The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 221. Canadian Constitutional Crisis | Brian Peckford

Episode Date: January 27, 2022

To support this action https://www.jccf.ca/donate/As an alternative for those who would rather listen ad-free, sign up for a premium subscription to receive the following:*All JBP Podcast episodes ad-free*Monthly Ask-Me-Anything episodes (and the ability to ask questions)*Presale access to events*Premium, detailed show notes for future episodesSign up here: https://jordanbpeterson.supercast.comWe posted this discussion start to finish in uncut form to maintain full and complete transparency, given its import. It was recorded on January 25th, 2022 and released the next day.Link to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms press release:https://www.jccf.ca/the-charters-only-living-signatory-sues-canada-over-travel-mandates/Information on how to support the JCCF in this matter:https://twitter.com/JCCFCanada/status/1486446844490231811?s=20Brian Peckford and I discussed his reentry to the political arena after denouncing the Canadian Government for infringements on the Canadian Charter of Rights--a document he played a key role in drafting. In this intense conversation, Peckford outlines a combined plan of action against the Canadian Government over their COVID-19 response and ongoing use of power.Starting his career as an educator, the Honorable Brian Peckford then served as the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador for nearly a decade. He is also an author, former minister, and notable member of the PC Party.More from the Honorable Brian Peckford:Blog: https://peckford42.wordpress.com/about-the-blog/Book: https://www.amazon.com/Some-Will-Shine-Have-More/dp/1771170247This episode was sponsored by:-ReliefBand. Go to https://reliefband.com and use code “JBP” for 20% off + free shipping!-Zocdoc. Go to https://zocdoc.com/JBP or download the app and find a top-rated doctor today._____________Timestamps:_____________[00:00] Political context for the interview[07:32] Jordan introduces his esteemed guest the Honorable Brian Peckford, former prime minister of Newfoundland and Labrador[10:47] Peterson and Peckford’s discussions over the last week[13:07] Rights infringed by Government despite Charter of Rights[18:10] Four tests before revoking Canadian rights[20:39] Appropriate use of emergency measures[22:21] Why YouTube and not (more traditional) media outlets? Following the money[25:23] Peckford's assertive denouncement; establishing precedents[30:20] Can Canadian courts be relied upon for fair and impartial hearings?[33:49] Canadian mobility rights[36:14] Subversion of the parliamentary process during the pandemic[43:05] Changes in transmission/vaccination rates & societal effects after 1st lockdown[44:25] Accountability & Government inertia in the face of faulty measures[51:23] Ramifications of a federal win[54:40] The second (competing) Charter of Rights[01:01:09] Jordans' summary of the accusations up to this point. Degradation of civic involvement. Why civic education matters.[01:09:02] Recap[01:11:16] Peckford’s appeal to Canadian citizensFor Advertising Inquiries, visit https://www.advertisecast.com/TheJordanBPetersonPodcast

Welcome to season 4 episode 78 of the Jordan B Peterson podcast. I'm Michaela Peterson. This is a very important episode regarding the fate of Canada, the freedom of Canadian people, which is seriously at risk right now. Honorable Brian Pekford is announcing that he's going to be taking legal action against the Canadian government for infringing upon the Canadian charter of rights. This is serious, this could be a big win for Canada. The honorable Brian Pekford served as premier of Newfoundland and Labrador for a decade. He wrote part of the Charter of Rights, so he knows when it's being abused. He started in 1972 in the House of Assembly and served as a minister until he became premier in 1979.

Pekford and dad discussed the legal strategy in response to Canadian health measures and what a federal win for his case would entail, the abuse of power for emergency measures that's occurring now, and they also discussed choosing YouTube and podcasting over traditional media outlets. Also a quick thanks to Lex Friedman for lending us his studio to record this at the last minute. I hope you enjoy this conversation. Again, if you want an

ad-free experience of this podcast, check out show notes or go to JordanVPeterson. supercast.com and you can sign up for $10 a month or $100 a year. That'll change what you press on in Spotify or Apple podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts to the ad-free version. [♪ Music playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing in background, playing Historical figure in the Canadian landscape, the honorable Brian Pekford, former premier of Newfoundland. We've been talking over the last couple of days about the broader events in Canada, in relationship to the political and constitutional work that Mr. Pekford did in the 1980s and decided that it was necessary to have a serious conversation about such things at this time.

I'm going to open this with a bio of Mr. Pekford so that everyone is situated in that proper place to appreciate the conversation. The honorable A. Bryant Pekford PC was bornth, 1942, in Whitburn, Newfoundland, graduating from Lewisport High School in 1960. He obtained his BA in education at Memorial in Newfoundland in 1966, and later did postgraduate work in English literature and educational psychology. In 1972, Mr. Peckford entered the political arena as a member of the Progressive Conservatives, was elected as a member of the provincial house of assembly, soon serving as special and parliamentary assistant

to the then premier, Frank Moors. He was minister of municipal affairs and housing in 1974, and Minister of Minds and Energy and Minister of Rural Development in Northern Affairs for that province in 1976. In 1979, at the age of 36, which made him a very young leader by the standards by which such things are judged, he became leader of the PC party and premier of Newfoundland. His government established the Atlantic accord, bringing offshore oil and gas revenue to the province, over $25 billion to date,

and a say in the management of the resource. Newfoundland's involvement in Canada's constitutional partition process in the early 1980s led to the Breakthrough Agreement culminating in the Constitution Act of 1982. He is the only living first minister who participated in that constitutional process, something that's dead relevant to our later discussion. He retired from politics in March 1989, beginning a consulting company with his wife, Carol, assisting companies in Europe and North America.

Former Premier Pekford is the author of two books. The last someday the sun will shine and have not, will be no more, was a Globe and Mail best seller in 2012. He was sword to the Privy Council by her majesty Queen Elizabeth in 1982. He retired in 2001 and presently lives with his wife Carol in Parksville, British Columbia. Now Mr. Peckford and I have been talking over the last week, as I mentioned, because he has serious concerns about the policies of the current Canadian government in relationship to the Canadian Charter of Rights, which was established as part of the Constitution Act in the 1980s. And he, as I said in the bio, is the only living minister who participated in that constitutional process. And is there for a unique, let's say,

historical and current resource because he can help illuminate Canadians as to the intent of the illuminate Canadians as to the intent of the people who were instrumental in drafting, writing and agreeing on all of those fundamentally important accords. So let's start by talking about what concerns are driving you to re-enter the political discussion at the moment. Well, primarily it is the charter of rights and freedoms, especially those freedoms and rights that are in sections 267 and 15 of the charter, which I helped craft. And there are freedoms of association, freedoms of expression, religion, conscience, freedom of assembly, freedom of association. That's in section two,

section six, freedom of mobility, the right to travel anywhere in Canada or leave Canada, section six deals with life, liberty and security of the person, in section section 15 with equality. Every Canadian is equal before the law. As we sit here today, those provisions are being violated by all the governments of Canada, but in particular, in my case right now, the federal government of Canada, and I'm about to launch a lawsuit against the federal government because of these mandates, especially their travel ban. There's no other travel ban in the Western world like this one. And yet, where the second largest country in the world by geography, this impinges upon my right of travel, my right to travel to my family back east or my friends.

It takes away my right as a Canadian to be protected by the mobility rights of section 6. I feel that the federal government has overreached its authority. Okay, so let me get this clear because I'm still having a hard time conceptualizing the fact that this is actually a reality. So the situation we have in Canada is that a former drafter of what is one of the most fundamental articles of our shared agreement as a people is now about to launch a legal claim against the government itself for violating the fundamental principles upon which the entire country is founded and assembled and agrees. That's not too blunt.

No, that is very, very accurate. That's exactly what's happened. The only first minister left alive who was at that conference and helped draft these freedoms and these rights and the Constitution Act of 1982 itself. And I do this very reluctantly. I've been watching this thing now for almost two years. I've been speaking out about it at public meetings. I'm on my blog and so on.

And I've come to the conclusion now that I must as a Canadian. And as one of the writers and founders of the Constitution Act of 1982, not only speak about it, I must act about it. I must show Canadians that I'm so concerned, as a citizen, as a former First Minister, that helped craft this Constitution Act 1982, that I must take action against my own government because they have violated rights

that I and others helped craft in 1981, 1982. Well, what do you think the legal response to this is going to be you? Obviously, and I know this, of course, is you've been consulting with a legal team, I suppose, and we can talk about that. I mean, it seems to me that this puts the courts in an awfully complicated position to say the absolute least because it's, and please correct me if I'm misstepping in any way here. It's up to the courts to determine the letter but also the spirit of these fundamental laws. And it seems to me that it's almost inarguable that if you have a living member of the body that drafted the provisions making the claim that they're being violated,

that that's as good an indication about the violation of the spirit of the law, certainly, and perhaps the letter as well, that you could possibly have. Am I summing that up accurately? Yes, you are. And other lawyers, including the lawyers that will be representing me now in this lawsuit,

the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, have looked at the situation very carefully. And it's after weeks and weeks of deliberation that we've decided upon this action. So the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms will be launching this lawsuit in the next 24 hours or so. On behalf of me and a number of other Canadians. But of course, because of my present status and previous status as a First Minister,

this becomes elevated and I'm perhaps more public than it would otherwise become. But this is my deliberate consideration and that of my lawyers of what is going on in this country. What is happening is that there is a section in charter of rights and freedoms, which allows governments to override these freedoms in unusual circumstances. And I remember this very well when we are crafting the Constitution. These unusual circumstances, because we're putting it

in the Constitution, it's not a federal act or a provincial act. It's in a Constitution which is supposed to enshrine permanent values and give glue to the country. Okay, so this section one can only be used and I remember this well in times of peril, in times of war and insurrection, or when the state is in peril, when the existence of the states in peril. This particular virus from which is a recovery of 99 percent of subtlety rated less than 1 percent does not constitute in my view a Situation where the country is in peril and therefore I argue that section one doesn't even apply Even though they're trying to make it apply and use that as the reason for doing what they're doing

So you're saying that in your estimation and and this is a consequence of the knowledge that you bring forth from conferring with all the people who drafted this legislation to begin with at the provincial and the federal level, that when you drafted it, you did not envision that its provisions could be violated under conditions that weren't a threat, like a fundamental threat to the integrity of the country itself. And that the current state of affairs on the public health front does in no way meet that criteria. Absolutely.

It does not at all meet that criteria. And even in the circumstances, because we're all fair people that you tried to make section one apply. And you said what, and you said, what, and peck for it and others are saying happened in 1882, when section one doesn't apply, does apply. Then there were four tests that had to be met in order for it to apply. That means it must be demonstraly justified that what the action is is worthwhile. In other words, some kind of cost benefit analysis. It must be done by law. It must be done in reasonable limits.

And fourthly, and most importantly, all of those three must be done within the context of a free and democratic society. And a free and democratic society, to me, means parliamentary democracy in our country. We have 14 parliaments, and they have been completely silent. There's no parliamentary committee anywhere, and. We have 14 parliaments and they have been completely silent. There's no parliamentary committee anywhere and any of those 14 parliaments

looking at what's happening to our country. There are the people's representatives. And so- Okay, so you're also saying, and this is also terrible, that you're also saying that even the process itself by which these exceptions could be made has been essentially subverted in the name of something approximating expediency.

But that the rationale for that expediency does not indicate a level of seriousness sufficient to justify that expedient process. Absolutely, absolutely exactly what I'm saying. And I think that's extremely unfortunate. And I would only speak for myself on this. There's quite a few experts around, like the great parent and declaration over a year ago now, identified and these were some of the greatest epidemiologists in the world. How to approach this kind of a

situation, okay? And that's their principle still saying, you know, you protect the vulnerable. you do everything to protect the vulnerable in this kind of situation. And by the way, this is not new, all of the provinces of Canada have what's called emergency measures organizations, which spend all these millions on as taxpayers, who do nothing else, so sit down every day and organize a plan for some kind of an emergency declared, let's say, let's admit maybe a emergency, or at least a very serious situation in the country, and then they bring to bear all of the planning tools that are necessary, not just a narrow clinical one from the Department of Health. Right.

I see how is the best way in left-hand on Colonel David Redmond, out of Alberta, who wrote the new emergency measures act there, and speaks eloquently to this and has produced all kinds of documents that nobody has challenged that this was the appropriate approach to take. So there's two issues that stem out of that. The first is what has also happened and you're making illusion to that is that the political, our political leaders have not only circumvented the parliamentary process to produce provisions that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights, but they've abdicated their responsibility for overall governance, which is the balancing of all sorts of competing interests to a narrow public, so-called public health policy.

So and that's also inappropriate governance in the most fundamental sense. Yes, absolutely no question. And if anybody looks at the documentation that the left-hand panel, David Redman has produced, they will be convinced that, and we had to swine flu and other flu use before this, a lot of infectious diseases. And that's why these emergency measures are going to be put in place for when the river floods and when it paid or when we have a nice storm and Quebec or whatever, that there are people who have already planned for all of this and have already contacted the private sector, the public sector, all the relevant government departments.

So when something happens, they're ready to move quickly on all fronts and have a very joint effort to ensure that the totality of society is compromised. It's a compromise, and you put in measures which acknowledge all the factors. Because now we know from studies that have been produced, eating by Douglass, Dr. Douglass Allen of Simon Fraser and University, who looked at 80 studies over a year ago, who showed that the cure was worse than a disease.

In other words, the lockdowns caused so many problems on the other side that was difficult to justify the measures that were being used. Okay, now you alluded to the fact too that this isn't in some sense common public knowledge and then along with that we're faced with the extreme auditity, I would say, of the fact that the venue that you chose to announce this move and to discuss all these issues isn't a standard news media venue? It's my YouTube channel. And one of the things that you discussed with me

earlier this week was the impossibility in your view of having these topics dealt with in an honest and straightforward manner by any major news organization in Canada, which to me is almost an statement damning the current larger scale governance structure, which in some sense includes a free press operating in a coherent and articulate and trustworthy manner as a check, it, a check and an opportunity for reflection on the political process. And so that in itself seems as worrisome as all the other things that we're talking about at a governmental level. Like I think this is preposterous in some sense that this is the place where

this discussion is taking place. And so... Yes, no, I think you raised an extremely important point in one that I need to address. And I've been vocal about being concerned about what's happening for quite some time and it's held public meetings here on Vancouver Island and Vancouver in front of the air gallery last October. And I've written letters to National Los Fapers and they have not carried any more letters, which is quite unusual because before this happened they would carry my letters when I make common comment on normal

public policy issues across the nation and they carried my letters but in recent times I have not even acknowledged that they received them. So how do you account for that? What's going on? Well, it seems to me that the media, very early on, bought into the government narrative and developed the same kind of fear that a lot of individual state, because of what that was being told, all was being proposed with all these cases, even though these cases didn't represent hospitalizations or ICU visits or whatever. And so there was a fear generated early on and the mainstream media bought into it very quickly.

And now, I'm trying to sustain the narrative that they became a part of early on. The only way I can explain it, of course, we also know that all mainstream media have received significant sums of money from the government of Canada over the last three years, or $600 million. So one cannot, but mention that in any discussion like this, that one has to ask the question, has this slow of money from the federal government to the Canadian press in any way impinged upon their impartiality to tell the story on both sides of the issue.

What do you expect is going to happen as a consequence of the challenge that you're mounting? And can you go into some details about the precise nature of the challenge? Because I still don't, I don't understand it completely by any means. And perhaps it's not understandable completely by any means. But you're obviously with your legal team, you have a view of how this is likely to unfold. So what you want to happen and how serious a challenge is this

to the claim of the government in some sense to have legitimate sovereignty. Yes, I think this is very serious, because I think, first of all, you have to, as you know, in the legal system, specifically, articulate in your lawsuit what it is you're making the lawsuit about. So you have to be specific.

So we had to pick one area. We could have freedom of expression, conscience, assembly, association, life, liberty, and so on. And we picked mobility and the federal government itself because this is the second largest country in the world. Right. Traveling by plane and train is extremely important for business and for the normal functioning of a nation.

Remember the maintenance of families and for the maintenance of families. The country was formed by moving from east to west with a railway. I mean our history is all, you know, repeat with that kind of stuff. So what we chose was this particular situation of this travel ban, which impacts every single Canadian in their movement to meet family and to conduct regular business. So we thought this would be an area that we should highlight, and because we had to get specific. So I'm particularly the loss of challenging

the government's program of banning travel by train and plane by Canadians. In other words, we can't travel across our own nation. And the Section 6 says mobility, the right of every Canadian to travel anywhere in Canada or leave Canada. That's what the Section 6 is. And that's the exact words of sectional. So therefore, that's what we are pursuing now in the courts in the next couple of days in the next few weeks and hopefully we'll get a decision. We're asking for an expedited decision in the next three or four months. So this will fundamentally challenge the approach that the federal government is taking on responding to this so-called pandemic. And therefore, we'll put into question this whole

notion of using Section 1 of the Charter to override these rights and freedoms. If us as First Minister's, Dr. Peterson, had wanted to just have protecting rights and freedoms that could easily be changed, we wouldn't have gone to the Constitution. We would have just said, right, just put an act in the federal panel and put acts in all the parliaments and then up to the whim of the political party at the time to change it. We wanted to safeguard it so that it would be on the whim of political machinations

and therefore could not be changed only in the most extreme circumstances. So what we're really concerned about, and what I'm really concerned about, is if our charter is not upheld and unhonored, and these freedoms and rights honored, then the next, and therefore we lose, the next time around when there's an emergency

two or three years from now, or one, or the government decides, and the clear is that there is an emergency, they can use this as a precedent, and the charity becomes further diluted. And then our rights and freedoms as individuals has been destroyed. And that section of being a democracy is no more. That is the great danger. And so that's why it's very necessary for me to do what I'm doing.

The other point about this is that four years after the charter came in, in 1986, there was a case in the Supreme Court of Canada where the judges were forced to look at Section 1 because of the way the lawyer had constructed the case for his time. It's called the Oats Fest. And in that the judges tried to describe what this section one meant. And they did not a bad job, not as good as I thought it should do, but still, a much better job. And it's really funny, the lower courts have, who have already looked at the Charter

as a relates to what's going on, have not used this old test, which is highly unusual because courts always look to the press of them set by the highest court, the Supreme Court in determining what they will do in their case, because they were both concerning the charter. And so the absence of seeing the oath has been used in the lower court so far is very troubling, and therefore the other reason why we must take this kind of action at this time. Okay, so let me ask you a question about that, because this process of circumventing parliament

and then failing to meet the proper standards for the kind of crisis that would involve lifting the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights, that should be blocked by the courts if they're abiding by the principle of common law, reliance on previous presidents, especially at higher court levels, but that's not happening. And so, and that's in the context that we discussed already where the media, for example, has become co-opted or corrupted to a degree that it's no longer reliable, I've spoken with many lawyers in Canada in recent years who are very upset about the co-opt and corruption of the entire legal

enterprise for similar reasons. Are you even vaguely confident that the the court system itself has enough integrity to give the views that you're putting forward, even though they're at the basis of the constitution that unites us all. Do you think that your views can get any fairer or more equally impartial hearing in the court system than they have in the media. Well, I think here's where I come down on that. The lower courts have made some decisions which are injurious to the to the church and they're being appealed to the higher courts. So I think here's where we have an opportunity. This particular loss of the mind will go to the federal court of Canada first and then likely to the Supreme Court of Canada second, regardless of what decision is made one side

of the other will quite likely appeal. So I think at the court of appeal in the provinces, as the highest courts in the province, as every single province has courts, a Supreme Court, and then a Court of Appeal. And Canadians are confused about that because when they hear of these early decisions, I think that's the end of it. And that's only the beginning of it. To use a really good metaphor, Canadian metaphor, we're in the second period, half-right through

the second period. We still got a, you know, perhaps half-game left, we're almost half-game left. And that's for the courts of appeal come in, who usually are more independent and more sober thought as it relates to the jurisprudence, which is before them. And so this is where I and the lawyers, I think, come down and say, we have to exhaust

all of the civilized legal processes that we set up under our constitution. And that means these decisions will be appealed with the courts repeal in the provinces and then the Supreme Court of Canada. So it's these higher courts that have an unbelievable responsibility now on elected judges to finally decide whether in fact the democracy of Canada is going to survive or not, or whether suddenly from 1867 to 1882 we didn't have a written chair, we get one, and now within 40 years it's being eviscerated or somehow undermined by an overreach of the various governments.

That's our position, and we hope to put that to the judges, and hopefully that the judges will see it in that kind of reason balance way. Okay, so you focused on movement, the right to movement. And I think you put that in a very interesting historical context and practical context with your discussion of the fact A, that Canada is absolutely huge and people are distributed all across it, and that freedom of movement is necessary for us to conduct our businesses and to maintain our families and to

communicate, but also that Canada itself was knitted together as a consequence of facilitation of freedom of movement, not least by the railway. So, but were there other violations of charter principles that you considered highlighting as you moved forward before you settled on freedom of movement? Of course. There are many including freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Lots of people and churches, Christian churches and other churches were prevented from getting together. So that is a great way. And there's a curfew in Quebec. Still, which is just, it's just absolutely beyond comprehension

in my estimation in a free society that that can be the case. And I have friends in Quebec who are hurt to the bone by the fact, for example, that they're not allowed, given their, they're not allowed to attend religious services, for example, which, and that's a really egregious violation because if there's anything more fundamental, let's say, than freedom of association, well, maybe there's freedom of speech, but before that, even, there's freedom of belief. And to interfere with that at a governmental level is unprecedented

at my estimation. Especially when they have not gone on their way to demonstrable justify, which is one of the tests of Section 1, where is it demonstrable justification, the demonstrable justification of what they're doing? One would think in public policy since my time, and long before when I was a bringer, one of the things government did when they were introducing, especially brand new legislation, you know, and doing very serious things with the Constitution would be to do a cost benefit analysis. And based upon that, you would decide how you went forward.

None of that was done. No parliamentary committee was ever struck to look at both sides of the issue and call on experts. All of these kinds of reasonable measures, which were part of the Canadian fabric of developing public policy, have been discarded. In this particular... So what are people doing? I've spoken to Rex Murphy about that, And Rex has been the only journalist, perhaps, who's been beating the warning drum, trying to alert Canadians to the fact that the parliamentary process itself has been subverted at the federal and the provincial levels. And he's certainly been allowed to express those views.

But I don't think Canadians have any real sense of exactly how serious that is. So one question would be, well, if our laws are no longer... If the laws that restrict our charter freedoms are no longer being produced by parliamentary debate, how are they being produced? And so that'd be the first question. How practically how is this occurring? Is it just by fiat? Is it just by statement? And if so, why are these laws to be regarded as valid at all? And if they're not valid, what does that mean? Yeah. Well, here's where the most insidious part of this equation comes into play. What the governments have done abused in in many cases existing legislation,

under which they have the power to make regulation. So they've used existing emergencies, okay, legislation, and inflated enough or interpreted in a manner that they can also use in this circumstance and therefore issue additional regulation, okay? And then in other cases, they did not fully explain or have a parliamentary committee look at other amendments when they opened their parliament and closed it within two or three days or a week. In other words, sufficient debate wasn't allowed to to understand the repercussions of what they were doing when they were giving more power to the minister and more power to the public health officer. Right, so this really means, this really means in some sense that none of these policies

were subject to opposition, which is because that's, and so, and let's, we could delve into that a little bit. You might say, well, in an emergency such that provision shouldn't be subject to opposition because that's inefficient. But that is the same thing as saying two things. One is that they shouldn't be thought about because discussion between opposing parties is actually thought. And then the second thing it's saying is they should be implemented without recourse

to the broader public because the broader public is represented in that oppositional structure, so that everybody's voices are being allowed to be heard. That's what, in some sense, the whole point of the parliament, where you parliament means place of talking, fundamentally, and means more deeply than that, place of thinking, and even more deeply than that,

place of discussion of the entire panoply of public opinion. That's all gone by the wayside in the name of efficiency, let's say, or something like that. Yes, Dr. An even, it gets worse than that because we have had time. One can perhaps believe or excuse if one wants to, so that the argument is completely reasonable. And it's like, for the first 90 days, this thing began. You couldn't make an argument that, okay, the government's had to move.

But in any rational way, if they had used the emergency measures planning that was already in place, they would have moved to protect the vulnerable first. And then did a study on the rest, what else do we need to do in society? What they did is just a carte blanche on the overall of society without giving second thought to them.

And now all of the studies, 90 days after this started and 100 days, 120 days have shown, right? And then the great-grandson declaration is a good example over a year old now is the great-grandson declaration. So they had lots of information. And Dr. Allen's report from Cybert and Strays are over a year ago. So they've had lots of information and scientific studies about

what's going on to demonstrate that not only are the vaccines destructive, more destructive than any vaccines in our history, and that's a scientific fact, then they had time to adjust. And this is where they have not even been nimble in this kind of circumstance, when you think this is the very time that governments would be nimble. Okay, we'll see what we can do with the vulnerable, all these long-care homes and the hospitals,

and those who are most vulnerable. And we'll now have the parliamentary committee on an expedited basis, I understand that. On an emergency basis, bring an expert to both sides within the next 30 days to see whether what else we should do in a reasonable and graduated way, or are what we're doing now the most appropriate way to respond to.

Right, right. So you're, so your case is, well, in the early stages of the emergency of the pandemic, when people didn't understand the magnitude of the risk, there was potential for justification for reducing parliamentary complexity to short-term efficiency. But as the pandemic has unfolded and we've become more aware of its true risks or lack thereof, we should have returned to the principles of parliamentary democracy as rapidly

as possible. And with less and less justification, that's continued to happen. That circumvention of the parliamentary process is continued to happen. And I suppose that culminated in recent months with the Quebec lockdown, the curfew. I don't see how anybody can possibly make the case that that curfew was implemented under conditions that were as uncertain and dire as those that obtained in the initial phases of the pandemic, especially given that Omicron is obviously much less serious than the original virus. So we've already attained something approximately, something approximating an 80% vaccination rate, and that's not going to be pushed up much higher than 90% without government intervention that becomes unbelievably heavy handed. So there's less and less justification for more and more circumvention of parliamentary

reprocesses as this proceeds instead of exactly the opposite. Exactly. That's why it took me this long to be convinced that I had to take this action. I mean, I never took this action 90 days after they brought in these things or 100 days or a year after, right? We've been watching this and commenting and making, you know, articulating my concerns as Rex has.

By the way, Rex and Murphy and I went to university together were both Newfoundlanders, we're both born in Newfoundland. And I've heard him on your program with you and enjoyed the conversation and loved the English literature and the classics like he does. We both got a very wonderful education and memorial in those days, no longer there now, but we did. And I do appreciate his commentary on what he's brought to this discussion. It's very longer there now, but we did. And I do appreciate his commentary when he's brought to this discussion. It's very, very important.

But the other thing is, as you say, the transmission of the virus now and the virus has changed. So a lot of the vaccines that are being used are no longer applicable. They don't do anything to the existing variant that we had. They were devised for another variant or for the original virus. There's the other things, people getting more planes

and my travel ban that I'm arguing on before the lawsuit is that everybody transmits it now, unvaccinated and vaccinated, transmit, receive and transmit the virus. So it's hard to make the argument that the travel ban should be in place, that the transmission of the virus for which all of this is centered, is no longer valid. That is, is that the vaccinated protect

against the virus because they receive it and transmit it to say it is the unvaccinated. And now we find in Denmark, Israel, just in the last few days, right, that in Australia, their case rates have gone to the roof again, even though they're 90% vaccinated. And so the whole basis, right, the whole basis of this argument of these lockdowns and travel bans and so on, the basis is combo, right? The whole syllable on which this so-called rational approach to a virus has completely come, on which this so-called rational approach to a virus has completely crumbled and no longer can sustain itself. So one must then question,

why is this continuing to be in place when all of that data is available? Which at least, is the same. Well, I can tell you what I've been informed of about why it's continuing. And I had a conversation with a senior advisor to one of Canadians, provincial governments, a number of conversations.

Some of those were conducted with Rex. None of this was made public because the conversation occurred in privacy. And I asked the gentleman I was speaking with why he wouldn't go public. And he said, and I believe, honorably, that he believed he could still do more good from within the confines of the governmental structure than as a lone voice crying in the wilderness, let's say, but he told me flat out that Canadian public policy is being So it's not being generated through the parliamentary process that it's supposed to be generated through what's happening instead is the politicians are turning to be generated through. What's happening instead is the politicians are turning to badly sampled opinion polls, short-term opinion polls and driving policy as a consequence. And then it's

not, they're not actually driving it as a consequence of public opinion polls because that would be something like consulting the people. They're utilizing adherence to short-term public opinion polls to maximize the probability that they'll obtain political success in the electoral sphere in the near future. And so I said, I pressed him, I said, so you're telling me that there's that this isn't based on the science because that's certainly what we're hearing. He said, no, it's not based on the science. That's not driving the decisions. I asked him, is there an end game in place, which is, do we have definitions laid down for when the pandemic is now of sufficient

lack of severity that it's over, so to speak, and we can go back to normal life? Is there even a conceptual framework within which that might occur? And the answer to that was, no, there's not that as well. And so, it was one of the most shocking conversations I think I've ever had in my life, in some sense, because I'm not cynic about the political process. I think that cheap cynicism about politics is, it's an abdication of civic responsibility, and it's bitterness, masquerading, is wisdom. But then when I heard that the situation at the highest level of governance was more cynical and less responsible, then I could have even imagined, and that even when I pushed that interpretation to see if I was misinterpreting, the answer I received was a definitive no.

It's as bad as you think, or worse. And I didn't really know what to make of that in the aftermath of the conversation, because well, for all the reasons that we're discussing, it's like, well, have things really got to the point where we don't use parliamentary process. We're violating the Canadian Charter of Bill of Rights. The press is so involved in collusion that they won't even report on it, and they're being subsidized to a great degree by the government in some sense for doing so. And that's so widespread that it covers the entire legacy media.

Let's say it's like, it sounds conspiratorial in the deepest sense. And that's why a lot of people have gone that route is because they have been almost pushed in that room. And you see the government and using their polling here their own advertising, got to get vaccinated on the television. And they're actually even doing ads for children and trying to talk to children directly through a public ad. So defeating off themselves, they're creating enough fear

so that they'll get the poll they want to get. It's interesting. Well, that's the other thing that I see happening. And this is partly why this process is so dangerous. First of all, it's very, very difficult to pull people and get a read on really what they want. And that's why we don't have direct democracy by the people.

We don't want fear and whim and impulsivity that's not thought through carefully to be the basis for governance. So really what's happened, we could say, in some sense, is that by circumventing the parliamentary process and abdicating responsibility for complex, multi-level decision making, we've reverted to something like the most primordial form of, of whim rule by mob, and that's all mediated through opinion polls. That's been the alternative to the parliamentary process.

The other thing perhaps that a lot of Canadians don't acknowledge and recognize, and Canadians are very wonderful people and very nice people and very trustworthy of their governments. And so what has happened in the last 40 years, they have not noticed because we have not been civically involved like we should. I say in all my public meetings, the level of good democracy is directly related to the amount of civic involvement. Right. The less civic involvement, the less democracy.

And this is what's happening in Canada. Yeah, well, that cheap cynicism interferes without too. And what that means is that because people are cynical and they think that's wisdom, then they abandon these institutions. And then when they're abandoned, that means that maybe the people who shouldn't be running them are able to run them.

And then the whole thing gets corrupted from the bottom up. And that's happening. I see that happening with school boards in particular. It's absolutely. And that's all that's happening all over the place. The problem to Canada is not the parliament that you and I grew up with, okay? Where the MP had really significant power with the parliamentary committee had really significant power. And this is true in all the provinces, as well. It's been a gradual shift of power from the parliament,

first to the cabinet, and now to the first ministers' offices, both in all the provinces and in the government of Canada. Donald J. Savvois has written a book on this called Democracy in Canada, the disintegration of our institutions. It's only a couple of years old. It's a haunting book, but he's one of the experts in governance in Canada, and he's a scholar at the University of Monkton. And this is more or less his epic book. He's written quite a few books on this over the years. And this is a book that every thinking Canadian should read because it methodically and intelligently deals with how over time without the shot being fired,

the movement of power from where it should reside in the parliament all the way to the Prime Minister's office and the prime minister's office. And this, therefore, this situation in early 2020, we were very vulnerable to this kind of thing happening by governments because we had already done that kind of atmosphere over time with power shifting and therefore, exercise of power quickly by the executive rather than by the parliament. Okay, so we've outlined to some degree what it means if the challenge that you're proposing to mount fails and what it'll mean is that what's happening now with the centralization

of power and the circumventing of the parliamentary process and the reliance, let's say, on opinion, polls and whim and the abdication of responsibility for governing to so-called experts who are unidimensional in their viewpoint, that's the status quo and that's becoming more and more the norm. This episode was sponsored by ZockDock. No one knows what you're looking for in a doctor better than you and no one's better at giving you the tools to find that perfect doctor than Zock-Dock. Finding and booking the right doctor doesn't need to be a nightmare.

Will they take your insurance, understand your needs, or be available when it's convenient? Zock-Dock makes answering yes to all of the above as easy as possible. Zock-Dock is a free app that shows you patient-reviewed doctors, takes your insurance, and they are available when you need them. It takes your insurance and lets you choose a time slot for an in-person or video consultation. Go to zock.com slash JBP, and download the zock.app for free, then start your search for a top-rated doctor today.

Many are available within 24 hours. That's zocdoc.com slash JBP. This episode was sponsored by relief band. Naja can happen at the worst possible times. It's one of the unpleasant experiences that can completely incapacitate you wherever you are. Relief band is the number one FDA-cleared anti-nauja wristband that has been clinically proven to quickly relieve and prevent nausea and vomiting. They even have the relief band's sport for the more adventurous listeners, which is waterproof and compatible with Apple or Android watches. It's a band you wear rather than a pill you take, so there are zero side effects.

Relief band makes a great gift for any time of year. Right now they've got an exclusive offer just for JBP listeners. Go to reliefband.com and use promo code JBP. You'll receive 20% off plus free shipping and a no questions asked 30-day money back guarantee. So head to REL-IF, V-A-N-D, dot com and use our promo code JBP for 20% off plus free shipping. What's the, I don't understand what'll happen if you win. I mean, because if you win, it means that we've been, that the laws that have

governed us for the last, let's say, year, two years, accepting that initial period of maybe we could say uncertainty bordering on the level of potential emergency. If you win, what does that mean for the political sovereignty of the federal and provincial governments? I think what that means is that if we win, we have identified that we have some very substantial laws on the books that when challenges then brought rationally towards our highest courts will be honored. And that will give Canadians faith to reform either the existing political parties or go with new political parties that recognize in their platform, which they've signed

out on with the people that they respect the charter of rights and freedoms, and only in very dire circumstances, like a war in Zarexia can be circumvented, right? That we must get back to a parliamentary type of democracy. A power must be returned to the parliament. Look, Jody Raeble, when she argued as a minister of justice, and then later wanted to appear before Parliamentary Committee, she was allowed to appear a couple of times,

then they shut the committee down, even though she indicated in writing that she had more information that she wanted to present. So there was a complete, I watch while I say, a tyranny of the majority and for the parliamentary system to work. We have examples all over the place

of this and all of the Parliaments of Canada. So if we win, I think it will restore some confidence in our system with Canadians and tell them that yes, we have to reform the system more and we can go with other political priorities or reform the existing ones so that these leaders understand and revise their platforms to get back to what is true to parliamentary democracy in our country. That's the best so we can see some of that. What does it say about if you win? What does it say about the culpability of our current political leaders? I mean, I don't understand what, if their policies have been shown to violate the most fundamental

principles upon which our country maintains its peace and prosperity, its its integrity. If they violated that, what does that mean for them? What are the consequences of that? I think the consequences is that either they'd have to do a wholesale reform of their parties or other new parties will emerge with the kind of platform that is implicit in that way. Okay, you knew part of one of the people who was involved in the process that led to the establishment of the rules and regulations, the principles that we're discussing was pure Elliott Trudeau. Also, what do you think his intent was

in relationship to the charter of rights? And what do you think? Well, he wanted less involvement of the problems. So that's why another piece of history doctor that nobody seems to know about is that when we started the process of getting the charter, it was a 17 months negotiation, and over half way through the prime minister of Canada left the table and said you're too difficult to deal with even though it's a federal state, you know, powers in the province, his powers in the here's where

it's all gone wrong. And so he left the table and Unilaterally passed his own bill to pay tribute to Constitution and have his own version of the charter. And he went to his own friends in the Supreme Court who turned him down. What he was doing was viewed on a Constitutional and September 28, 1981. Then he came back to the table and we got the deal we have now. So he didn't get his charter. His charter was amended by us because we're in a federal state and the court rule. You cannot do this because you're impacting upon other units of the confederation, which

have legitimate power. So he had to come back to the table and then we negotiated what became. For example, when you look at the charter rights and freedoms now in that parchment piece that people see when they go into the government Canada sites and I signed a whole bunch of about a public meeting last night. There was only one name on that charter, Pierre Electrudo, that's unconstitutional. All of the names of the First Ministers need to be on that charter in order for it to be legitimate because it took all the First Ministers, except Quebec, who wouldn't agree, but all the rest say it, there were nine provinces

and the federal government that signed off on that charter, that signed off on that Constitution at 1982. So this is this insidious thing going on for four or five decades whereby everybody thinks it's true that it was charter. True that it was charter got defeated by his own court. It was the Charter of the provinces and the federal government together that got approved. That's a really important piece of history

which gives an important backdrop to the nature of our country as the court saw it in 1981 and which one hopes the court will continue to see now in 2020, 2020. Three, this is the extremely important thing. The other point that everybody ignores is this, that the character doesn't begin with section one. It begins with a tiny preamble of one section, whereas the country, Canada, and whereas we are founded on the principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law. And after that sentence, it's not a period, it's not a semicolon or a comma, there's a colon which says everything follows after this. area where the courts and their governments are falling down on the job is that they're

supposed to consider every thing in the charter in light of two principles, the supremacy of God and the rule of law. And somehow that which is a key part of opening the Constitution, the introduction to the Constitution has been missing. And that's the other part that I argue very strongly. Until it's taken out, somebody says, we don't want to have any of the other of both God. Well, then fine, you'll have to change the Constitution.

But as long as it's in there, those words are just as important as any other words in the child of rights and freedoms. And therefore, have to be acknowledged in any rendering or any decision under the child. And so what do you think that means practically in this particular case? Well, in this particular case, I'm arguing straight on the travel ban, but one would hope that in the consideration of this lawsuit, that the judges will introduce their case and their decision and relate to the history of the charter and

also relate to what how the charter opens. And it's in this context that we will be considering our decisions. Yeah, well, to some degree, the idea of right itself is predicated on the idea of, I would say, it's something approximating the divine worth of each individual, which is what makes us equal before the law. The rights aren't, this is a problem I had, I would say, in some sense, with the charter of rights right to begin with, because there's some confusion about the derivation of the rights, are these rights that are granted to you by your government, or do you have those rights to begin with, as a consequence, let's say, of something approximating your relationship with the divine,

and then the government can impose limitations on that only where that's practically necessary. But I suppose the inclusion of that preamble is one of the acts that was taken and articulated properly to put the idea of the intrinsic worth of the individual on something like metaphysical grounds. So it's a precondition, it's a precondition for the existence of the body of laws and the Constitution itself. Exactly, exactly, and that's extremely important. And I deliberately introduced this now because I know hardly anybody else in discussing the term and Constitution Act in 1982 have done so.

That's part of why freedom of religion is so important. And we should say, we're not speaking about this necessarily in specifically religious terms. There's no difference between freedom of religion and freedom of belief. And there's no difference between freedom of belief and the capacity for independent thought, but also the right to follow the dictates of your own conscience. Exactly, exactly. And so therefore, it's in the totality of the Turner, right?

That even my lawsuit should be considered and other lawsuits like it. And so all of this is extremely important in knowing who we are as Canadians and how we're going to function as human beings in some democratic structure into the future because our democratic structure will be significantly reduced if we lose on having these provisions of the charter

honored again. Right, and so you're also making the case that there's been a tremendous abdication of responsibility on the part of our political leaders and also the circumvention of our parliamentary processes, which is dangerous procedurally and also a threat to our liberty and freedom and prosperity, all of that. But we also have had that discussion in the context of, in some sense, a broader discussion, because you also made the case that it's the degeneration of civic involvement as a consequence of a narrow cynicism that set up the preconditions for this to occur in the face of an emergency.

And so Canadians shouldn't be patting themselves on the back in self-righteous manner, saying those damn politicians have betrayed us. They should be thinking, well, that's occurred to some degree, and that's awful, and hopefully unconstitutional, but it's happening in the context of all of us not stepping forward to take our proper place in the governance of society because we're cheaply cynical about politics and lazy and irresponsible. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. And that's where the educational system, you know, the whole totality of our society comes into play and the various parts of that society, which make it function better. And one of them greater is, is in education. When I taught grade 8 back in

the late 1960s in Springdale, Lufan, and I introduced civics, there was no civics in the late 1960s in Springdale, Newfoundland, I introduced civics, there was no civics in the class in school, even back then. I introduced it, there was within the Department of Education's curriculum guidelines, the opportunity of any school, or teacher one of the teachers, there was some materials available on civics,

and you could teach a course, now you went to the principal and asked if I could teach it. This is back in the late 1960s. So the gradually erosion of our educational system to necessarily include a course on the governance and on the system of government at the municipal provincial and federal level was missing. Even then, continued to be even more. So time went on and the history got taken out of the provincial and federal level was missing. Even then, continued to be even more, so time went on and the history got taken out of

the course, out of the curriculum, and some fusion of social studies got very, very good. Well, the whole principle, the quantum, everything's in. All the principle of the sovereignty of the individual, and then the associated sovereignty of the people, that principle cannot abide unless sovereign individuals take responsibility for governance and cheap cynicism is no excuse for not engaging in that process. I mean, I've been struck through my whole life talking to young people in particular about their feelings of powerlessness and their separation in some sense from the day-to-day operations

of the state. And I got involved in the political party when I was very young. I was 14. It was with the NDP and Alberta, with Grant Naughtley. And that was all about the same time that you were operating on the processes that we're describing now.

And one of the things that absolutely shocked me, even back then when I was that young, was how hungry the political parties were for anyone's involvement, how welcoming they were if you wanted to get involved, and how much scope of movement was available to you as a private citizen, almost at your back-and-call if you were willing to involve yourself in the political process. Now I don't think young Canadians, they certainly haven't been taught that that's the case. And they certainly haven't been guided through the training process as necessary to make

them aware of the availability of that. But it's also partly to be laid at the feet of Canadians as like, you could be involved in the political process if you just asked and wanted to be. It's not like these parties aren't crying out for workers, volunteers, and you can move up the ranks very quickly if you're competent. So there's no excuse for that, no, it happening. No, no, absolutely. But the educational system is partly the blame because we're out of the road before we come in the Gulf. I want to get involved in the political parties. We have, you know, complete ignorance of how the process works involved in the political parties. We have a complete ignorance of how the process works,

even the political parties work, like they say, or how the municipal council works, or the school board works, or the problems works. What powers are the problems is that? What problems are the powers of the federal government had? How are we different from the United States of America, which is the elephant that lives next door to us? We should know all of these things.

And this should be a course that will develop through grade seven or eight up to the last year, advice school, so that when people graduate, they have a knowledge and understanding that they can then pursue through university and so on. Yeah, well, and we have the purpose in the civic process. Exactly. Well, we have vague courses that are in the political ideological domain that basically concentrate on something approximating the vague horrors of the past, not that those aren't real, and not that we shouldn't take responsibility for them, but there are no substitute for detailed knowledge of the actual structures of governance, and there's certainly no substitute for the deep respect that should be part and parcel of every Canadian's political view for the integrity of the institutions

that have enabled us to live in peace and prosperity for, while the entire expanse of Canadian history internally, and then much in the much broader Western world for hundreds of years before that. Yeah, exactly. But what has also happened is that we have the individual because of the nature of governments over the last 40 years where the state has taken on more and more say in the operation not only of the society generally, but even of the economy and everything that goes with it. Plus everything else is that the sovereignty of the individual,

the importance of the individual, the importance of the individual, your individual action, your individual decisions have become less and less and less. And so, individuals feel somewhat powerless because the state is taking over almost every aspect of your life. And so, every time there's a problem, what is some politician doing about it? Not what am I doing about as an individual, even over our health care, for example. It's all been just relegated to the state, to the degree,

that you've got to fix my problem. Nothing about whether I'm taking my, I have a good diet, I've overify my exercise. It's like, back to the pandemic, again, this is a really good example of where governments have really fallen down on the job is that everybody knows that vitamin D is very, very important for your health and that it's a great vitamin as it relates to your immune system. Yet no government in Canada has been advancing a promoting vitamin D during this very critical time when studies have shown that those who have adequate levels of vitamin D have less hospitalizations. Protect those that have adequate levels.

So one would think that they're really concerned about public health. One of the first things they should have had in every press conference they had, go get your vitamin D level tested, right? And then start taking vitamin D if in fact your levels are low. And we all know about 80% of people who live in northern climbs like Canada have a deficiency in vitamin D. So here we had a really cheap way of helping. So the hospitalization rate could have been a lot less than what it was just by people taking regular vitamin D. And so this is a really, really common sense concept that had lost all meaning in some kind of different approach. And it all had to be pharmaceutical. It all had to be some kind of, you know, vaccine. It just couldn't be a vitamin D and zinc and vitamin C and carousine and other

things like that. And not to mention Ibermectin or hydroxychloroquine, which has been on the market for 40 or 50 years, yet they're telling us to take a vaccine that hasn't had the tests that these other two have had. So let's recapitulate and maybe we should close because we covered an awful lot of territory. And I think it'll take the listeners of this podcast a fair bit of time to digest

everything that's been discussed already. And so you're mounting a challenge to the integrity and constitutional appropriateness of a series of laws that have been passed in Canada over the last two years. And you're mounting that as one of the establishers of the charter upon which the entire country is predicated, making the claim that these actions violate both the spirit and the law that governs our land at the deepest possible level of analysis. That's the first thing. The second thing is the collusion between the press and the governmental agencies that are

circumventing the parliamentary process is so intense that it's almost impossible to have this discussion in the public landscape. There aren't venues for that. No, I'm not trying. It's not like I haven't tried. I'm not making this kind of statement without evidence. I don't come by all of this lightly. I don't want to do what I'm doing. I rather not have to do this as a Canadian, and especially as a First Minister who's involved in the Constitution.

Yeah, this is a nod. This is not a tribute. I've written a national post. I've written on our newspapers, and they have not carried my blog, which is 10,000, the 15,000 readers every day. And a lot of them know that. So I've had to go to Aldrin, Admedia, and I've done about 50 interviews before I launched this lawsuit all over Canada, two and three hours long. And I get hundreds of hundreds of emails a day responding to what I'm doing. And now I've been led to where I am today to actually as one individual with others,

the final lawsuit against the government of Canada in the federal court on the travel ban to give it specificity so that I can make this kind of lawsuit a valid vote. And how do you think if you had your will and you had and you were acting in accordance with the idea that someday the sun will shine and have not will be no more, what do you think Canadians should do as a consequence of receiving the information we have today and in terms of their reactions to the fact of this lawsuit and its potential outcomes. So if you could call on Canadians to deliver what they should be delivering as individuals, given the situation we're in now, what would you recommend for them to do?

I would recommend the following. Please don't go down a bunch of rabbit holes, talking about a minor number of a hundred years ago. I get all this all the time. The Canada is only a corporation. It's not really a country and all of that. Stick with what we know for sure. And we know we have a constitution and two written documents, one when we were formed, another 1981. They are documents that were passed legally,

so parliamentary democracies, and they had been exercised, they had been used. So the very fact that they've been used makes them a reality because part of our constitution is also custom and convention and that custom and convention proves that what we have is valid, okay. So what they should be doing is sticking with the elected, all of the elected people in their legislative assemblies, the minors, everybody in their legislative assembly, right up to the premier and in the federal government. Go write your MPs, write your MLAs, ask them and demand meetings with them to go through what are you doing about this? What is your argument against the in favor of these mandates when all this information is available? So Canadians must start to really

activate their civic response developments in a huge way. And then involve themselves in legitimate organizations who are open and free that are going to help you do this kind of focus. So you're saying that we should trust the basic institutions. We should have faith in them because they've worked for us in the past. They've united our country and are drawn from a tradition

that has united countries for long before that. because they've worked for us in the past. They've united our country and are drawn from a tradition that has united countries for long before that and that we should start using them properly and responsibly. And also, like in my particular case, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom is Rocco Galadi and Toronto, who's got a Constitutional Foundation

and he's initiating actions against the federal government. There's another one called the Canadian Constitution for Foundation itself, you know, Ontario, all of these organizations who are looking for a support, financial support, they should be supported because they are very, they're vanguard, they are, they are protecting our lives. We can put links to them, we can put links to them in the description of this video. So we'll have my, if you can get your team to, to give us all the links that you would like to them in the description of this video. So we'll have my if you can get your team to to give us all the links that you would like to put in the description of the video Then we'll do that and we'll do our best to get this out. Well, hopefully tomorrow as soon as we possibly can Well, thank you very much

But I really think that if we get back to participating in our democracy, we can turn this around But we and and they come to, like the truckers come going out, peaceful demonstration, civil disobedience, as all the required democracy, legitimate civil disobedience. We must protest in front of our legislators in a peaceful manner, demonstrating and articulating our position in a rational way. And so part of that is definitely concern about the manner in which governance itself is being conducted in Canada and a call

for return to parliamentary supremacy and proper procedures. Absolutely, absolutely. Well, thank you very much for speaking with me today and for all of the people who are listening to this. Thank you for your attention and, and pay attention because this is a non-trivial occurrence. And if we're careful and wise, maybe we can weave our way through this without having things crumble into anything resembling chaos around us. Thank you very much. Very great pleasure to meet you, sir.

We'll talk again, perhaps, as this unfolds. Okay, thank you. you