237 - Brian Peckford

Episode Date: January 21, 2022

Former premiere of Newfoundland. You may know him by his blog Peckford42 – He is the  last Living First Minister Who Helped Craft The Constitution Act In Which the Charter Is Located. Let me know what you think Text me 587-217-8500 SNP Presents February 5th snp.ticketleap.com/snp-presents-solutions-for-the-future/ Support here:⁠ https://www.patreon.com/ShaunNewmanPodcast

This is Nick Hudson. I'm Dr. Daniel Nagas. This is Julie Panese. This is Corporal Daniel Beaufort. This is Dr. Paul Alexander. This is Dr. Eric Payne. This is Dr. Eric Payne. This is Dr. Peter McCullough.

Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks. Happy Friday, number four of the week. Let me tell you, I didn't plan that out of it. If you missed yesterday's Thursday, it was Chris Barber, one of the truckers organizing the slow roll old operation bear hug. and it was quick. Nice quick 20 minute episode. Just kind of give you an update on what to expect.

And I appreciate him hopping on with me. And I appreciate all of you falling along and giving me a bit more your hard-earned time. Just quickly, I want to bring you up to speed on February 5th. So in the show notes, there's a link. You can still buy tickets. You have to have tickets by January, sorry, January 29th for February 5th. We're featuring. We just confirmed Dr. Francis Christian, lawyer, Andre Memer,

Dr. Eric Payne, Daniel Smith, and MLA, Shane Getson. They're all going to be in town. We're going to have a little keynote speaking and then a roundtable that's interactive with the audience. I'm really, really excited about it. So if you want tickets to go there, I got to give a shout out to Twyla Davidson. Hey, wherever you're at, she's driving in. I'm excited about it. She's an avid listener.

She's coming to the SMP presents. There's a whole whack of people. I hope I'll see you there and I think it'll be a fun-filled night. Now, I want to highlight families for choice. It's a grassroots organization. It started this past October. And I know there's a ton of organizations out there, but this group of Calgary moms, let me tell you, they have put the pedal to the metal when it comes to protecting kids, which by now you understand about me. I'm all four.

They focus on protecting choice when it comes to vaccinating kids against COVID-19. They want to make sure you realize they're pro-choice, not anti-anything. And they've grown to over 21,000 members across Alberta and Canada. They're strongly opposed to all vaccine mandates for kids, including the Alberta REP programs as it applies to 12 to 17-year-olds. And essentially, they're just advocating for kids because obviously they don't have, you know, they're waiting for all of us to do that for them, right? They're kids.

They have over 14,000 signatures on their letter opposing vaccine mandates for kids. And if you want to learn more, I would say go to Familiesforchoice.ca. One more time, that's families, the word for choice. choice.ca. I've participated in a few of their events, and by participated, just been a fly on the wall, so to speak, and they've had speakers like Peter McCullough, Eric Payne, Julie Panesse, Daniel Smith, Dr. Paul Alexander, you'll know all these names as they've come across the podcast as well, and they've been, well, they're go-getters. That's the way I look at the families for choice groups. So they're looking at game members and have people help and everything else. They're on Facebook,

telegram and Twitter, but once again, you go to their website, families for choice. Now, I'm going to stop blabbering because we got a cool, cool guest on today and some real history here. So without further ado, let's get on to the RAM truck rundown, brought to you by auto clearing Jeep and RAM, the Prairie's trusted source for Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat, and all things automotive for over 110 years. Former Premier of Newfoundland, you may know him by his blog, Pekford 42. He is the last last living first minister who helped craft the Constitution Act in which the charter is located. I'm talking about Brian Peckford. So buckle up. Here we go.

This is Brian Peckford and welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast today. I'm joined by Mr. Brian Peckford. Sir, thank you for hopping on. I'm pleased to be here and thanks for inviting me. Now, before we get into it and the thick of it and all the different subjects and your expertise, Could you give the audience a little bit of a background on you, just in case they've never heard of who Brian Peckford is? Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. My name is Brian Peckford. I was born in Whitburn, Newfoundland, in 1942. So that makes me ongoing on my 80th year. And I grew up in Newfoundland and got my high school and university education. I went to University,

Memorial University of Newfoundland and graduated there with a bachelor's in education and then in English literature and history. And I taught school for five years and then I got into politics and became an MLA for a writing, the only writing in Newfoundland

that had never been conservative in its history from 1832 to 1972. And so I broke that last one and then I became an MLA and then I became a minister and in 1979 I won the conservative leadership and took over premier of the problems in March 1979 and I served as premier until March 1989 at which time I retired and got into consulting my wife and I and we did consulting work for quite a few years from then on 1989 until 2001 at which time I retired in 1999. In 1999,

I moved from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island. And I'm now living in Parksville on Vancouver Island and have been here and in Qualicum Beach and Animo and Parksville since 93. And I've done work over Canada, consulting, and in Western Europe and in America. But all that, I closed down in 2001. I've done work for, I've done inquiries for the BC government. I've done inquiries for the federal government. Usually one person inquiries or I was the chair of an inquiry. Always on budget in time, on time.

Never over budget, never over time. And I was awarded an honorary degree from Memorial University. I won a number of other awards. I was sworn into the pretty council by Her Majesty Queen in 1980. after the Patriation and the Constitution Act of 82. And I've done various other work. I was chancellor of a private college in Vancouver for quite a few years, a business college. But now I'm sort of completely retired, at least that's what I thought, until this monstrosity arose and drove me out of my retirement back into full-time work.

And my wife and I are working at it now every day. from 8 to 11. I do nothing else only do interviews, speeches around Vancouver Island. Most of my other speeches are on Zoom because I'm not allowed to travel. And I do a lot of those. I've done,

I don't know how many now must be, well over 30, from Newfoundland all the way to Vancouver Island, with every podcast and group that you can imagine. I did a couple of days ago, well, yesterday, I did a Zoom meeting with a number of communities, in northwestern BC, for example, when hundreds of them got together.

So I've spoken before, every time I've spoken, we've had an overflow audience and had to turn people away. A lot of people are starving for understanding what the Constitution really is and what the charter of rights really is and how it intersects with what's going on today. So that's a brief history of yours truly. Well, I tell you what, you didn't mention the way I found you. So you, sir, are obviously, you know, your build as the last living member, the last architect of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. And the only way Sean Newman stumbles on Brian Peckford is your blog.

And your blog introduced me to Daniel Nagase, Dr. Daniel Nagasei. And I read that and I went, oh, my God, this is happening in my backyard. And you led me down a rabbit hole. And I mean, for the majority of the work you just said, I wasn't even a glimmer yet of coming in the world. I was born in 86. A year before you took role, I believe I read you were 36 when you became Premier. I'm the youngest, first minister of Newfoundland in this century or in the 20th century, that is. There was only one in the history of Newfoundland younger than me.

that was the first one back in 1832. So from 1832 to 1979, and then I became Premier 36, and I was the youngest for that century, and only one younger than me for the two centuries. So yeah, and I was 29 when I was elected to the legislature. I might argue at 79, closing in on 80,

you're doing your most important work right now. I've watched from afar, and I'm very honored to have you on because I think more people need to understand, what you know and have the knowledge base to tell. So fast forward to where we are, Brian, what can you tell us about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and what, you know, in all the talks you're having with people across Canada,

what is it that all of us aren't understanding? Because right now, we seem to think that being nice people, following what the government says is going to get us out of this, and here we are two years later, and nothing's exactly changed. and it might even be worse. Okay. First of all, I want to say to you, as a person born when you were born,

that I'm really happy that you seem to grasp the gravity of the situation we're in. And when people like you call me or email me and I don't know you and you tell me what you're doing, I immediately gravitate to you because I have then this uncanny perception that you have stumbled upon something and you're very interested in it. A lot of people are not like that. A lot of people are not like that. So I compliment you on contacting me and giving me this opportunity. It is very, very important. And I really appreciate that.

And like I say, I gravitate to people like you because you are genuinely and authentically interested. And that's the kind of people I want to talk to. Now, my throat is going because I've been at this now for several months and more and more every day. We'll give you a break on this side. No worries. Okay. So here I go. Now, I'll try to do this background as short as I can to give us.

much time for questions. Don't. Don't worry about being short. Be as thorough as you need to be because a guy like me ain't worried about Russianness. I want to understand. I want my audience to understand. Thank you very much. You're dead on. Okay. All of this context is extremely important as it is in everything. If you take it out of context, well then you can apply to anything. So context is very important. And history is very important. Sadly, we've given up on history. in our schools. And that's why we're in the dilemma we are, because nobody's educated anymore to what our nation is all about. Canada was formed in 1867. Four units came together. Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Upper Canada, Ontario, Lower Canada, Quebec.

And they came together and formed the nation through England, our mother country, because we were still the British North America. The United States had gone its own way in 1770. But the northern part of North America was still there called British North America. And so we were attached to England. We did not break the sever with England. Okay. So like lower Canada and upper Canada and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and even PEI existed at the time in Newfoundland. They were all dominions or colonies of England.

And these four came together to form the dominion of Canada or. or the nation of Canada in 1867. And that was an act called the BNA Act of 1867, British North America Act. It actually reflects who were the source of our jurisdiction or our power came from. We were prior to England, the British North America Act 1867. So it brought together the nucleus of what was then Canada, just those four.

P.E.I. didn't join at the time. Newfoundland didn't join at the time. They had a referenda in their own jurisdictions and said, no. The P.E.I. wasn't happy on a number of fronts, which proved to be true, by the way. In history, what Newfoundland and P.E.I and others were saying was true. The provinces weren't getting enough power. It only looked like it. And yet the Senate was not going to be elected and all that. The Senate was slanted towards Central Canada, which it is today. And it's causing us all kinds of problems. If we had an elected Senate like the United States, we wouldn't be in that near the province were in now because it would have been a more rational, consultative process, okay? But any case, it is what it is, it was what it was. And Canada got four in these four units. And over time, we became a country of ten provinces and three territories. The territories are really wards of the federal government. They don't have the powers the provinces have, okay?

they are still up for like 90 to 95% of their budgets come from the federal government or from you and me through our taxes into the federal government. And so that's where that's where we are today. Now the BNA Act defined what kind of a nation we were going to be in the sense that it wasn't going to be a unitary state like the United Kingdom or France. It was going to be a federal state more like the United States, Germany, Australia, a federal state meaning there were shared powers between the federal government and the provinces. The central government would not have all the power. It would be shared. And so we know now today certain things are under provincial jurisdiction, other things are under federal jurisdiction.

That's what a federal state means. So we are a federal state. And that's very important because as I go down the road here, you'll see how it raises its head and stops primary. Mr. Trudeau from doing what he tried to do back in 80. But I'm ahead of my story. So we were formed and in the BNA act that describes what powers are federal, what powers are provincial, how you create new provinces, how we're going to vote, how many districts there are in that country of four units and how it would get multiplied over time if others join. That's essentially

what it did. It set up the country and the courts, bank of Canada, and so on, being federal, and so on. And established a nation as a nation was known, and known that was not a bad job that way. Nothing in the BNA Act said a word about individual rights or freedoms, not a word, not a syllable. Zero about individual rights and freedoms. The United States, by contrast, was formed in 1776,

Only 14 years later, they had a bill of rights in their constitution. So the United States has enjoyed a bill of rights, a written, right, a written document in the Constitution of protecting rights and freedoms for individuals. So that's why they have this history that we see all the time on television and we hear about of, you know, standing up and fighting for their individual rights, including gun ownership, right? That was really important because the Americans never ever did because they came out of a revolution with anyone. We didn't. They didn't trust government,

nor did the founders of the United States Constitution, all throughout the Federalist papers. You'll hear from Madison and Jefferson and others, trying to protect us from the government. At the same time, having one, knowing that you needed to organize a society into something. but knowing all of the perils that they saw in history. They were great scholars, all these American founders.

They were great scholars. And all throughout their writings, have you ever tried to read federalist papers? There's nothing better to do. There's perhaps no better document to read in the world than this one to understand government and understand perceptions of government. Okay, so we were, if you will, from day one

at a decided disadvantage as it related to rights and freedoms for individuals. Okay. So we came through 1867 through 1900, all up through the First and Second World War and the Korean War and so on, without a written document which protected the rights and freedoms of you and me. What we had to rely on for that period of time, because that's the first question that will come up. Well, what's the way we were to rely on? We relied on British common law, some of which was pretty good, but it was unwritten. And so the interpretations could go pretty well.

And we also relied on custom and convention. So let's say in 1930 somebody was going to make an argument in a court that their rights were violated. They would, they have a lawyer go and look at common law and whether this situation applied in this particular common law situation, law of Britain situation or not, or whether there was any traditions grown up, customs, which were consistent since 1867, that the lawyer could use. Very, very important. So our constitution from 1867 until 1982 was the BNA Act, written, and then unwritten British common law and unwritten customs and conventions. Okay. That's what it consisted of. All through the 20th century, there were talks because we're right next to the United States about individual

rights and freedoms. We should really do something about that. You know, different scholars, different people mouthed in different organizations and in different political priorities from time to time. But now, it was very difficult to do. But in 1960, Prime Minister John Defenbaker from Saskatchewan, who became Prime Minister, of Canada introduced into the Parliament of Canada into the federal government a Bill of Rights. A lot of people talk about this and they get very confused about it. It was a Bill of Rights introduced into the federal parliament and therefore could only cover federal jurisdiction. Because the federal government hasn't got all the powers, some of the powers are with the

provinces like I explained. So this is what people don't understand. So he introduced this and to his everlasting credit, he identified all of these major freedoms and rights that individuals should have like they had in the United States. Okay, he did. So he should be given credit for that and whoever else was with him at the time. I met Mr. Deaconbaker before he died. I was in school or in early university when he came to Newfoundland one time and I went to

one of his speeches, one of his campaign rallies. What a great orator he was. Oh, man, he wanted to talk about a person holding audience. I learned a lot from him. He knew how to do it. He was a country lawyer in his early days. But he, I like country people. I'm a country guy.

I was born in the country, so I got a prejudice to words, that all that. So he's to be given credit for that. But it was only a federal. law in a federal parliament and therefore only applied to federal jurisdiction. It did not apply in all the provinces

and provincial jurisdiction, wherever provincial jurisdiction right, was. Like education is provincial, health is provincial. Wouldn't apply. A big population, a big section of the country. So I think most people will understand what I just

said. The other problem with it, being just a federal law, it could get changed easy. One, it was just, it just only covered certain people, not all of Canada, and two, it could easily be changed. And then after 60, more and more talk about, yeah, Bill of Rights is there, but we all know it only covers so many. And it's sort of temporary in the sense.

It can be changed by the whim of a political group that came in, right, and got majority. So this is not really good enough. Well, this is not like the U.S. The U.S. has it in their constitution. which is more permanent. Now, this is very important. These words I'm using right now, because they're coming back to haunt us today.

And so by 1980, and even before that, in the 60s and 70s, various people were talking about this and how could we change the Constitution. You know, we've got to go back to England to change the Constitution. So a lot of people

started to talk about patriation, which means bring the Constitution back to Canada and we won't have to go to London anymore to change our own Constitution. We'll sever our last ties with the other country and become completely sovereign. Up until 9, we weren't completely sovereign if you've got to get your constitution changed somewhere else. So what rose was the idea of patriating the Constitution, in other words, not having to go back to London anymore and at the same time could we get a bill of rights in the same act in the same action patriot and charter patriot and charter and so all of the first ministers in 1980 80 agreed and i was

premier of newfoundland at the time i became premier in 79 so i was there right from the start So it was agreed. First ministers were meeting on all the different subject matters between the province and federal government. And it was agreed that we would start to talk about bringing that constitution home and putting a constitution charter in at that same time. And so we started to talk seriously just on that in 1980.

And those talks went on for 17 months. Everybody forgets that. Everybody thinks this was done at the last minute because of what I'm going to say in a few minutes. But it was out for 17 months. But what happened? We thought we were making progress. But a number of provinces were suspicious of the federal government and especially Mr. Trudeau because of the way he operated. And well, we said, some of us said, well, okay, well, he's at the table now.

You know, we'll see how we get on. So we did have a list, I think it came down to a dozen, 12, 8. because if we're going to open the Constitution, the provinces also want it to strengthen their natural resource powers. They also wanted to take a look at equalization. They also want to take a look at Aboriginal rights. These are all part of what happened in 1982, that people forget about, because everybody just thinks about patriation and charter, which is all we'll concentrate on in a few minutes. But I want you to know it was more substantial than that, okay?

It had a lot of other stuff in there, important stuff for you and me. including what I just say, minority language rights as well, for example. Therefore, natural resources, Aboriginal rights, equalization for the poorer provinces. They were minority language rights. They were very, very crucial issues for everybody. When they had to provide education to somebody who's a minority, usually a French minority, right, under the Constitution. So what happened was, as we got to negotiate, the prime minister of care, Canada and some of these premiers were right, got up and left the table.

I can't negotiate with you guys. You're too difficult to negotiate. Some of the premiers had already said this was going to happen. I didn't think it was going to happen. I gave it the benefit of the doubt and let it go forward and a number of other premiers still. Anyway, he up and leaves the table and says, and this was all public. You can read this in the history.

Well, it's some of the history books who get it right. Someone get it wrong. So he not only left the table, he said, I'm going to unilaterally patriot the Constitution. And I'm going to unilaterally bring in a charter of rights and freedoms. Even though it will impinge upon the powers of the provinces and we're a federal state, I still think I can do this as the federal government. And I'm going to do it on my own because you're too difficult to know. negotiate with. And what did he do? He passed a bill in the House of Commons to do just that.

At that point, the provinces split. Eight provinces said, you can't do this, Prime Minister. Two provinces stayed with the federal government, New Brunswick and Ontario, stayed with the federal government. All the other eight said you can't do it. And we took them to court. And we selected three courts of appeal, court of Newfoundland, the court of Quebec, and court of Manitoba. Well, I'm just curious. Why would two of the provinces stick with Trudeau on that? Somehow they believed that the federal government could do this. And for the life of me, it's a really good question.

And hardly anybody's ever asked, by the way. It's an unbelievably good question because now we know how people get to believe stuff that's not true and not constituted. And Ontario and the Brunswick were in that boat at that time. We were flabbergasted. Now, we knew New Brunswick and Richard Hatfield at the time was the Premier, had a good relationship with the federal government. And we knew Ontario did too, who was Bill Davis at the time. But we never thought it was to that extent.

That would they be blinded to all of the things that happened since 1867 to 1980 when we started at the talk, which showed in custom and tradition that they couldn't do this. They had to consult with the provinces every other time. So this was really odd. But I guess I could put it down to perhaps mainly because they had a relationship with the federal government that the rest of us didn't have. You're hitting on when you use the term odd, usually it means nefarious reasons. And that can be equated to relationships and probably financial gainings and everything else.

Yeah, could very well be. But it's a really good question. And nobody's ever, none of the scholars writing since that, since 1980 has really concentrated on pursuing that line of thought. Why in the name of God, especially Ontario? The largest problems, huge bureaucracy, a lot of highly qualified lawyers and other people, people who were in that government who could rationalize doing what they did, staying with the federal government, but they did. Anyway, the three court cases went ahead, right? And it all ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada. At the last minute, Trudeau himself under a bit of pressure and knowing

that the provincial courts were not likely to rule in its favor decided this is so stupid really. I refer to the Supreme Court of Canada. Well, I was going to go to Supreme Court of Canada anyway from the three provinces. But okay, no, he gets in the act too now. So the Supreme Court of Canada decided they'll bring all four together. The three appeals from the provinces and the prime minister's reference,

all into one court action, okay, which was smart on their part. What I also should say that you'll be very interested in, because this bears directly on the, the finality of where we are now. This was a time, perhaps as the last time in our history, when the judges were friends of the law more than they were friends of the government. Isn't that a sentence?

You should say that one more time. Because the Chief Justice, Boris Laskin, was a really good friend of Trudeus and a number of the other judges. as a matter of fact, I mistakenly, and I don't know who ever said this in any other 30 or 40 big interviews like this one, I don't think I ever said it. Because things come to your mind, right, in the way you phrase it, the way we get into it, that never came to your mind before. I was at a number of cocktail parties by mistake in Ottawa, where I saw several of the judges in the prime minister together at the same cocktail parties shouldn't be. real. This is what was happening in not alone then even. But those judges, to their everlasting credit, were friends of the law first. And so when the decision, when they, all that stuff came to them from the provinces and federal government, they sat down and looked at it. And a beautiful judgment,

beautiful judgment. I read it now all the time, of course, because of all of this. On September 28th, 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, Mr. Trudeau, what you are trying to do is unconstitutional. You can't do it. Must have been a vindicating moment for you. Oh, you've got to have a majority of the provinces. They didn't quantify how many, but it had to be a majority. as it turns out in the amending formula that's part of the Constitution Act in 1980 because we had to put an amending formula.

How are we going to amend this in Canada? It comes down to seven out of ten provinces and 50% over 50% of the population. Okay, to amend it. It's almost weird to sit on this side, Brian, and get emotional over having that much trust in your court system and your government. But where we sit in the last two years we've gone through, I can't even describe in words half the time. I'm married to an American, right?

I can't even describe half the time of like, like, man, what is it going on here? Is it the most, like, you've been around a lot more years than I have. Did you ever think you'd be sitting here at 79 and seeing us just do what we're doing and acting like that document that took everything, obviously in the world to get signed and dotted and done to just be like, acted like it, it doesn't matter.

Like we can just. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I can't believe it. I can't believe it. The words that Carol, my wife and I use almost every day, when we talk about this and we do things like this and we're talking people on the phone and getting back to them and all that, you know, we're doing it. Like I said, from 8 to 11 every day, seven days a week.

Unbelievable is the word that we continue to use. We can't find another word. It's unbelievable what's going on. And from my point of view, it's like, you know, it is. What shall I soul destructive. It's soul destructive. So he lost in the courts. The eight provinces won.

Ontario and New Brunswick and the federal government had to take the tail between the legs. So the only way this could be pursued was back at the table. Yeah, which would make nothing but absolute sense. So back at the table we go. And so the Prime Minister stubbornly agreed, this is the kind of a guy he was, three days. We got to make it or break it.

That's it. So November 3rd, 4th and 5th of 1981, only two months after the court decision were sitting down with himself again. Third impasse, not a budge on the items, including the chart. all the day of the fourth. And the night of the third, which very few people know about, and when I'd mention it, I've never ever heard it mention again by anybody.

But it's true. It's fact. We said after the third, you know, this ain't going anywhere fast. This next two days don't look promising. So we sent a delegation, we being the group of people.

We sent a secret delegation to the prime minister. Who, through whom? Bill Vell. because he was on Trudeau's sign. So he got us to meet him. I guess he persuaded the Prime Minister to see us.

So whether all eight of us go, because that would have been too big. And with Levec there, it was part of a group of eight, you know, brimstones, you know, this like fire and water, right? And even with me and the Prime Minister, we didn't get along now. We didn't see Canada the same way. And we had battles the same as Levec did. And so we picked three premiers. I even forget, I hope it was, I think Nova Scotia was one.

And I think it was Bill Bennett and perhaps Peter Lahi. Okay, they were the premiers at the time. So small delegation of three to the prime minister, say, listen, prime minister, you know, we know you are on all these issues, you know when we are. How about we try to find some middle ground on a couple and brought up a couple of these issues where we would be willing to move? he was absolutely and totally no.

Not even a sliver or not even a crack of it on any issue. He was playing a real hard ball. Even now after the first day, we only had two days left. So that was very sad. And confirmed again. So how can you have much trust in the prime minister who leaves the table, tries to get what he wants through the courts, loses, comes back to the table.

table again and here he is acting like that. I mean, you wouldn't know, but he won't. You know, so that's how difficult this guy was. People don't understand that. They don't realize that. This guy was, you know, stubborn and wanted his way, come what may. So we went through the day of fourth. No much. Provinces presented a number of ideas. No much, including Saskatchewan. So in the afternoon of the fourth, I wrote down on a couple of pieces of paper where I thought, given what the Fed said during that day and what the provinces were saying, but there may be some compromise. And I showed it to my delegation around 6 o'clock on the 4th, after all the meetings were over that day. And that was a very hectic day.

There were meetings going on together and there were meetings going on in little rooms here. trying to get some friend of the prime ministers to, you know, break the ice, you know, through Bill Davis or Richard Hatfield or whatever using and saying where we were. No, no, no, no, no dice. So I showed this to my delegation, my deputy minister of vending government affairs, my minister of justice and so on that evening. And they said, you know, a, Pryor, you know, this, you might have something there. So they typed it up. And they looked at it again. They said, yeah, Well, you know, that doesn't, that looks like something. So I said, okay, let's see if we can get a hold of some of the group of eight and pass it by them.

So we got hold of Alan Blakely of Saskatchewan. And he was in the shadow lorier. We were staying in the four seasons. It is not a lot. So I sent two of my deputy ministers over as a trial balloon. It said, no good for me to get involved yet, right? We might have to make some hard decisions down the road. So keep her powder dry, see where we're going with this.

see what these people think. So Saskatchewan, we went to the Saskatchewan suite and we called BC and Premier Bennett sent his deputy minister along, his top deputy minister, Mel Smith along. And Peter Law, he sent Peter Mikulsson along his top deputy minister. Okay. So it was four of us, those three provinces and Newfoundland and we presented it to them. And after we explained after my two deputy minister, but they said, you know, this is worth a shot. They might have something here. So then we contacted the rest of the group of eight on the phone.

At some of the primers turn up, Premier Nova Scotia turned up, Premier of P-E-I turned up. And so we were, you know, we're getting there. Couldn't find Quebec. Come back to that. You'll get a great charge of this one. We couldn't find Quebec in their hotel rooms. We know what hotel they were in.

We went and knocked on the door and phoned them. They weren't in. Okay. So we couldn't get them. Now, in some of the books that was written afterwards, erroneously, and still in the history books, still in the Encyclopedia Canada, it was the Night of the Long Knives, where we went behind Quebec's back.

Our buddy in the group of eight, but we went behind their back. It was called the Night of the Long Nives. No dice. They weren't in there. They couldn't find them. We weren't trying to hide from anybody. Anyway, that left us seven of us. And through the night, with some amendments,

we had a deal by the seven. And we already had a breakfast meeting plan for the next morning. The group of eight met every morning at 8 o'clock during that negotiation automatically. So everybody said, okay, since you started this, Peckford, you present this proposal, get it re-typed to all of the eight first ministers at 8 o'clock because we all know we're going to meet them. So I did. So the next morning at 8 o'clock we all gathered, including Quebec. So Laheed went along to Quebec, and I did too.

I remember Lahad in particular, wanting to make sure that they saw all of this before we talked about it even. So he gave him a copy of it. This is Depeckford. He called it the Peckford document Laughey did. And this is in his books and everything. And all the minutes that he wrote up, the Alberta delegation, it's also in the BC delegation. minutes, okay? People try to discount where Newfoundland came in on this, hey? Why, I don't know. I still don't know to this day why they would want to discredit one province over another.

Who cares? You know, we got a proposal together. Anyway, so Lahi said, here it is, ready? Here's what we agreed to last night. All of the seven provinces agreed. I should have been there. I should have. How come we were, you were contacted and you weren't in. They were over and hull. across the river having a late dinner. I had that confirmed me later by the way from members of the delegation as late as 2012. I was at a meeting in 2012 or I was explaining it was an anniversary of the charter or whatever and I was down in Montreal at the University of Montreal. This guy came along to me And this is when I started to make all of this public. That what was in books was wrong.

This is what really happened. Anyway, this professor accosted me at the meeting at the university and said, Mr. Peckford, Mr. Preamer, sir. And I said, yes. He said, is there any chance me getting together with you? And I said, absolutely. He said, well, there's a luncheon tomorrow. And he said, we can meet a luncheon of my confrars.

And he said, some of these people here are going to be added. perhaps if you haven't already gotten an appointment, you can come to this. And I said, I'll be there. So I was there. So he took me aside in the little alcove of the restaurant and looked me straight in the eye. And I haven't told this story, by the way, either. Look me straight in the eye and he says, Mr. Beckford. You're right. We were in Hall having dinner. There was nobody in the hotel rooms and you're telling the truth. and I want you to know. He had never had the guts to do it publicly, but he wanted me to know

that he knew I was telling the truth. That's the only reason. Yeah, that was the only reason. Must have been awfully nice as we cut each other off here three times. It must have been awfully nice to be a little bit vindicated, even though you knew it to be true for somebody to admit it on the other side. Yeah, absolutely. We're funny human beings, aren't we?

know, I sit here. I, you know, the kids will think I'm old at 35, and I'm sure you stare at me and go, you young, you young buck, and, you know, I fall somewhere in the middle, obviously. You are clarifying that politics has been this difficult, this odd for a very, very long time. And we have been fighting this game for not just a couple decades, and certainly these two years have been spectacularly, odd, but this has been going on for hundreds of years. And it's just you talking. I'm hearing it.

Yeah. So then I got approved by seven of the eight. Quebec said, no, we're not going to go along because they still had their concerns about jurisdiction and stuff. You know, they're normal concerns because they thought they were different and should have a special place in Canada and all that. So they couldn't sign them. So they objected, but it was seven out of eight, pretty big majority. And I got and they voted to say, we're going ahead with this to the full first meeting in an hour.

So and Brian, you're going to present it. You're no one who started this. You don't want to solve through the night with the rest of them. And now you brought it to this meeting. It's all approved as was it was last night. We didn't change. They didn't change the word. And so I took the document and that later, an hour or two later when the prime minister and

all the first ministers from meeting, including Ontario and the Brunswick, I presented it. And within three or four hours, we had the deal. The Constitution Act at night, well, it was called in the Patriation Act of 1981. It became called the Constitution Act of 1982, because that's when it was brought into the legislature, into the House of Commons in Ottawa from one last time. Okay. So it got changed in name, but it's the same thing. Patriation Act of 1981 is the Constitution Act of 1982.

in which the patriation was, in other words, we don't want to go back to London anymore. We're totally sovereign nation and the Charter Rights and Freedoms, plus those other issues that I mentioned to you earlier. Okay, so that is how it happened. Seventy months, prime minister breaking off, going to the House of Commons,

getting his own legislation, we take him in the court, him losing, us winning, back to the table, finally got a deal. Okay, that's not what happened. Long, torturous, process of intrigued and mistrust because when anybody leaves a table and tries to go and do it on their own, you can't have too much faith in them. That's why it was really difficult those three days,

because the provinces didn't trust the federal government. And of course, federal government never trusted us ever, especially true. But we didn't get the deal. And the prime minister actually admitted outside of the building that day with a press scrum that I was, was partly a part of and he turned turned and they said well he said how do you get it done he said you have to look to this man over here without his proposal he said this we would not have a deal today trudo said that himself here's here's a dumb question before we go any further then uh brian obviously you played a beyond pivotal role in that what was it about that situation where I assume a lot of the provinces and obviously the federal government,

federal government by the sounds of it, didn't give one rat's ass, and whether this thing went through or not. The provincial members, I assume by the way you talk, that I would say a lot of them gave up hope. What gave you, I don't know if it's what gave you, but why did you look at it optimistically and still try and push through it? Does that make sense? Because, I mean, obviously you did something that nobody,

thought was possible even after the first day. Exactly. Well, I think seven out of the eight, I don't know about Reni Levec, although I think he understood it too. His delegation did, his delegation. The other thing is, I think if Reni was there on his own, he would sign. Rennie was captured by two people, Jacques Parrazo and Claude Moran. Jack Parasot later became premier of Quebec, very, very, very.

bright, intelligent man, misguided, but very bright, very smart. And Claude Morin, who was a deputy minister, once again, extremely well educated, very bright, but very misguided, but we're very smart. He never can deny Quebec's ability to have a very strong public service of unbelievably bright people. the kind of people who would know just as much about your province as you knew they were smart okay

very smart I found those in China later when I was premier when I went to China as a delegation from just a province of Newfoundland and some business people but the Chinese before we even got there knew more about us of who we were

than we knew ourselves. They could talk to me about a fish plant in San Anthony Newfoundland. Their intelligence was amazing. Well, Quebec was like that in Canada. You can never discount their unbelievable ability to understand and know the information about another problem. Very smart. So like I say, I think Levec would have signed on his own basis. I knew him really well.

He was a really good guy, except for that business of this. Separate from Canada or get a special deal. Otherwise, he was extremely trustworthy and unbelievably knowledgeable himself. Very knowledgeable person. Not only about Canada, but about the world. Viciously, encyclopedia. You could all mention any place in the world, and he could start a speech and tell you all about that country or that island, just like that.

Boom. fantastic. So just a sideline for you. But that afternoon, I think all of us understood that this was history. We didn't do something now. The chances of getting done the next 40 or 50 years were quite remote.

We're that close, but we haven't got to close. And I think when I brought that thing to the others that night, they realized it too. We knew we're into a very historic moment. See, federal law, what people don't understand, federal law is one thing. Provincial law is one thing. Constitution is something completely different.

Canadians still don't understand the difference between national and federal and provincial. They often think national is a synonym for federal, and it's not. The only thing that's national in this country is the Constitution. It applies to all Canadians. Charter rights and freedoms. It applies to all Canadians.

Makes no difference whether it's federal or provincial. Okay. So this was when you're talking about, and if you read about the United States Constitution and you read constitutional scholars, you'll find this. Constitution equals permanence. right? Constitution equals permanent values.

It is what really establishes the country and gives it this meaning, not only who got this power and who got that power, but gives its meaning as a nation. The soul of the nation is the Constitution. This is what people miss today. So, okay, here we go. Charter Rights and Freedals. What did it do for Canadians?

four, four parts of the charter, which applies to every single Canadian, every snowflake is different, every individual is different. This applies to every single person in this country. Section two, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, enshrined in our most sacred document. And then two other parts of section two, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, neither which we have today, were prevented from honoring our own constitution, our own freedoms of assembly and association. Section 6, mobility. Every Canadian has the right, has the right to try.

travel anywhere in this country or leave this country. Those are the words in Section 6. They had the right to travel anywhere in this country or leave this country. And another part of that same act of that same Section 6, the right to pursue a livelihood anywhere in this country. The city I live in right now is just bringing in a mandate to force. all their employees and subcontractors to be vaccinated. Otherwise, they don't have a job.

Taking a right away, your right to pursue your livelihood. Taking away your right to pursue a livelihood. I wrote the mayor and councilor council last night telling them that they were breaking the law. These are sacred rights. Then, section seven, we didn't even stop there. That's pretty good. What we got there so far. How about this one? Section 7. The right to life. The right to life. Liberty and the security of the person. No jabs unless I agree. No coercion. Security of the person. You have that right security of the person. It's yours. You own your body. You own you. Nobody else owns you.

And then we topped it off at Section 15, which says every person in Canada is equal before the law. Wow. I'm not equal before the law right now, certain places in parks, well, I can't go into it, I can't go into it. That others have the right to go into. My equality right is being destroyed by the government. right those are the four magical important freedoms and rights that canadians are supposed to be able to enjoy even today because it's in the constitution it's in the constitution section 52 of the constitution act says the following the constitution is the supreme law of the country i'm not

making this up. Anybody can go and read it. Section 52 of the Constitution Act in 1982 in one line, put in the Constitution Act of 19802 and bring it up and scroll down to 52, and there it is. What does that mean? That means that every single law in Canada, federal or provincial, is subservient, secondary to the Constitution. So when somebody talks to me about, oh, well, if the province put in an emergency act, sorry, it's secondary to the charge. You must satisfy the charter first before you can bring that in. And you have not satisfied the charter. Human rights code.

Sorry, that's a rabbit hole. Stick with the elephant. Don't go chasing the rabbit. Human rights codes are provincial or federal. They're not national. They're not part of the Constitution. That's what the Constitution is the Supreme Law of Canada. It's over all of these two jurisdictions.

It forms the nation. The nation is not one or the other. the nation is both together, fused together, right? This is why a lot of people can't seem to get to their heads. We're talking about a nation here and everybody in that nation being equal. That's what we're talking about. So getting in the feuds, and I was a strong provincial rights person, but I know the difference between being a strong provincial rights person and the nation.

That's why I agreed to the Charter Rights and Freedom. That's why I agreed to the Constitution Act in 1980, and gave up some of my fights over fishery, which we should have more say over as a province. For the good of the country. That's why I'm here today. Thankfully, I'm still alive. I wish I only wish there's at least one more First Minister still alive

to be able to advocate this what I'm advocating today. And then what everybody forgets, judges, the judges who have decided at lower court so far that the charter, that the governments are abiding by the charter, Totally wrong. They got it completely wrong. The first words of the chart are, whereas Canada is founded on the principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law. After that sentence, it's not a period. It's not a comma. It's not a semicolon. It's a colon, meaning everything after follows.

Everything comes after this and comes under that umbrella. The judges today to have decided on matters that involved the Charter haven't even mentioned supremacy of God and the rule of law in the context of it being at the beginning of the charter, and therefore they're bound. They don't have a choice. They're bound to interpret whatever else comes after in the context of the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

How about that, Mr. Judge? How about that, Mr. Premier? How about that, Canadians? And until it's removed, it's there. And it has to be acknowledged. They're bound by law the judges are. But some of them have actually ignored it in these early decisions out of BC and Manitoba. Now, here's the cruncher.

And I've gone on a lot longer, haven't I? I'm enjoying it. Please continue. And I'll try to be as short as I can and give you a chance to ask any questions. But this is really important for you and the people who are listening or watching us today. Here's the cruncher. Section 1 of the Charter. Everybody talks about Section 1.

And this gives all of the governments the out they need to do what they're doing now in violating the Charter. Well, I had to inform all those people that I was there, number one. And here's what Section 1 meant. It meant that, yes, there was the possibility for you to override this. But it was the intent of me and all of those who were at that table that it was in the context of the state being in peril, war, insolidate. direction or the state was that the existence of the state was that state. That's why it was in the Constitution. Remember when I talked about permanence?

You know, the whole idea of putting these rights and freedoms in there is that it was going to be very difficult to get them out. Very difficult to override. Okay. That's the whole idea. Otherwise, otherwise, we would have put it in federal legislation and provincial legislation and see you around boys. It was all done. The whole reason for putting the Charter Rights and Freedans in the Constitution was to protect them. So this section one doesn't even apply because we don't have a war.

We don't have an insurrection. We don't have the state in peril. When 99% of the people recover from a virus and 0.08 fatality rate, that's hardly an insurrection or a war or the state being in peril. And if you want to add to that the science of the masks being absolutely useless, the PCR only working 5% at the time, that there are more, the cure is worse than the disease from numerous studies that have been done all over the world, that the lockdown measures haven't worked.

There are lockdown countries that got way more mortality than countries that didn't have any lockdowns. So there's no evidence at all to show on the science that they're on the right side of history. either. But on the side of the Constitution, they're completely off base. They're trying to squeeze a square peg in a round hole. They're trying to make it fit when it doesn't fit because it wasn't even intended for this kind of situation. And remember, if they get away with this, by declaring an emergency on something that has no signs backed up to it, then the charter is no

more. Because the next time something happens, they can declare an emergency and use this as a precedent and the judges will accept that precedent. So we're at the crossroads now, whether we're going to continue to be a democracy with individual rights and freedoms or not. Secondly, and here's the tension for you, I'm a fair man. I'm a reasonable guy. I will take you on. Okay, let's say section one does apply.

Mr. Pringer, Newfoundland, Nova Scotian, New Brunswick, P.E.I, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchew and Alberta, and British Columbia and the territories. I'll go along with you. For argument's sake, I'll go along with you. I'll debate you that even if Section 1 applies, you haven't met the four tests. There are four tests in Section 1.

Demonstrably justify by law, reasonable limits, consistent with the free and democratic society. Mr. Premier, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Territory Leader, Mr. Mayor, Madam Mayor, none of you have demonstrably justified the measures you brought in. What does demonstrably justify me? I remember when we talked about this, justify, and some of us wanted to make it stronger. That's why demonstrably justifies them there. In public policy, demonstrably justify means, and nobody has ever took me on on this to say I'm wrong, means you've got to show that the benefit

outweighs the cost in the initiative that you're bringing forward, that it's better to do this than not do it, a cost benefit analysis. Governments do it all the time. I did it when I was bringing. So the first thing they should have done that they were going to bring in measures that were going to encroach upon our rights and freedoms was to demonstrably justify what they're doing. No government has done one study, one report, one cost-benefit analysis that demonstrably justify what they're doing. Number two, test number two, by law. If this is so different and so important governments, then it takes a new law. You can't start issuing regulations on existing laws because those existing laws apply to another situation, not this situation.

This you're always telling us is unique that this is in the public interest and all the rest of them. Well, then you should have introduced a new law. You did not do that. Number three, reasonable limits. Where's the reasonable limits when every couple of months you're changing the regulations, amending them, amending them, changing this way, making them stronger, taking more rights away? There's no reasonable limits here. You're not setting any reasonable limits.

You're just breaking the limits whenever you want to. And number four, all of that has to be done within the context of a free and democratic society. What does free and democratic society means? It means parliaments should be involved. We are a parliamentary democracy. Free and democratic society in Canada means a parliamentary democracy, written into a constitution, written into everything we do. Parliament should be open and the other 13 parliaments should be open.

And these governments should have to present their proposals to these parliaments, have a parliamentary committee, have people studied. bring an experts from both sides to see what's really necessary to do here. And if they had done that, we would have had the Great Barrington Declaration, whereby we targeted the vulnerable. We targeted those that had core morbidities. We targeted the old. We would have provided vitamin D to everybody so that they wouldn't even have to go to hospital if they got the virus. We did none of that. We panicked. We jumped the gun. And by the way, The other thing on these four tests where they're out the lunch is every single province has an emergency measures organization that was completely ignored.

It was thrown out the door. Throwing out the door. And that's the one that looks at the whole society, not a few clinical doctors behind closed doors in the Department of Health narrowly talking about, right, clinical things that would talk about the whole society and how if we did this, how much impact that would have on delayed surgeries, on delayed appointments. to specialists, how many people would die, how many people would lose their jobs, how many suicides would occur, and all the rest of it. We would have had a policy based upon the totality of the information, not just a narrow thing. So my argument is, pre-niors, territorial leaders, prime minister, number one, in my view,

section one, because I was there, the intent was not for it to apply to something like this. But if you want to argue with me, I'll take you on. You didn't need the test in any case. You didn't meet the test in any case. So what you're doing is unconstitutional, and you should be brought to heel for. I rest my case. All right.

Well, here's where I'm going to hop in. Because you hit a line in there that kind of has unnerved me, and I'm going to try and back you up so that you can talk to it a bit. You said they're going to use this situation if we don't correct it as precedence. That means in the future, anytime anything that is deemed a threat to the state or what have you, they can put us right back in this shit. show, pardon the French. Now, this is what I, I'm trying to wrap my head around, Brian. I think at two years in, we can all stare at the situation and go, this isn't good. I think 80% of the population understands that, maybe more. You're sure there's a part of the population that wants tougher, stricter lockdowns, I think this is the worst thing. It's the boobonic plague. I don't know.

But most of us are like, how do we get out of this? Half the, half of that group, maybe a bit more want to believe the government has the best ideas and that in a few months it'll all go away and will be fine and just carry on and get your shot and whatever. The other part of us is going, no, this is, we are sliding fast. And I sit here and I hear that line and I go, okay, how do we avert that? What can we do to avert using this precedent so that my kids inherit something that, that should never have ever happened happening to them in the future. How do we avert this?

At this point, I think perhaps it will take civil disobedience on the political level. If thousands were out in the street every day and every provincial capital on every Saturday for the next five Saturdays, I think the governments would be forced to remove all of these things. But some of this stuff is still in the court. But if that was done, if that was done, here's two scenarios. If that was done, every provincial capital and every tutorial capital, every weekend, there were thousands. I'm talking about in some cases, in the bigger cities, tens of thousands of people out at the parliament buildings. You've got to stop this.

What you're doing is wrong. Like they did in Amsterdam like yesterday. You might get the government's change your mind. And hold on for it. The judges who've already ruled, forget them because they're. they rule, they can unrule, but they're superiors. The courts of appeal of the provinces and the Supreme Court of Canada might be shaken up to understand the charter and to honor its principles like I've talked about.

That's one route. The other route, and this is where it really gets scary, the other route is, here's what's likely to happen. There's not the civil disobedience. It's in the courts now. It's in the courts of BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario for sure. It might get in some of the other courts. Here's what's likely to happen. That around four provinces, courts of appeal, are likely to hear this going to be appealed to them.

And in those four provinces, they will, the chief judges, the chief justice will choose, perhaps. three or four members to sit to hear this appeal. Four times four is 16. Nine on the Supreme Court of Canada, 25. It's likely that the fate of our democracy lies in the hands of 25 people. So if people get out on the streets. Let me ask your question, Brian. Let me, I'm, okay. I've been thinking about this because I see what you're doing with taking back our freedoms. So the group you've assembled there. I've interviewed now almost everyone on your board. You know, Julie Pinesse, Dr. Alexander, Corporal Bulford, Hodgkinson, Payne, you know,

not all of them, but a chunk of them. Have you ever? I look at it and I go, I think for my audience, they've made their decision on whether they got vaccinated or unvaccinated. They weighed the risk, reward, benefit, whatever we want to go. And they did what they did. Where we're sitting right now is if we don't do something quick, you're talking about there's no coming back. I think when I hear that, I go, you said there's like two options. One is we put the fate of our nation and 20 people where we can't for sure know they're going to be like, no, like this is ridiculous. We're seeing what's

going on right now. It is ridiculous. If you put a gun to my head, and that's probably a poor frame of reference, but whatever, and said, Sean, you want to save society, the next five Saturdays you protest the hell out of it in front of your parliament building. You'd have, in my opinion, hundreds of thousands of people out doing that. Because people want, they want the solution. and the solution you're giving me more of a solution than I've heard in two years which is like civil disobedience

it doesn't mean go burn down the parliament it means you have to be vocal you have to be vocal you have Martin Luther King Mahatma Gandhi Martin Luther King Martin Luther King Mahatma Gandhi this is part of our democracy civil disobedience now

one of the problems we've had is within the group that are on my side because some of the lawyers have more or less said the game is over. And I come back at them and say it's in the second period. The game is not over and I use a hockey metaphor, which you would be very familiar with. It's in the second period. We're getting close to the end of the second period. We've got the whole third period to go because the courts of appeal haven't heard it and the Supreme Court of Canada hasn't heard it.

So for you to pronounce a conclusion based upon a law. lower court, even in Manitoba, most Canadian sing when the court of the Queens bench rules. That's the top court. Well, what I appreciate, what I appreciate about you, Brian, is that in the second period when most would have thought it was game over, you went back to the hotel room, wrote it down and went, we can make something. We have to. And I sit here and I am like, we have to.

Otherwise, my kids inherit this. Everybody's kids inherit this. and this messes are making. I mean, whether it was nefarious or whether it's just incompetence, it doesn't matter. It's sitting right there. I know several lawyers who've told me it's over. It's like, well, then you're not my lawyer.

I want a new lawyer. I want somebody who's not going to give up. And that's what we have to dig into. And I think that energy is everywhere. Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I couldn't agree more. So therefore, guess what I wrote a letter then to the National Post

to respond to, to the professor who had the doom and gloom one in the week before, who writes in the National Post quite often. And whom, by the way, I wrote letters to over the last couple of years before this started, saying, I really appreciate your columns because you're standing up for individual rights and freedoms. He suddenly went sour and took this very gloomy approach just because two lower courts in British Columbia and Manitoba had ruled against us before the game was over. And like I was saying, most Canadians think when you hear of Manitoba, right, Queen's Bench, that's the top court in Manitoba.

No, it's not. Court of Appeal is the highest court. This was on the way up to the Court of Appeal. So not even the highest court in Manitoba is not even the highest court in British Columbia. That's why the game is not over. If we want to get out there and be public so that the judge is here that there's a lot of Canadians who understand the Constitution, there's a lot of Canadians, you know, know, the judges are human too. And they're likely to go where they think the tide is. Well, we got to get the tide to be one which says, we want you to honor everything that's

in that constitution like we're supposed to. We want you to honor the supremacy of God. We want you to honor the rule of law. We want you to honor our freedoms and rights as identified in two, six, seven, and 15. Thank you very much, sir. That's what we want you to do. So we can do it. So I've often, in the last week I've been talking about out loud to actually doing up a two or three page brief because I can do it. I can condense it's pretty good now. I've been at a salon, as you can tell. I can just do it right out of my head.

It's all in all I have it all in my head. I haven't got anything written down here today. Well, this is why history is so important. And your stories are so important, right? I think they are. I think it's history. And I think they're very, very important. And that's why I know it.

When you're when you really like something or you're really interested in something, you'll remember. Well, that's like me. I remember this stuff. I don't forget. Right. It's up here. And nobody's going to dislodge it. It can't be dislikes.

Right. And so we have that little slimmer of hope still there. It's all it's needed. That's all it's needed. That's all that needs. And we can change it. We can change anything if we want to. And so therefore, that's where we are right now.

and I only hope that, you know, as I continue down this role with these kinds of interviews over the next weeks, because I'm here. Here's here's here's here's here's something that I've been saying now for a month or two is in my opinion the energy to talk to do what you're talking about is there. I can I can rattle off probably five or six groups that have thousands if not tens of thousands of people in them. that want things to change. Just don't know how to make us change. Like I sit here and I talk to, you're the first person to say, listen, maybe it's 10 weeks every Saturday. I don't know.

But if that's what it takes, that's what it takes. We're talking about 10 Saturdays and we get things back on the road. You're the first person to say that to me. First, I've been doing this now for six months. Nobody could give me,

I don't know. I don't know the way out. Well, I'm telling you right now, right? that what I would love to see out of taking back our freedoms and you know I've had Nadine Nesson so United Grassroots and I was just talking to Jacqueline

from families for freedom out of Calgary, Alberta country and then there's kids sake here in Lloydminster and the list just goes on you know free to fly as a group out of Ontario there's just all these things they've got thousands of people that want to support that have all this energy

that don't want to be the people that go and burn down the building they just they don't know where to put their energy and i look at it and i go under your leadership and your guidance all these groups that are formed another one is uh canadians for truth joseph borgoan's statute all these little groups that are doing wonderful things in their communities if we all came together and pushed the combined effort into showing our politicians that no more no more like this is we're not putting up with this anymore you're just You're taking away our freedoms and we can't accept them.

Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. But it'll have to be more than me. That's the only thing. I mean. But it is more than you. Here's the thing.

It is more than you. Exactly. I'm telling you right now, it's way more than you. It's just that you have the knowledge base that so few have. Hell, you're the only guy left. Was that the document signing, right? Like, I mean, how many people could say that? I can't say that.

I wasn't even alive when the document signed. I say this all the time is I'm so young. in my life that like it's been good this is the first time where I'm like holy once again pardon the French

apologize to all the listeners because I know a few of you don't love it when I swear but I mean like this is unprecedented I'm just like holy shit like this is the first time we've been pressed

and lots of people are just like ah it's not that big a deal like honestly what's the big deal and I'm like what's a big deal like you know I want to get back to the lake I want to do things like that. I do. But right now, I look at this and I go, this is so much bigger than my life. It's not even funny. And I hear you talk and how much effort went into getting that document there. I've heard Redmond talk about people coming from different countries because of that document and what it means for the person. And we're just giving it away. And the one line that we could, this situation that we're sitting in right now that everybody hates could be used at precedence to do it again and again and again for the rest of time. She's scared the

shit out of anyone listening to this. Your kids have no guarantee that they will have any individual freedoms in a constitution or any rights in the constitution if this is allowed to stand. Any government can declare emergency and it's like 80% chance of getting

it all approved. So this is crucial, historic and this is what people got to understand. They've got to understand the gravity situation because, again, I come back to the point. We're not talking about the federal law. We're not talking about provincial law, we're talking about the

Constitution, which is the national law. That's what they've got to understand. This is permanent values in a constitution. That's why the Americans that part of America, right? And it's the longest surviving democracy in the world.

America is, the United States is. For all the faults and all its evils and all the rest of it. And the mouse of course, always loves to look at the elephant and try to tear it down. But nevertheless, they do. had a very precious document. And thankfully, the Supreme Court

on the United States a couple of days ago told Joe Biden that he can't go ahead with that mandate for the business community of the United States over 100 employees. And so look about the talk about what can you do. Governor DeSantis is the

example for all of us. He's for all of us. This guy, I listened to his state that the state addressed the other night. He's not only doing it tearing down the mandates, right? Tearing down the lockdowns and allowing people are free. His giving parents a bill of rights for their school.

Parents will have to see the curriculum before it goes in, the schools. The new guy in Virginia just did it. He did about 11 executive orders in two days. Mandate's gone. Lockdowns gone. You can't put critical race theory in the classroom. Sorry. Parents, you're going to have rights back into your say in the curriculum.

that your kids are going to learn. You have a saying. So here's two guys in America that are showing the way towards what freedom really means. And you can protect your society when things come along on the medical side. You can protect your society

and come along on the insurrection side with your law and order. And you can have a decent and beautiful place to live. That's why everybody is fleeing to South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Texas. and Arizona and down into Florida. We have friends left, gone.

One couple are in South Dakota right now. They love it there. They can't believe it. When they cross the border in the United States, especially when they went into Idaho, Washington State and Oregon is more like Canada. But when they went into Idaho, everything was free. So it can be done because it is being done.

The examples are there. We don't have to look very far on our own continent. So this guy dissent us and this lady in South Dakota, the guy in Nebraska the other day, because he had kept his state open, had a $1.5 billion surplus. And he turned around and announced immediately. I took that from the people in Texas. I'm now going to give it back because I don't need it. So the money is going back to the people where it should go. Now that's what you call freedom.

Wow. We've discussed this lots. I'm a sketched just lived just slightly in Alberta but I'm a sasky boy at heart and I love both provinces. They both been very good to me. But we keep saying

if Kenny or Mo would just stand up and open things up, everyone would flee there in Canada because everybody wants it. Absolutely, you're dead right. You're dead right. Everybody would flee there. Are they going to get harassed?

Yes. But you're getting harassed either way. And in the meantime, you're losing everything that made us who we are. Exactly. Exactly. And you're on the side of right. You're on the side of this street. And everybody back a year and a half ago, two years ago, including me, I have to admit, thought that Kenny and Mo would never do what they did. We thought there were two shining

lights that would stand up for the charter, that they would fight to the death to not bring in mandatory this and mandatory day or lackdowns here, that they would, learn from Florida, that they would learn from Sweden, that you can do these things in a different way. Like David Redmond says all the time, yes, we're not saying throw the sick or throw the virus to the winds. We're saying there's a more better alternative way of early treatment and treat the vulnerable and you will still be able to run your society. A balanced approach with some options that allows to protect your most vulnerable. vulnerable, but doesn't expose kids to the everything we put them through and continue to put them through. Wait a second. There are our future. What problem? Like, it just is unbelievable

that we have to sit here two years into this and still debate this in this country. Yeah. How long have we got? Two hours, one hour and... Yeah, an hour and a half. Now, you told me if we got into something just to let it go. So I just let it go. I won't hold you much longer. We'll slide into the Crude Master final question. I would keep you for a few extra, but we've been going long enough and we started out at 30, 35 minutes and we've gone long enough now. Well, not long enough for me. I'll go forever.

But I shout out to Heath and Tracy McDonald for support in the podcast since the very beginning. Here's your question. If you could do this with anyone in Canada, I think Canada's, ah, heck, if you want to to be anywhere else. Who you think sitting down with that's still alive to pick their brain would be worthwhile to sit and talk with? I'd like to hear your interview Preston Manning. I don't know where he is today. Why Preston Manick? Because he was such a strong supporter of individual rights and freedoms. His whole movement was about that as well as about, you know, there being a genuine federation in the country, right,

and government's only doing what governments need to do. You know, so he was, you know, lower taxes, small government, freedom rights, provinces exercising the jurisdiction they have under the Constitution. So he was for all those kinds of things. The only person in Canada now, who's on the national scene at all, who stands for what I stand for is Maximum Bernier. I campaign for them. I left the Conservatives over two years ago now, my wife and I,

because they so disgusted us when Andrew Shear took our money and paid, helped pay, put his children in private school, that was the end for me. Besides, I had written them, I don't know how many times the party, and nobody ever got back to them. Nobody ever got back to me. And that was in writing, actual mail the letters and other things that they did. completely sacrificed their principles as conservatives and became a very mainstream liberal

party so i i can't support them anymore and they've double crossed me on how many times on policy it's not even funny so they're they're they're like a they're they're like uh they're always dancing right and always trying to use phrases to ensure they're on both sides of the issue when they're not they're not even on the issue at all that case because i'm trying to be on both sides of it they're not clean. They're not clear. They're not categorical. They're all over the met. And I'm sorry, I like to be clean, clear and categorical. Here's what I stand for. That's me. Always have been. I always have been. I took on the prime minister and everything lost in the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm the only first minister in the history of Canada, I think, has gone to the Supreme Court of

of Canada three times, fighting for my rights, for my province's rights. So, So somebody said to me some while ago, a really good lawyer, by the way, but he didn't know me very well at the time. But he said to me, he said, you're not a lawyer, are you? And I said, no, I'm not. And he meant it as a real hit on me, right? He's trying to put the knife in nice. I said, but I said, you may not know much of my history. No, he said, I do not. I said, well, I just told him. I just told you, I was in court, up to court three times. And I said, in other words, in the 10 years that I was bringing, every week, there were lawyers in my office. And I said, I'm not a slow learner. And I got a good memory.

So I said, I learned at the feet of some of the top international lawyers in the world. Because I said, I hired them, not only in Canada, not only the United States, but from Scotland, from Australia, from the United States, from whatever they had the most expertise on that subject. and I questioned them and I talked to them and I discussed with them. And those issues were so important to me. I don't forget them. And I had a minister of justice. This really took this guy. I said I had a minister of justice who was a graduate of Sorbon,

who was a graduate of McGill and a graduate of Cambridge. He did his honors in law while sitting down in the legislature of Newfoundland. And he went for his final exam, which was an interview with the top Cambridge professors in law to see whether he was worthy. He had done all of the coursework sitting down in the legislature in Newfoundland. He could speak seven languages fluently. This was my minister of justice.

And when he went over to Cambridge and sat down and they started to interrogate him and and try to cross him up on law and inter all the stuff that he was supposed to know. They got into the second hour, the three of them looked at one another and said, we have an adjournment and they adjourn and went out of the room and had a recess, and then came back in 15 minutes later, and one spoke for the three. You have an honors degree in law from Cambridge because you know more about the subject matter we were discussing a few minutes ago than we know. And I had a minister of energy who later became on the court of appeal of Newfoundland.

So I had to explain to this guy. That's why I'm so passionate about all these things, because I learned at the feet of some of the best, the giants in the law, not only in Canada, around the world. And I learned it the hard way through osmosis, through experience.

So I take a back seat to nobody when it comes to the charter. Well, I would say I'm learning. the hard way. I'm learning at the feet of all of you who come on this show and get to impart me with wisdom and my audience with a lot of wisdom because these conversations are desperately needed to happen all across Canada so that people understand where we sit, why we sit where we are, and how to get out of it, because we all want out of this. Yeah, and that's why I did this one with you today. Because I did one this morning. I'll be

doing more every day, every day of the week, ongoing. And going down to Victoria for a big rally down there on January 29th. We've got a big rally at the legislature steps. Organized by a new group down there, we unify their call. People who stop their jobs, just organize and see what's going on. They grab people around your age, okay, around your age. So I was magnificent. So I'm going down to that, right?

And they're going to shake up things a bit. So yeah, I'm about I'm about my government's business is trying to save our nation And there are a lot of people around Like you like these people I just mentioned Who are doing it too So let you and me

In our own corners of the world Continue to fight this Absolutely Brian Well I appreciate you coming on It's a huge honor in my My shoes where I sit To sit across from a guy who's done so much for the country to have had an impact.

And then to be able to just speak to it so openly and freely with such a knowledge base is just, honestly, it's super cool for me. I'm a history guy. And understanding, I think a lot of, I don't know, I went to school in the States, got my bachelor's of history in the States. And I just always found American history so much, you know, the wars and everything and how they fought for it. It just seems, I don't know the word, but it always attracted me more than Canadian history. And hearing you break down and understanding this country how we came to be it, man, I think if there's anything we can hopefully do moving forward, it's got to be imparted on our kids and everyone else, why this is so important.

Regardless, I appreciate you hopping on the show and giving me some of your very valuable time. And I hope to cross past with you in the future. Absolutely. And honor to you for having me on, an honor for you for your openness and your ability to. Be so concerned about your future. Keep it up. Don't relent. Don't relent.

Don't give up. And guess what? I'll promise you. I won't either. Thanks, Brian. Hey, thanks. Hey, folks. Thanks for tuning in today.

I hope you enjoyed it. I hope you learned some things. I certainly got some things to chew on here. And I really appreciate Mr. Peck for giving me some of his time. Man, just such a cool story. You know, like history. live and live in color, so to speak, right? Like to hear it right from his mouth,

the only guy that's left from when they did the negotiations and everything else. Just like such an interesting story and so timely. I mean, we need to know more and more about what we have as freedom and rights and everything else as individuals here in Canada. And I thought it was just perfect. Now, it is the weekend. It is Friday. wherever you are, I hope you have a great day.

And go kick some ass this weekend, enjoy some family time, and maybe some friend time, whatever you got. Make sure you put a smile on your face, be kind, and we will catch up to all of you Monday.