Canadian Constitutional Crisis | Brian Peckford | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast S4: E78
25 Jan 2022
https://odysee.com/@PandemicParallaxView:6/Canadian-Constitutional-Crisis_Brian-Peckford-012522:2
https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/index.html#CCCBP

Timestamps:
[0:00:00] Political context for the interview
[0:07:32] Jordan introduces his esteemed guest the Honorable Brian Peckford, former prime minister of Newfoundland and Labrador
[0:10:47] Peterson and Peckford’s discussions over the last week
[0:13:07] Rights infringed by Government despite Charter of Rights
[0:18:10] Four tests before revoking Canadian rights 
[0:20:39] Appropriate use of emergency measures
[0:22:21] Why YouTube and not (more traditional) media outlets? Following the money
[0:25:23] Peckford's (intentionally) assertive denouncement; establishing precedents
[0:30:20] Can Canadian courts be relied upon for fair and impartial hearings?
[0:33:49] Canadian mobility rights
[0:36:14] Subversion of the parliamentary process during the pandemic
[0:43:05] Changes in transmission/vaccination rates & societal effects after 1st lockdown
[0:44:25] Accountability & Government inertia in the face of faulty measures
[0:51:23] Ramifications of a federal win 
[0:54:40] The second (competing) Charter of Rights
[1:01:09] Jordans' summary of the accusations up to this point. Degradation of civic involvement. Why civic education matters.
[1:09:02] Recap
[1:11:16] Peckford’s appeal to Canadian citizens
[1:15:08] Closing conversation
#CharterOfRights #COVID19 #CanadianRights #Vaccines #Lockdown

00:00
mr peckford and i have been talking over
00:02
the last week
00:03
um as i mentioned
00:06
because he has serious concerns
00:08
about the policies of the current
00:10
canadian government
00:12
in relationship to the canadian charter
00:14
of rights which was established as part
00:17
of the
00:18
constitution act in the 1980s and he
00:22
as i
00:23
said in the bio is the only living
00:24
minister
00:26
who participated in that constitutional
00:28
process and is there uh is therefore a
00:31
unique
00:32
let's say historical and current
00:34
resource
00:35
because he can help
00:37
illuminate canadians as to the intent of
00:41
the
00:42
people who
00:44
were instrumental in
00:47
drafting writing and agreeing on all of
00:50
those
00:51
fundamentally important accords
00:53
so let's start by
00:56
a disc let's start by talking about
00:59
what concerns are driving you to
01:02
re-enter the political discussion at the
01:04
moment
01:07
well primarily it is the charter of
01:09
rights and freedoms
01:11
especially those freedoms and rights
01:13
that are in sections 2 6 7 and 15 of the
01:17
charter which i helped craft
01:19
and their freedoms of association
01:21
freedoms of expression religion
01:23
conscience freedom of assembly freedom
01:26
of association that's in section two
01:28
section six of freedom of mobility the
01:31
right to travel anywhere in canada or
01:33
leave canada
01:34
section six deals with life liberty and
01:36
the security of the person in section 15
01:39
uh with equality every canadian
01:42
is uh equal before the law as we sit
01:45
here today
01:46
those
01:47
those provisions are being violated by
01:50
all the governments of canada but in
01:51
particular in my case right now the
01:54
federal government of canada and i'm
01:56
about to launch a lawsuit against the
01:58
federal government because of these
02:00
mandates especially their travel ban
02:05
[Music]
02:21
so
02:23
i want to get this straight in my head
02:28
zooms back up you were involved in the
02:30
constitutional process
02:32
okay
02:33
and
02:34
that
02:35
um relevant to the establishment of the
02:38
canadian bill of rights
02:40
canadian charter rights sorry yes let's
02:43
get that right
02:44
bill rights was done in 1960 by john
02:47
baker and was incomplete
02:50
right right okay that's why we needed
02:52
the charter rights in 1980 1802
02:55
right okay well we might want to we
02:57
might want to cover that when we talk
02:58
i'm trying to i'm trying to
03:00
juggle a lot of balls in my head right
03:02
now because we want to be able to
03:03
concentrate on the issue at hand but we
03:06
also want to bring along people who are
03:08
listening into the entire process so
03:10
they understand
03:11
yes we kind of have to do this on the
03:13
fly because we have like zero time so
03:16
and we want to get it right and so
03:19
when you were
03:21
working on the
03:23
constitutional partition process
03:26
how was that associated directly with
03:29
the
03:30
establishment of the canadian charter of
03:31
rights
03:32
okay it was all in the same bill called
03:35
the constitution act of 1982.
03:37
okay it's confusing because in 1981 when
03:40
we finalized the deal in november it was
03:42
called the patriation agreement
03:45
but when it got put into legislation in
03:47
the next year it got the words got
03:48
changed because it's now going into
03:50
legislation to the constitution act of
03:52
1982.
03:53
so the constitution act of 1982 contains
03:57
the patriation in other words this was
03:59
us our last time
04:01
severing ties with england we wouldn't
04:03
have to go back to england anymore to do
04:05
any amendments to our constitution we
04:07
could do them in canada that's what
04:08
patriation means
04:10
and then attached to what were a number
04:12
of other provisions including the
04:14
charter of rights and freedoms so it's
04:15
the constitution act of 1982 but it was
04:18
finalized in the fall of 1981.
04:21
okay eric are we recording like this we
04:24
are yeah okay good because that's
04:26
actually all relevant information some
04:28
of this might have to be
04:29
sorted
04:33
what's that that's okay
04:35
yeah no that's fine okay okay okay good
04:37
put it in later okay
04:40
so
04:41
yeah because i'm thinking
04:46
at this point if i can have everybody
04:47
else on airplane mode
05:00
uh during the recording
05:02
so i put at the end of the bio here as a
05:04
kind of lead into our discussion
05:06
that mr peckford has recently re-entered
05:08
the political arena because he has
05:09
serious concerns about the policies of
05:11
the canadian government in relationship
05:13
to the canadian charter of rights and if
05:15
he's not talking it's excellent
05:17
that's okay
05:19
that's a pretty blunt that's a pretty
05:20
blunt statement
05:22
but it's true
05:23
okay so
05:25
now we talked when when we emailed we
05:28
decided that
05:29
we're going to kind of open this with
05:32
a description of
05:35
the current problem and what you're
05:37
going to do about it
05:39
and then maybe we can use that as a lead
05:42
into a discussion of the history
05:45
yes sure okay that seems reasonable i
05:47
want to do i don't want to do this in a
05:49
planned
05:51
and
05:54
one of the things that goes very badly
05:56
in this kind of media is any attempt to
05:59
sort of shape it you know i know okay
06:02
okay so we don't want to do
06:04
that so
06:07
okay i think i thought i think i can
06:09
open with the bio which is pretty much
06:11
what your people sent me i just
06:13
shortened it to some degree like sure
06:15
i just tightened it up that's all and
06:17
then
06:18
i can use that line he recently entered
06:20
the political arena because he has
06:22
serious concerns i can use that
06:25
and ask you what those concerns are that
06:27
should do the trick that should open the
06:28
conversation i think
06:30
yes
06:31
okay
06:33
and i think all the other questions i
06:35
have
06:37
i can just ask you well
06:39
we're doing this they can just be part
06:40
of the process and that'll help me bring
06:42
everyone who's listening along
06:44
yeah and then
06:52
go ahead please i can very quickly
06:54
say in my opening as i say one of my
06:57
concerns that in 1867 when the country
06:59
was formed with the dna act there was no
07:02
bill of rights or charter rights in it
07:04
that's why we're still relying on the
07:05
british common law which was unwritten
07:08
and then we decided into the 20th
07:10
century that that wasn't good enough
07:12
especially with the influence in the
07:13
united states that had a bill of rights
07:15
almost from day one yeah so there were
07:17
moves underfoot to try to do that that
07:19
started with diesel baker in 60 but that
07:21
was only a federal act that applied to
07:23
federal people that didn't reply to the
07:26
whole nation to every canadian so in
07:28
1981
07:29
we completed that process by doing the
07:32
charter rights and freedoms in the
07:33
constitution act of 1982 which gave
07:36
every canadian rights and freedoms
07:38
written in the constitution
07:40
yep yep that's that's all that's all
07:42
excellent background
07:47
yeah okay i think i think
07:50
likely we're ready to go
07:52
we can talk about what we're going to do
07:54
with all this material
07:56
when we're done recording it and figure
07:58
out exactly how to manage it the release
08:00
of it and all of that
08:01
yeah i mean i'm
08:03
in some sense tempted to even use all
08:06
the discussion we're having right now as
08:07
part of that because
08:09
that gives people a very honest
08:12
representation of exactly what's going
08:13
on it's good for them to see the process
08:15
and not just the conclusion
08:18
so and that also makes it much more
08:19
trustworthy in the most real sense
08:21
there's no
08:24
attempt to massage
08:28
that's exactly it that's exactly it and
08:30
we want to step extraordinarily
08:32
carefully so i think i'll open with this
08:34
bio and then i'll i'll just ask you what
08:36
your concerns are
08:38
i'll also do a foray into asking you why
08:41
you chose this
08:42
medium
08:44
to make
08:46
to make this
08:47
case and claim because that's also
08:50
unsettling to say the least
08:52
so
08:53
all right
08:54
are you ready eric yes sir
08:56
okay
08:58
oh is that is it dave
08:59
yeah
09:00
i'll go down
09:02
um
09:06
i don't know that he can and lex is
09:08
going to record upstairs so he can't go
09:09
upstairs either so
09:11
he's just kind of
09:12
no tucky
09:15
thank you scott
09:17
we'll wait till he's back you don't need
09:18
a chair wait to live's back
09:21
are we waiting till we're gonna wait
09:23
till he's back just to confirm that
09:25
oh okay okay so we got a just a couple
09:27
minute delay here
09:34
go for it jordan
09:44
hello everyone i'm i'm here today with a
09:47
historical
09:48
figure
09:50
in the canadian landscape the honourable
09:52
brian peckford former premier of
09:55
newfoundland
09:56
we've been talking over the last couple
09:58
of days
09:59
about
10:01
the broader events in in canada in
10:03
relationship to
10:05
the political and constitutional work
10:07
that mr peckford did
10:09
in the 1980s and decided that it was
10:12
necessary to have a serious conversation
10:15
about such things at this time i'm going
10:18
to open this with a bio of mr peckford
10:20
so that everyone is situated in the
10:23
proper place to appreciate the
10:24
conversation
10:26
the honorable a brian peckford pc was
10:28
born august 27 1942 in whitburn
10:32
newfoundland
10:33
graduating from lewisport high school in
10:36
1960 he obtained his ba in education at
10:39
memorial in newfoundland
10:41
in 1966 and later did postgraduate work
10:45
in english literature and educational
10:47
psychology
10:48
in 1972
10:51
mr peckford
10:53
entered the political arena as a member
10:55
of the progressive conservatives
10:57
was elected as a member of the
10:59
provincial house of assembly
11:01
soon serving as special and
11:03
parliamentary assistant to the then
11:04
premier frank moores
11:07
he was minister of municipal affairs and
11:10
housing in 1974 and minister of mines
11:13
and energy and minister of rural
11:15
development northern affairs
11:17
for that province in 1976
11:21
in 1979 at the age of 36 which made him
11:24
a very young leader by the standards by
11:27
which such things are judged he became
11:29
leader of the pc party
11:31
and premier
11:32
of newfoundland
11:34
his government established the atlantic
11:37
accord bringing offshore oil and gas
11:39
revenue to the province
11:41
over 25 billion dollars to date
11:44
and a say in the management of the
11:46
resource
11:48
newfoundland's involvement in canada's
11:51
constitutional partition process in the
11:53
early 1980s led to the breakthrough
11:56
agreement
11:57
culminating in the constitution act of
11:59
1982.
12:01
he is the only living
12:03
first minister
12:05
who participated in that constitutional
12:07
process something that's dead relevant
12:09
to our later discover discussion
12:12
he retired from politics in march 1989
12:16
beginning a consulting company with his
12:17
wife carol assisting companies in europe
12:20
and north america
12:22
former premier peckford is the author of
12:25
two books the last someday the sun will
12:28
shine and have not will be no more was a
12:32
globe and male best seller in 2012.
12:35
he was soared to the privy council by
12:37
her majesty queen elizabeth in 1982.
12:41
he retired in 2001 and presently lives
12:44
with his wife carol in parksville
12:46
british columbia
12:48
now
12:49
mr peckford and i have been talking over
12:52
the last week
12:53
as i mentioned
12:55
because he has serious concerns
12:58
about the policies of the current
13:00
canadian government
13:02
in relationship to the canadian charter
13:04
of rights which was established as part
13:06
of the
13:08
constitution act in the 1980s and he
13:11
as i
13:12
said in the bio is the only living
13:14
minister
13:15
who participated in that constitutional
13:17
process and is there uh is therefore a
13:20
unique
13:21
let's say historical and current
13:23
resource
13:25
because he can help
13:27
illuminate canadians as to the intent of
13:30
the
13:31
people who
13:34
were instrumental in
13:36
drafting writing and agreeing on all of
13:39
those
13:40
fundamentally important accords
13:43
so let's start by
13:45
a disc let's start by talking about
13:49
what concerns are driving you to
13:52
re-enter the political discussion at the
13:54
moment
13:57
well primarily it is the charter of
13:59
rights and freedoms
14:01
especially those freedoms and rights
14:03
that are in sections 2 6 7 and 15 of the
14:07
charter which i helped craft
14:09
and their freedoms of association
14:11
freedoms of expression religion
14:13
conscience freedom of assembly freedom
14:16
of association that's in section two
14:18
section six freedom of mobility the
14:20
right to travel anywhere in canada or
14:22
leave canada
14:24
section six deals with life liberty and
14:26
the security of the person in section 15
14:29
with equality every canadian
14:32
is uh equal before the law as we sit
14:34
here today
14:36
those
14:37
those provisions are being violated by
14:39
all the governments of canada but in
14:41
particular in my case right now the
14:43
federal government of canada and i'm
14:45
about to launch a lawsuit against the
14:48
federal government because of these
14:50
mandates especially their travel ban
14:53
there's no other travel ban in the
14:54
western world
14:56
like this one and yet we're the second
14:58
largest country in the world by
14:59
geography
15:00
this impinges upon my right of travel my
15:04
right to travel to my family back east
15:06
or my friends it takes away my right
15:09
as a canadian
15:11
to be protected by the mobility right of
15:13
section 6. therefore
15:15
i i feel that the federal government has
15:17
overreached its authority
15:19
okay so let me get this clear because
15:21
i'm still having a hard time
15:23
conceptualizing
15:25
the fact that this is actually a reality
15:28
so the situation we have in canada is
15:30
that
15:32
a former drafter of what is one of the
15:35
most fundamental articles of our shared
15:38
agreement as a people
15:40
is now about to launch a legal claim
15:43
against the government itself
15:45
for violating the fundamental principles
15:47
upon which the entire country is founded
15:49
and
15:50
assembled and agrees that's not too
15:53
blunt
15:54
no that is
15:56
that is very very accurate that's
15:58
exactly what's happening i'm the only
16:00
first minister left alive who was at
16:02
that conference and helped draft
16:05
these freedoms and these rights and the
16:07
constitution act of 1982 itself and i do
16:10
this very reluctantly uh you know i've
16:13
been watching this thing now for almost
16:15
two years i've been speaking out about
16:17
it at public meetings and on my blog and
16:20
so on
16:21
and i've come to the conclusion now that
16:23
i must as a canadian and as one of the
16:27
writers and founders of the constitution
16:29
act of 1982 not only speak about it i
16:32
must act about it i must show canadians
16:35
that i'm so concerned as a citizen as a
16:37
former first minister that helped craft
16:39
this constitution act 1982 that i must
16:42
take action against my own government
16:44
because they have violated rights that i
16:47
and others helped craft in 1981 1982.
16:51
well what do you think the legal
16:53
response to this is going to be you
16:55
obviously and i know this of course is
16:57
you've been consulting with a legal team
16:59
i suppose and we can talk about that
17:01
i mean
17:02
it seems to me that this puts the courts
17:05
in an awfully
17:06
uh complicated position to say the
17:09
absolute least because
17:11
it's and please correct me if i'm
17:13
misstepping in any way here
17:15
it's up to the courts to determine
17:17
the letter but also the spirit of these
17:19
fundamental laws and it seems to me that
17:23
it's almost inarguable that if you have
17:25
a living member of the
17:27
of the body that drafted the provisions
17:30
making the claim that they're being
17:32
violated that that's as good an
17:34
indication about
17:35
the violation of the spirit of the law
17:37
certainly and perhaps the letter as well
17:39
that that that you could possibly have
17:42
it
17:43
am i
17:43
am i
17:45
summing that up accurately
17:46
yes you are and then and and other
17:49
lawyers including the lawyers that will
17:51
be representing me now in this lawsuit
17:53
the justice center for constitutional
17:54
freedoms have looked at the situation
17:57
very carefully and it's after weeks and
17:59
weeks of deliberation that we've decided
18:01
upon this action so the justice center
18:03
for constitutional freedoms will be
18:05
launching this lawsuit in the next 24
18:08
hours or so on behalf of me and a number
18:10
of other canadians but of course because
18:12
of my present status and previous status
18:15
as a first minister this becomes
18:18
elevated and perhaps more public than it
18:20
would otherwise become
18:22
but
18:23
this is my deliberate consideration and
18:25
that of my lawyers of what is going on
18:28
in this country what is happening is
18:30
that there is a section in charter
18:31
rights and freedoms which allows
18:33
governments to override these freedoms
18:35
in unusual circumstances and i remember
18:38
this very well when we were crafting the
18:41
constitution these unusual circumstances
18:43
because we're putting it in the
18:44
constitution it's not a federal act or
18:46
provincial act it's in a constitution
18:49
which is supposed to enshrine permanent
18:51
values and give glue to the country okay
18:55
so this section one can only be used and
18:57
i remember this well in times of peril
19:00
in times of war and insurrection or when
19:02
the state is in peril when the existence
19:05
of the state is in peril this particular
19:08
virus
19:09
for which there's a recovery of 99
19:11
a fatality rate of less than one percent
19:14
does not constitute in my view
19:17
uh a
19:19
a situation where the country is in
19:21
peril and therefore i argue that section
19:23
one doesn't even apply even though
19:25
they're trying to make it apply and use
19:27
that as the reason for doing what
19:29
they're doing
19:30
so you're saying that in your estimation
19:33
and and this is a consequence of the
19:35
knowledge that you bring forth from
19:37
conferring with all the people who
19:38
drafted this legislation to begin with
19:40
at the provincial and the federal level
19:42
that when you drafted it you did not
19:45
envision that its provisions could be
19:48
violated under conditions that weren't a
19:50
threat like a fundamental threat to the
19:52
integrity of the country itself
19:55
and the current and that the current
19:57
state of affairs on the public health
19:59
front
20:00
does in no way meet that criteria
20:03
absolutely it does not at all meet that
20:05
criteria and even in the extreme
20:07
circumstance because we're all fair
20:09
people that you tried to make section
20:11
one apply
20:12
and you and you said what peckford and
20:15
others are saying uh happened in 81 82
20:18
and section one doesn't apply uh does
20:21
apply then there are four tests that
20:23
have to be met in order for it to apply
20:26
that means it must be demonstrably
20:28
justified
20:29
that what the action is is worthwhile in
20:32
other words some kind of cost-benefit
20:33
analysis it must be done by law it must
20:36
be done in reasonable limits and
20:38
fourthly and most importantly all of
20:40
those three must be done within the
20:41
context of a free and democratic society
20:44
and a free and democratic society to me
20:46
means parliamentary democracy in our
20:48
country we have 14 parliaments and they
20:50
have been completely silent there's no
20:52
parliamentary committee anywhere in any
20:54
of those 14 parliaments looking at
20:55
what's happening to our country there
20:57
are the people's representatives and so
20:59
on okay so you're also saying and this
21:01
is also terrible that you're also saying
21:03
that
21:05
even the process itself by which these
21:07
exceptions could be made has been
21:10
essentially subverted in the name of
21:13
something approximating expediency but
21:15
that the the rationale for that
21:18
expediency does not indicate a level of
21:20
seriousness sufficient to justify that
21:22
expedient process
21:24
absolutely
21:25
absolutely exactly what i'm saying and i
21:27
think that's extremely unfortunate and
21:30
uh i i don't normally speak for myself
21:32
on this there's quite a few experts
21:33
around
21:35
like the great barrington declaration
21:36
over a year ago now identified and these
21:39
were some of the greatest
21:40
epidemiologists in the world how to
21:42
approach this kind of a situation okay
21:45
and that's their principles still stand
21:48
you know you you you protect the
21:50
vulnerable you do everything to protect
21:52
the vulnerable in this kind of situation
21:54
and by the way this is not new all of
21:56
the provinces of canada have what's
21:58
called emergency measures organizations
22:01
which spend we spend all these millions
22:03
on as taxpayers who do nothing else so
22:05
sit down every day and organize a plan
22:08
for some kind of an emergency
22:10
declared let's say let's admit maybe
22:14
the emergency or at least a very serious
22:16
situation in the country and and then
22:18
they bring to to bear all of the
22:20
planning tools that are necessary not
22:22
just a narrow clinical one from the
22:24
department of health right
22:27
how is the best way in lieutenant
22:29
colonel david redman out of alberta who
22:32
wrote the new emergency measures act
22:34
there
22:35
speaks eloquently to this and has
22:37
produced all kinds of documents that
22:39
nobody has challenged that this was the
22:42
the appropriate approach to take okay so
22:45
so there's two
22:47
issues that stem out of that the first
22:49
is
22:51
what has also happened and and you're
22:53
making allusion to that is that the
22:55
political
22:57
our political leaders
22:58
have not only
23:00
circumvented the parliamentary process
23:03
to produce provisions that violate the
23:05
canadian charter of rights
23:07
but they've abdicated their
23:09
responsibility for overall governance
23:11
which is the balancing of all sorts of
23:13
competing interests to a narrow public
23:17
so-called public health policy
23:19
so and that that's also
23:21
inappropriate governance in the most
23:22
fundamental sense
23:24
yes absolutely no question and if
23:26
anybody looks at the documentation that
23:28
the left-hand colonel david redmond has
23:30
produced they will be convinced that
23:33
and you know we had the swine flu on i
23:35
and other foods before this and other
23:37
infectious diseases and that's why these
23:40
emergency measures organizations were
23:41
put in place for you know like when the
23:43
river floods in winnipeg or when we have
23:46
you know uh a nice storm in quebec or
23:48
whatever that there are people who have
23:51
already planned for all of this and have
23:54
already contacted the private sector the
23:56
public sector all the relevant
23:57
government departments so when something
23:59
happens they're ready to move quickly on
24:02
all fronts and have a very joined effort
24:06
to ensure that the totality of society
24:09
is considered compromised
24:11
isn't compromised and you put in
24:13
measures which acknowledge all the
24:15
factors because now we know from studies
24:17
that have been produced eaten by douglas
24:19
dr douglas allen with simon fraser
24:21
university who looked at 80 studies over
24:23
a year ago which showed that the cure
24:25
was worse than the disease in other
24:26
words the lockdowns caused so many
24:28
problems on the other side that was
24:30
difficult to justify the measures that
24:32
were being used okay now you alluded to
24:34
the fact too that
24:36
this isn't in some sense common public
24:38
knowledge and then
24:39
along with that we're faced with the
24:41
extreme oddity i would say of the fact
24:43
that the venue that you chose to
24:46
announce this move and to discuss all
24:48
these issues isn't a standard news media
24:51
venue it's my youtube channel and one of
24:55
the things that you discussed with me
24:57
earlier this week was the impossibility
25:00
in your view of having these topics
25:03
dealt with in an honest and
25:05
straightforward manner by any major news
25:08
organization in canada which to me is
25:11
almost an
25:13
statement
25:14
damning the current
25:16
larger scale governance structure which
25:18
in some sense includes a free press
25:21
operating in
25:22
in a coherent and
25:24
articulate and trustworthy manner as a
25:27
check
25:28
a check
25:29
and an opportunity for reflection on the
25:31
political process
25:33
and so that in itself seems as worrisome
25:36
as all the other things that we're
25:37
talking about at a governmental level
25:39
like i think this is preposterous in
25:40
some sense that this is the place where
25:43
this discussion is taking place
25:45
and so
25:47
yes no i i i think you raise an
25:49
extremely important point and one that i
25:51
need to address
25:53
and i've been
25:54
vocal about being concerned
25:56
about what's happening for quite some
25:58
time and i've held public meetings here
25:59
on vancouver island and vancouver in
26:02
front of the art gallery last october
26:04
and i've written letters
26:06
to national newspapers and they have not
26:09
carried any my letters which is quite
26:11
unusual because before this happened
26:14
they would carry my letters when i made
26:15
common comment on normal public policy
26:18
issues across the nation and they
26:20
carried my letters but in recent times
26:23
they have not even acknowledged that
26:24
they received them
26:26
so how do you account for that
26:28
what what's going on
26:30
well it seems to me that the media very
26:32
early on bought into the government
26:34
narrative
26:35
and developed the same kind of fear that
26:38
a lot of individuals did because of what
26:40
that was being told all was being
26:43
proposed with all these cases even
26:45
though these cases didn't represent
26:46
hospitalizations or icu
26:49
visits or whatever and so there was a
26:51
fear generated early on and the
26:53
mainstream media bought into it very
26:56
quickly and now are out trying to
26:58
sustain the narrative that they became a
27:00
part of early on is the only way i can
27:02
explain it of course we also know that
27:05
all the mainstream media have received
27:07
significant sums of money from the
27:08
government of canada over the last three
27:10
years over 600 million dollars so one
27:12
cannot but mention that in any
27:15
discussion like this that one has to ask
27:17
the question
27:19
has this flow of money from the federal
27:21
government to the canadian press in any
27:23
way impinged upon their impartiality to
27:27
tell the story on both sides of the
27:30
issue
27:35
what do you expect is going to happen as
27:37
a consequence of the challenge that
27:38
you're mounting and can you go into some
27:40
details about the precise nature of the
27:42
challenge because i i still don't i
27:45
don't understand it completely by any
27:47
means perhaps it's not understandable
27:50
completely by any means but
27:52
you're obviously with your legal team
27:55
you have a view of how this is likely to
27:57
unfold um
27:59
so
28:01
what do you want to happen and and and
28:04
how serious it challenges this to the
28:07
claim of the government
28:09
in some sense to have legitimate
28:11
sovereignty
28:13
yes i i i think uh
28:16
this is very serious because i think
28:18
first of all you have to as you know in
28:20
the legal system specifically
28:23
articulate in your lawsuit what it is
28:26
you're
28:28
you know making the lawsuit about so you
28:30
have to be specific so we had to pick
28:32
one area we could you know freedom of
28:34
expression conscience assembly
28:35
association life liberty and so on and
28:38
we picked mobility and the federal
28:40
government itself because
28:42
this you know
28:43
the second largest country in the world
28:45
right traveling by plane and train is
28:48
extremely important for business and for
28:50
the normal functioning of a nation
28:52
remember for the maintenance of families
28:54
and for the maintenance of families the
28:57
country was formed by moving from east
28:59
to west with the railway i mean our
29:01
history is all you know replete with
29:04
that kind of stuff so what we chose was
29:07
this particular situation of this travel
29:10
ban which right impacts every single
29:12
canadian in their movement to to meet
29:15
family and to conduct regular business
29:17
and so we thought this would be
29:20
an area that that we should highlight
29:22
and because we had to get specific so
29:24
i'm particularly um the lawsuit
29:28
challenging the the government's
29:31
program of
29:32
banning travel by train and playing by
29:35
canadians in other words we can't travel
29:37
across our own nation and the section
29:40
six says mobility the right of every
29:42
canadian to travel anywhere in canada or
29:45
leave town
29:46
that's what the sector says
29:48
that's the exact words of sectional so
29:51
therefore that's what we are pursuing
29:53
now in the courts in the next couple of
29:55
days in the next few weeks and hopefully
29:56
we'll get a decision we're asking for an
29:58
expedited decision in the next three or
30:01
four months so this will fundamentally
30:03
challenge
30:05
the approach that the federal government
30:06
is taking on responding to this
30:09
so-called pandemic and therefore will
30:11
put into question uh this whole notion
30:14
of using section one of the charter to
30:17
override these rights and freedoms if us
30:20
as first ministers uh dr peterson had
30:22
wanted to just have uh protecting rights
30:26
and freedoms that could easily be
30:27
changed we wouldn't have gone to the
30:29
constitution we would have just said all
30:30
right put it back just put an act in the
30:32
federal parliament and put acts in all
30:34
the parliaments and then up to the whim
30:36
of the political party at the time to
30:38
change it we wanted to safeguard it so
30:41
that it was beyond the whim of political
30:43
machinations and therefore could not be
30:45
changed only in the most extreme
30:47
circumstances so what we're really
30:50
concerned about and what i'm really
30:51
concerned about is if this is not
30:53
if our
30:55
charter is not upheld and then honored
30:57
and these freedoms and rights honor then
31:00
the next and therefore we lose the next
31:03
time around when there's an emergency
31:05
two or three years from now or one or
31:07
the government decides and declares that
31:09
there is an emergency they can use this
31:11
as a precedent and the charter becomes
31:13
further diluted and then our rights and
31:16
freedoms as individuals has been
31:18
destroyed and that section of being a
31:21
democracy is no more
31:24
that is the great danger so that's why
31:26
it's very necessary for me to do what
31:28
i'm doing the other point about this is
31:30
is that four years after the charter
31:32
came in in 1986 there was a case in the
31:35
supreme court of canada where the judges
31:38
were forced to look at section one
31:40
because of the way the lawyer had
31:41
constructed the case for his client it's
31:43
called the oats test
31:45
and in that the judges tried to describe
31:48
what uh
31:50
this section one meant and they did not
31:52
a bad job not as good as i thought they
31:55
should do but still a much better job
31:57
and it's really funny the lower courts
31:59
have who have already looked at the
32:01
charter as it relates to what's going on
32:03
have not used this test which is highly
32:05
unusual because courts always look to
32:08
the president set by the highest
32:11
supreme court in determining what they
32:12
will do in their case because they were
32:14
both concerning the charter and so the
32:17
absence of seeing
32:19
the the oats test being used in the
32:22
lower court so far is very troubling and
32:24
therefore the other reason why we must
32:27
take this kind of action at this time
32:29
okay so let me ask you a question about
32:31
that because this process of
32:34
so circumventing parliament and then
32:37
um
32:38
failing to meet the proper standards for
32:41
the kind of crisis that would involve
32:46
lifting the provisions of the canadian
32:48
charter of rights
32:52
that should be blocked
32:53
by the courts if they're abiding by the
32:56
principle of common law
32:59
reliance on previous presidents
33:01
especially at higher court levels
33:03
but that's not happening and so
33:06
and that's in the context
33:08
that we discussed already where the
33:10
media for example has become co-opted or
33:12
corrupted to a degree that it's no
33:14
longer reliable
33:16
i know i've talked spoken with many
33:18
lawyers in canada in recent years who
33:20
are very upset about the co-option and
33:24
and corruption of the entire legal
33:26
enterprise for similar reasons
33:29
are you even vaguely confident that the
33:33
the court system itself has enough
33:35
integrity to give the views that you're
33:38
putting forward even though
33:40
they're at the basis of the constitution
33:43
that unites us all do you think that
33:46
your views can get any fairer
33:49
or
33:49
more
33:50
equally impartial hearing in the court
33:52
system than they have in the media
33:55
well i i think here's where i come down
33:58
on that the lower courts have made some
34:00
decisions which are injurious to the to
34:03
the charter and they're being appealed
34:04
to the higher courts so i think here's
34:07
where we have an opportunity this
34:08
particular lawsuit of mine will go to
34:10
the federal court of canada first and
34:12
then
34:14
likely to the supreme court of canada
34:16
second
34:17
regardless of what decision is made one
34:18
side of the other will will quite likely
34:20
appeal it
34:22
so i think
34:23
at the court of appeal in the provinces
34:26
that's the highest courts in the problem
34:27
since every single province
34:29
has courts a supreme court and then a
34:32
court of appeal and canadians are
34:34
confused about that because when they
34:36
hear these early decisions i think
34:37
that's the end of it
34:39
and that's only the beginning of it to
34:41
use a really good metaphor canadian
34:43
metaphor we're in the second period
34:44
halfway through the second period we
34:46
still got a you know perhaps half the
34:48
game left or almost half the game left
34:50
and that's where the courts of appeal
34:52
come in who usually are more independent
34:55
and more sober
34:57
thought as it relates to the juris
34:59
prudence which is before them and so
35:01
this is where i and the lawyers i think
35:04
uh come down and say
35:06
we have to exhaust
35:08
all of the
35:09
civilized legal processes that we set up
35:12
under our constitution and that means
35:15
these decisions will be appealed to the
35:17
courts of appeal in the provinces and
35:19
then to the supreme court of canada so
35:21
it's these higher courts that have an
35:24
unbelievable responsibility now
35:26
unelected judges to finally decide
35:29
whether in fact
35:31
uh the the really the democracy of
35:34
canada is going to survive or not or
35:36
whether suddenly from 1867 to 1981 82 we
35:40
didn't have a written charter we get one
35:43
and now within 40 years it's being
35:45
eviscerated or somehow
35:48
undermined by an overreach of the
35:50
various governments that's our position
35:52
and we hope to put that to the judge
35:54
judges and hopefully that the judges
35:56
will see it in that kind of reason
35:59
balanced way okay so you focused on
36:03
uh movement the right to movement and i
36:06
think you put that in a very interesting
36:07
historical context and practical context
36:11
with your discussion of the fact a that
36:13
canada is absolutely huge and people are
36:16
distributed all across it and that
36:18
freedom of movement is necessary for us
36:21
to conduct our businesses and to
36:22
maintain our families and to communicate
36:24
but also that canada itself was knitted
36:27
together as a consequence of
36:29
facilitation of freedom of movement not
36:31
least by the railway so but were there
36:34
other
36:35
violations of charter principles that
36:38
you
36:38
considered um highlighting as you moved
36:41
forward before you settled on
36:43
freedom of movement
36:45
of course there were many including
36:47
freedom of association
36:49
and freedom of assembly
36:51
lots of people the churches christian
36:53
churches and other churches were
36:55
prevented from getting together so that
36:57
violence and there's a curfew in quebec
37:00
still
37:02
which is just it's just absolutely
37:04
beyond comprehension in my estimation in
37:07
a free society that that can be the case
37:09
and i have friends in quebec who are
37:11
hurt to the bone by the fact for example
37:14
that they're not allowed given their
37:17
they're not allowed to attend religious
37:18
services for example which and that's a
37:21
really egregious violation because
37:24
if there's anything more fundamental
37:25
let's say that freedom of association
37:27
well maybe there's freedom of speech but
37:30
before that even there's freedom of
37:31
belief and and to to interfere with that
37:34
at a governmental level is unprecedented
37:36
at in my estimation especially when they
37:39
have not gone out of their way to
37:41
demonstrably justify which is one of the
37:43
tests of section one where is it
37:45
demonstrably justification demonstrable
37:48
justification of what they're doing one
37:50
would think in public policy since my
37:52
time and long before when i was a
37:54
premier one of the things governments
37:55
did when they were introducing
37:57
especially brand new legislation you
37:59
know and doing very serious things with
38:01
the constitution would be to do a
38:03
cost-benefit analysis and based upon
38:05
that you would decide how you went
38:07
forward none of that was done no
38:09
parliamentary committee was ever struck
38:11
to look at both sides of the issue and
38:12
call-on experts all of these kinds of
38:15
reasonable measures which were part of
38:17
the canadian fabric of developing public
38:20
policy have been discarded in this
38:22
particular so what are people okay so
38:24
what are people doing i've spoken to rex
38:27
murphy about that and rex has been
38:30
the only journalist perhaps who's been
38:33
beating the warning drum trying to alert
38:36
canadians to the fact that the
38:38
parliamentary process itself has been
38:40
subverted at the federal and the
38:41
provincial levels and he's he's
38:44
certainly been allowed to express those
38:46
views but i don't think canadians
38:49
have any real sense
38:51
of
38:51
exactly how serious that is so one
38:54
question would be well if our laws are
38:56
no longer if the laws that restrict our
38:59
charter freedoms are no longer being
39:01
produced by parliamentary debate
39:04
how are they being produced and so that
39:06
be the first question how practically
39:08
how is this occurring is it just by is
39:11
it just by fiat is it just by statement
39:14
and
39:14
and
39:15
and if so why are these laws to be
39:18
regarded as valid at all and if they're
39:20
not valid well what does that mean
39:23
yeah well here here's where the most
39:25
insidious part of this equation comes
39:27
into play what the governments have done
39:29
have used in very many cases existing
39:31
legislation under which they have the
39:34
power to make regulation
39:36
so they've used existing emergencies
39:39
okay legislation and
39:42
inflated it enough or interpreted in a
39:45
manner that they could also use in this
39:46
circumstance and therefore issue
39:48
additional
39:50
regulation okay and then in other cases
39:53
they did not fully explain or have a
39:55
parliamentary committee look at other
39:57
amendments when they open their
39:59
parliament and close it within two or
40:01
three days or a week in other words
40:03
sufficient debate wasn't allowed to to
40:05
understand the repercussions of what
40:07
they were doing when they were giving
40:09
more power to the minister and more
40:11
power to the public health officer right
40:12
so this really means this really means
40:14
in some sense that none of these
40:16
policies were subject to opposition
40:19
which is because that's and so and let's
40:21
we could delve into that a little bit
40:23
you might say well in an emergency such
40:25
that provisions shouldn't be subject to
40:27
opposition because that's inefficient
40:29
but that is the same thing as saying two
40:32
things one is that they shouldn't be
40:34
thought about because
40:37
discussion between opposing parties is
40:39
actually thought
40:41
and then the second thing it's saying is
40:44
they should be implemented without
40:45
recourse to the broader public because
40:48
the broader public is represented in
40:51
that oppositional structure so that
40:52
everybody's voices are being allowed to
40:54
be heard that's what that's in some
40:56
sense the whole point of the parliament
40:57
where you parliament means place of
41:00
talking fundamentally and it means more
41:02
deeply than that place of thinking and
41:05
even more deeply than that
41:07
place of discussion of the entire
41:09
panoply of public opinion that's all
41:11
gone by the wayside in the name of
41:14
efficiency let's say or something like
41:16
that yes doctor and even it gets worse
41:19
than that because we have had time
41:21
one can perhaps relieve or excuse if one
41:24
wants to to make so that your argument
41:27
is completely reasonable and say for the
41:29
first 90 days yeah this thing began
41:32
you could make an argument that okay the
41:35
government's had to move but in any
41:37
rational way if they had used the
41:39
emergency measures planning that was
41:40
already in place they would have moved
41:42
to protect the vulnerable first and then
41:44
did a study on the rest what else do we
41:47
need to do in society what they did is
41:49
just a carte blanche on over all of
41:51
society without giving second thought to
41:54
it and now all of the studies 90 days
41:57
after this started and 100 days 120 days
42:01
show right and then the great barrington
42:03
declaration is a good example over a
42:04
year old now is the great barrington
42:07
declaration so they had lots of
42:09
information and dr allen's report from
42:11
cyber trades over a year ago so they've
42:14
had lots of
42:15
information and scientific studies about
42:17
what's going on to demonstrate that not
42:20
only are the vaccines destructive more
42:22
destructive than any vaccines in our
42:24
history
42:25
and that's a that's a scientific fact
42:28
then
42:28
they had time to adjust and this is
42:31
where they have not even been nimble in
42:33
this kind of circumstance when you think
42:34
this is the very time that governments
42:36
would be nimble okay we'll see what we
42:38
can do with the vulnerable all these
42:40
long term care homes in the hospitals
42:42
and also who are most vulnerable and
42:44
we'll now have the parliamentary
42:46
committee on an expedited basis i
42:48
understand that on an emergency basis
42:50
bring in experts from both sides within
42:52
the next 30 days to see whether what
42:54
else we should do in a reasonable and
42:56
graduated way or are what we're doing
42:59
now the most appropriate way to respond
43:01
right right
43:03
so your case is well in the early stages
43:06
of the emergency
43:08
of the of the pandemic when people
43:09
didn't understand the magnitude of the
43:11
risk there was potential for
43:13
justification for reducing parliamentary
43:16
complexity to
43:19
short-term efficiency but as the
43:21
pandemic has unfolded and we become more
43:23
aware of its true risks or lack thereof
43:26
we should have returned to the
43:27
principles of parliamentary democracy as
43:29
rapidly as possible
43:30
and with less and less justification
43:33
that's continued to happen that that
43:35
circumvention of the parliamentary
43:37
process has continued to happen and
43:40
and i suppose that culminated in in
43:42
recent months with the the quebec
43:44
lockdown the curfew
43:46
i don't see how anybody can possibly
43:48
make the case that
43:50
that curfew was implemented under
43:52
conditions that were as uncertain and
43:54
dire as those that obtained in the
43:58
initial phases of the pandemic
44:00
especially given that
44:01
the omicron is obviously much less
44:04
serious than the original virus and also
44:06
we we've already attained something
44:08
approximately
44:10
something approximating an 80
44:11
vaccination rate
44:13
and that's not going to be pushed up
44:15
much higher than 90 without government
44:17
intervention that becomes unbelievably
44:19
heavy-handed so there's less and less
44:21
justification for more and more
44:24
circumvention of parliamentary processes
44:26
as this proceeds instead of exactly the
44:28
opposite
44:30
exactly that's why it took me this long
44:32
to to be convinced that i have to take
44:35
this action i mean i never took this
44:36
action 90 days after they brought in
44:38
these things or 100 days or a year after
44:40
right we've i've been watching this and
44:43
commenting and making you know
44:44
articulating my concerns as rex has by
44:47
the way rex and murphy and i went to
44:48
university together we're both
44:50
newfoundlanders we're all both born in
44:52
newfoundland and uh i've heard him on
44:54
your program with you and enjoy enjoy
44:56
the conversation and and
44:59
love the english literature and the
45:00
classics like like he does and
45:02
we both got a very wonderful education
45:05
at memorial in those days no longer
45:07
there now but we did and i do appreciate
45:10
his commentary and what he's brought to
45:11
this uh to this discussion it's very
45:14
very important but the the other thing
45:16
is as you say the transmission of the of
45:19
the virus now and the virus has changed
45:21
so a lot of the vaccines that are being
45:23
used are no longer applicable they don't
45:25
do anything uh to the existing variant
45:28
that we have they were devised for
45:30
another variant or for the original
45:32
virus now the other thing is people
45:33
getting more planes in my and my travel
45:36
ban that i'm arguing on before the
45:38
lawsuit is that everybody transmits it
45:41
now unvaccinated and vaccinate transmit
45:44
receive and transmit the virus
45:46
so it's hard to make the argument that
45:48
the travel ban should be in place if the
45:50
transmission of the virus for which all
45:51
of this is centered is no longer valid
45:54
that is is that
45:56
the vaccinated protect
45:58
against the virus because they receive
46:00
it and transmit it the same as the
46:02
unvaccinated and now we find in denmark
46:05
israel just in the last few days right
46:08
that in australia their case rates have
46:11
gone through the roof again even though
46:12
they're 90 vaccinated and so the whole
46:16
basis right the whole basis of this uh
46:19
argument of these lockdowns and travel
46:21
bans and so on
46:23
the basis is combo right the whole civil
46:26
on which this so-called rational
46:29
approach to a virus has completely
46:31
crumbled and no longer can sustain
46:33
itself so
46:35
what one must then question why is this
46:38
continuing to be in place when all of
46:40
that data is available which at least
46:42
well i can tell you what i've been
46:44
informed of
46:45
about why it's continuing and i had a
46:48
conversation with a senior advisor to
46:50
one of canadians provincial governments
46:52
a number of conversations some of those
46:53
were conducted with rex none of this was
46:56
made public because the conversation
46:58
occurred in privacy and
47:00
and uh i asked the gentleman i was
47:03
speaking with why he wouldn't go public
47:05
and he said and i believe honorably that
47:08
he believed he could still do more good
47:10
from within the confines of the
47:11
governmental structure than as a lone
47:13
voice crying in the wilderness let's say
47:15
but he told me flat out that
47:18
canadian public policy is being uh um
47:22
so it's not being generated through the
47:24
parliamentary process that it's supposed
47:26
to be generated through what's happening
47:28
instead is the politicians are turning
47:30
to
47:31
badly sampled opinion polls short-term
47:34
opinion polls and driving policy as a
47:37
consequence and then it's not they're
47:39
not actually driving it as a consequence
47:40
of public opinion polls because that
47:42
would be something like consulting the
47:44
people they're utilizing
47:46
adherence to short-term public opinion
47:49
polls to maximize the probability that
47:51
they'll obtain political success in the
47:54
electoral sphere in the near future and
47:57
so i said i pressed him i said so you're
47:59
telling me that there's
48:01
that this isn't based on the science
48:03
because that's certainly what we're
48:04
hearing he said no it's not based on the
48:06
science that's not driving the decisions
48:09
i asked him
48:10
is there an end game in place which is
48:13
do we have definitions laid down for
48:15
when the pandemic is now of of
48:19
sufficient lack of severity that it's
48:22
over so to speak and we can go back to
48:24
normal life is that even is there even a
48:26
conceptual framework within which that
48:28
might occur and the answer to that was
48:31
no there's not that as well
48:33
and so
48:34
so it was one of the most shocking
48:36
conversations i think i've ever had in
48:38
my life in some sense because i'm not
48:41
cynic about the political process i
48:43
think that cheap cynicism about politics
48:46
is
48:47
uh it's a
48:48
it's an abdication of civic
48:50
responsibility and it's it's
48:54
it's it's bitterness masquerading as
48:56
wisdom
48:57
and that
48:59
but then when i heard that the situation
49:02
at the highest level of levels of
49:04
governance was
49:06
more cynical and less responsible than i
49:09
could have even imagined and that even
49:12
when i pushed that interpretation to see
49:15
if i was misinterpreting the answer i
49:18
received was a definitive no it's as bad
49:20
as you think or worse
49:23
and i didn't really know what to make of
49:25
that in the aftermath of the
49:26
conversation because
49:29
well for obvious for all the reasons
49:31
that we're discussing it's like well
49:32
have things really got to the point
49:34
where we don't use parliamentary process
49:36
we're violating the canadian charter of
49:38
bill of rights the press is so involved
49:41
in collusion that they won't even report
49:43
on it and they're being subsidized to a
49:45
great degree by the government in some
49:47
sense for doing so and that's so
49:49
widespread that it covers the entire
49:51
legacy media let's say it's like it
49:53
sounds conspiratorial in in in the
49:56
deepest sense and
49:59
that's why
50:00
that's why a lot of people have gone
50:02
that route is because they have been
50:05
almost pushed in that room and you see
50:06
the government they're using their
50:08
polling here they're on advertising
50:09
you've got to get fascinated vaccinated
50:12
on the television and they're actually
50:13
even
50:14
doing ads for children and trying to
50:17
talk to children directly through a
50:18
public ad so they're feeding off
50:21
themselves they're creating enough fear
50:23
so that they'll get the poll they want
50:24
to get
50:25
well that's what i that well that's the
50:27
other thing that i see happening and
50:28
this is partly why this process is so
50:30
dangerous is first of all it's very very
50:33
difficult to pull people and get a read
50:35
on really what they want and that's why
50:38
we don't have direct democracy by the
50:41
people we don't want
50:43
fear and whim and impulsivity that's not
50:47
thought through carefully to be the
50:48
basis for government so really what's
50:50
happened we could say in some sense is
50:52
that
50:53
by circumventing circumventing the
50:55
parliamentary process and abdicating
50:58
responsibility for complex multi-level
51:01
decision-making we've reverted to
51:03
something like the most primordial form
51:05
of of whim rule by mob and that's all
51:09
mediated through opinion polls that's
51:11
been the alternative to the
51:13
parliamentary process
51:14
the other thing perhaps that a lot of
51:16
canadians don't acknowledge and
51:18
recognize and
51:19
canadians are very wonderful people and
51:22
very nice people and very trustworthy of
51:24
their governments okay and so what has
51:27
happened in the last 40 years they have
51:28
not known this because we have not been
51:30
civically involved like we should i say
51:33
in all my public meetings the level of
51:35
good democracy is directly related to
51:38
the amount of civic involvement right
51:40
the less civic involvement the less
51:42
democracy and this is what's happening
51:44
in canada yeah well that cheap that
51:47
cheap cynicism interferes with that too
51:49
and what that means is that because
51:51
people are cynical and they think that's
51:53
wisdom then they they abandon these
51:56
institutions and then when they're
51:58
abandoned that means that maybe the
51:59
people who shouldn't be running them
52:02
are able to run them and then the whole
52:03
thing gets corrupted from the bottom up
52:05
and that's happening i see that
52:07
happening with school boards in
52:08
particular it's absolutely exactly
52:10
it's happening all over the place and
52:12
the problem with canada is not the
52:13
parliament that you and i grew up with
52:15
okay where the mp had really significant
52:18
power with the parliamentary committee
52:19
had really significant power and this is
52:21
true in all the problems as well there's
52:23
been a gradual
52:24
shift of power from the parliament first
52:27
to the cabinet and now to the first
52:29
minister's office both in all the
52:30
provinces and in the government of
52:32
canada donald j savoie has written a
52:35
book on this called democracy in canada
52:37
the the disintegration of our
52:39
institutions it's only a couple years
52:41
old it's a haunting book but he's one of
52:44
the experts in governance in canada and
52:46
he's a scholar at the university of
52:48
moncton and this is more or less his
52:50
epic book he's written quite a few books
52:51
on this over the years and this is a
52:53
book that every uh thinking canadian
52:56
should read because it
52:58
methodically and intelligently deals
53:01
with how over time without the shock
53:04
being fired the movement of power from
53:06
where it should reside in the parliament
53:08
all the way to the prime minister's
53:10
office and the premier's office and this
53:12
therefore um this this
53:15
this situation in early 2020 we were
53:18
very vulnerable to this kind of thing
53:21
happening by governments because we have
53:23
ran into that kind of atmosphere over
53:25
time with power shifting and therefore
53:28
exercise of power quickly by the
53:31
executive rather than by the parliament
53:34
okay so we've outlined to some degree
53:36
what it means
53:37
if the challenge that you're proposing
53:40
to mount fails and what it'll mean is
53:42
that what's happening now
53:44
with the centralization of power and the
53:46
circumventing of the parliamentary
53:48
process and the reliance let's say on
53:50
opinion polls and whim and the
53:51
abdication of responsibility for
53:53
governing to so-called experts who are
53:56
uni-dimensional in their viewpoint
53:58
that's the status quo and that's
54:00
becoming more and more uh uh the norm
54:04
what's the
54:05
i don't understand what'll happen if you
54:08
win i mean because if you win it means
54:10
that
54:11
we've been
54:13
that the laws that have governed us for
54:15
the last let's say year two years
54:17
accepting that initial period of maybe
54:20
we could say
54:22
uncertainty bordering on the level of
54:24
potential emergency
54:26
if you win
54:27
what does that mean for the
54:30
for the political sovereignty of the
54:33
federal gov federal and provincial
54:34
governments
54:35
i think what that means is that if we
54:38
win
54:39
we
54:40
we have identified that we have some
54:42
very substantial laws on the books that
54:45
when challenged and brought rationally
54:47
towards our highest courts
54:49
we'll be honored and that will give
54:51
canadians faith to reform either the
54:54
existing political parties or go with
54:56
new political parties that recognize in
54:59
their platform which they've signed off
55:01
on with the people that they respect the
55:04
charter rights and freedoms and only in
55:06
very dire circumstances
55:08
like a war insurrection cannot be uh
55:10
circumvented right that we must get back
55:12
to a parliamentary type of democracy the
55:15
power must be
55:17
returned to the parliament look
55:19
jody rabo when she argued as a minister
55:22
of justice and then later wanted to
55:23
appear before a parliamentary committee
55:25
she was allowed to appear a couple of
55:27
times then they shut the committee down
55:29
even though she indicated in writing
55:31
that she had more information that she
55:32
wanted to present so there was the
55:34
complete
55:36
what should i say tyranny of the
55:37
majority and for the parliamentary
55:39
system to work we have examples all over
55:41
the place of this in all of the
55:43
parliaments of canada so if we win i
55:46
think it will restore some confidence in
55:49
our system
55:51
with canadians and and tell them that
55:53
yes we have to reform the system more
55:56
and we can go with other political
55:58
parties or reform the existing ones so
56:00
that these laters leaders understand and
56:03
revise their platforms to get back to
56:06
what is true to parliamentary democracy
56:08
in our country that's the best so we can
56:10
see what does it say about if you win
56:13
what does it say about the culpability
56:16
of our current political leaders i mean
56:19
i don't understand what if if they if
56:21
their policies have been shown to
56:23
violate the most fundamental principles
56:25
upon which our country
56:27
maintains its peace and prosperity its
56:30
its integrity if they violated that what
56:33
does that mean for them
56:35
what are the consequences of that i
56:38
think the consequences is that either
56:40
they'd have to do a wholesale
56:42
reform of their parties or other new
56:45
parties will emerge with the kind of uh
56:48
platform that is implicit in that wing
56:52
okay you knew
56:53
part of one of the people who was
56:55
involved in the process that led to the
56:57
establishment of the
56:59
rules and regulations the principles
57:01
that we're discussing was pierre elliott
57:03
trudeau
57:05
so
57:06
what do you think
57:09
his intent was in relationship to the
57:12
charter of
57:13
rights and what do you think
57:16
he wanted less involvement of the
57:18
problems that's why
57:19
another piece of history doctor that
57:21
nobody seems to know about is that when
57:23
we started the process of getting the
57:25
charter it was a 17-month negotiation
57:28
and over halfway through the prime
57:29
minister of canada left the table and
57:31
said you're too difficult to deal with
57:33
even though it's a federal state you
57:35
know power's in the provinces powers and
57:37
here's where it's all gone wrong and so
57:39
he left the table and unilaterally
57:42
passed his own
57:43
bill
57:44
to patriot the constitution and have his
57:46
own version of the charter and he went
57:49
to his own friends in the supreme court
57:51
who turned him down what he was doing
57:53
was viewed
57:54
unconstitutional on september 28 1981
57:58
then he came back to the table and we
58:00
got the deal we have now so he didn't
58:03
get his charter his charter was amended
58:05
by us because we're in a federal state
58:08
and the court ruled you cannot do this
58:10
because you're impacting upon other
58:12
units of the confederation which have
58:14
legitimate power
58:16
and so he had to come back to the table
58:18
and then we negotiated what became for
58:20
example when you look at the charter
58:21
rights and freedoms now in that
58:22
parchment piece that people see when
58:25
they go into government canada sites and
58:27
i signed a whole bunch of them at a
58:28
public meeting last night there was only
58:30
one name on that charter pierre
58:32
electrudos that's unconstitutional
58:35
all the names of the first ministers
58:37
need to be on that charter in order for
58:39
it to be legitimate because it took all
58:41
the first ministers except quebec who
58:44
wouldn't uh agree but all the rest said
58:46
there were nine provinces and the
58:48
federal government that signed off on
58:50
that charter that signed off on that
58:52
constitution act 1980 do so there's just
58:54
this an insidious thing going on for
58:57
four or five decades whereby everybody
58:59
thinks it's trudeau's charter trudeau's
59:01
charter got defeated by his own court it
59:04
was the charter of the provinces and the
59:05
federal government together that got
59:07
approved
59:08
that's a really important piece of
59:10
history which gives an important
59:12
backdrop to the nature of our country as
59:14
the court saw it
59:16
in 1981 and which one hopes the court
59:20
will continue to see now in 2022 and
59:23
2023 this is the extremely important
59:26
thing the other point that everybody
59:29
ignores is this that the charter doesn't
59:31
begin with section one
59:33
it begins with a tiny preamble of one
59:36
sentence whereas
59:39
the country canada whereas we are
59:42
founded on the principles of the
59:44
supremacy of god and the rule of law
59:47
and after that sentence it's not a
59:50
period it's not a semicolon or a comma
59:52
there's a colon
59:54
which says everything follows after this
59:57
and that's another area where the courts
60:00
and their governments are falling down
60:02
on the job is that they're supposed to
60:05
consider every
60:07
thing in the charter in light of two
60:10
principles the supremacy of god and the
60:12
rule of law and somehow
60:15
that which is a key part of opening the
60:18
constitution
60:19
the the introduction of the constitution
60:21
has been missing and that's the other
60:24
part that i argue very strongly until
60:26
it's taken out if somebody says we don't
60:27
have anything or about god well then
60:30
fine you'll have to change the
60:31
constitution but as long as it's in
60:33
there those words are just as important
60:35
as any other words in the chair of
60:37
rights and freedoms and therefore have
60:39
to be acknowledged in any rendering of
60:41
any decision under the charter and so
60:43
what do you think that means practically
60:45
in this particular case well in this
60:48
particular in my particular case i'm
60:49
arguing very straight on the travel ban
60:52
but
60:53
but one would
60:54
hope that in the consideration of this
60:56
lawsuit that the the judges will
60:59
introduce their
61:01
case and their decision and
61:03
relate to the history of the charter
61:06
right and also relate to
61:08
what how the charter opens and it's in
61:10
this context that we will be considering
61:13
our decisions yeah well it's to some
61:15
degree the the idea of right itself is
61:17
predicated on the idea of i would say
61:21
it's something approximating the divine
61:24
worth of each individual which is what
61:26
makes us equal before the law the rights
61:28
aren't
61:29
this is a problem i had i i would say in
61:31
some sense with the chart of rights
61:33
right to begin with because there's some
61:36
confusion about the derivation of the
61:38
rights are these rights that are granted
61:40
to you by your government or do you have
61:42
those rights to begin with as a
61:44
consequence let's say of something
61:46
approximating your relationship with the
61:47
divine
61:48
and then the government can impose
61:50
limitations on that only where that's
61:52
practically necessary but i suppose the
61:54
inclusion of that preamble
61:56
is one of the uh
61:58
acts that was taken
62:00
and and articulated properly to put
62:04
the idea of the intrinsic worth of the
62:07
individual on something like
62:08
metaphysical grounds so it's a
62:10
precondition it's a precondition for the
62:12
existence of the body of laws and the
62:14
constitution itself
62:16
exactly exactly and that's extremely
62:18
important and and i i deliberately
62:21
introduce this now because i know hardly
62:23
anybody else in discussion the turner
62:26
and the constitution act of 1982 have
62:28
done so that's partly why freedom of
62:30
religion is so so important and we
62:32
should say we're not speaking about this
62:34
necessarily in specifically religious
62:35
terms there's no difference between
62:37
freedom of religion and freedom of
62:39
belief and there's no difference between
62:41
freedom of belief and the capacity for
62:43
independent thought but also the right
62:45
to follow the dictates of your own
62:47
conscience
62:48
exactly exactly and so therefore it's in
62:51
the totality
62:53
of the charter right that even my
62:55
lawsuit should be considered and other
62:57
lawsuits like it and so
62:59
all of this is extremely important in
63:01
knowing who we are as canadians and how
63:03
we're going to function as human beings
63:06
in some democratic structure into the
63:08
future because our democratic structure
63:11
will be
63:12
significantly reduced if we lose on
63:15
having the these provisions of the
63:18
charter honored again right so okay and
63:21
so you're also making the case that
63:23
there's been a tremendous abdication of
63:25
responsibility on the part of our
63:27
political leaders and also the
63:29
circumvention of our parliamentary
63:31
processes which is dangerous
63:33
procedurally and also a threat to our
63:35
liberty and freedom and prosperity all
63:38
of that but we also have had that
63:41
discussion in the context of in some
63:43
sense a broader discussion because you
63:45
also made the case that
63:47
it's the degeneration of civic
63:50
involvement as a consequence of a narrow
63:52
cynicism that a lot that set up the
63:56
preconditions for this to occur in the
63:58
face of an emergency and so canadians
64:00
shouldn't be patting themselves on the
64:02
back in self-righteous manners saying
64:04
those damn politicians have betrayed us
64:06
they should be thinking well that's
64:08
occurred to some degree and that's awful
64:10
and hopefully unconstitutional but it's
64:13
happening in the context of all of us
64:16
not stepping forward to take our proper
64:18
place in the governance of society
64:20
because we're cheaply cynical about
64:22
politics and lazy and irresponsible
64:25
absolutely i couldn't agree more and
64:26
that's where the educational system you
64:28
know the whole totality of our society
64:30
comes into play and the various parts to
64:32
that society which make it function
64:34
better and one of the great areas is in
64:36
education when i talked grade 8 back in
64:38
19 the late 1960s
64:42
in springdale newfoundland i introduced
64:44
civics there was no civics in the class
64:46
in school even back then i introduced it
64:49
there there was within the department of
64:51
education's curriculum guidelines
64:54
the opportunity if any school or teacher
64:56
wanted to teach it there was some
64:58
materials available on civics and you
65:00
could teach a course and i went to the
65:02
principal and asked if i could teach it
65:03
this is
65:04
back in the late 1960s so the gradual
65:07
erosion of our educational system to
65:11
necessarily include right
65:14
a course on this governance and on the
65:16
system of government at the municipal
65:19
provincial and federal level was missing
65:21
even then continued to be even worse as
65:24
time went down and the history got uh
65:26
got taken out of the course
65:28
out of the curriculum and some fusion of
65:30
social studies got rep
65:33
well the whole principles
65:37
the principle of the sovereignty of the
65:39
individual and then the associated
65:41
sovereignty of the people that principle
65:43
cannot abide unless sovereign
65:45
individuals take responsibility for
65:47
governance and cheap cynicism is no
65:49
excuse for not engaging in that process
65:51
i mean i've been struck through my whole
65:53
life talking to young people in
65:54
particular
65:56
about their feelings of powerlessness
65:58
and and and their separation in some
66:00
sense from the day-to-day operations of
66:02
the state and i got involved in the
66:04
political party when i was very young i
66:06
was 14 it was with the ndp in alberta
66:08
with grant naughtley and that was all
66:11
about the same time that you were
66:13
operating
66:14
on the processes that we're describing
66:16
now and one of the things that
66:17
absolutely shocked me even back then
66:20
when i was that young was how hungry the
66:22
political parties were for anyone's
66:25
involvement how welcoming they were if
66:27
you wanted to get involved and how much
66:30
scope of movement was available to you
66:32
as a private citizen almost at your beck
66:35
and call if you were willing to involve
66:37
yourself in the political process now i
66:39
don't think young canadians they
66:41
certainly haven't been taught that
66:43
that's the case and they certainly
66:45
haven't been guided through the training
66:47
processes necessary to
66:49
make them aware of the availability of
66:52
that but it's also partly to be laid at
66:54
the feet of canadians it's like you
66:55
could be involved in the political
66:57
process if you just asked and wanted to
67:00
be it's not like these parties aren't
67:01
crying out for
67:03
workers volunteers
67:05
and you can move up the ranks very
67:07
quickly if you're competent so
67:09
so there's no excuse for that not
67:11
happening
67:12
no no absolutely but the educational
67:14
system is partly to blame because we're
67:17
followed through before we become an
67:18
adult and want to get involved in
67:20
political affairs we have you know
67:22
complete ignorance of how the process
67:24
works even the political parties work
67:26
like you say or how the municipal
67:27
council works so the school board works
67:29
or the province works what powers of the
67:31
province is that what problems you know
67:33
uh the powers of the federal government
67:35
have how are we different from the
67:36
united states of america which is the
67:38
elephant that lives next door to us we
67:40
should know all of these things and this
67:42
should be a course you know developed
67:43
from grades seven or eight up to the
67:45
last year of high school so that when
67:47
people graduate
67:49
they have a knowledge and an
67:50
understanding that they can then pursue
67:53
through university and so on yeah
67:58
exactly well we have vague courses that
68:00
are in the political ideological domain
68:03
that basically concentrate on something
68:05
approximating the vague horrors of the
68:08
past not that those aren't real and not
68:11
that we shouldn't take responsibility
68:13
for them but they're no substitute for
68:16
detailed knowledge of the actual
68:18
structures of governance and there's
68:20
certainly no substitute for
68:22
the deep respect that should be part and
68:25
parcel of every canadian's political
68:27
view for the integrity of the
68:29
institutions that have enabled us to
68:31
live in peace and prosperity for well
68:33
the entire expanse of canadian history
68:35
internally and then much in the much
68:37
broader western world for hundreds of
68:39
years before that
68:40
yeah exactly but what has also happened
68:42
is that uh we have uh the individual
68:46
because of the nature of governments
68:48
over the last 40 years where the state
68:49
has taken on more and more say in the
68:52
operation not only of the society
68:55
generally but even of the economy and
68:57
everything that goes with it plus
68:58
everything else is that the sovereignty
69:01
of the individual the importance of the
69:03
individual your individual action your
69:06
individual decisions have become less
69:08
and less and less and so individuals
69:10
feel somewhat powerless because the
69:13
state has taken over almost every aspect
69:15
of your of your life and so every every
69:18
time there's a problem what is some
69:20
politician doing about not what what am
69:22
i doing about as an individual
69:24
even over our health care for example
69:26
it's all been just relegated to the
69:28
state to the degree that you know you've
69:30
got to fix my problem you know nothing
69:33
about whether i'm taking my uh you know
69:35
i have a good diet or if i'm exercising
69:38
it's like this and back to the pandemic
69:40
again this is a really good example of
69:42
where governments have really
69:44
fallen down on the job is that everybody
69:47
knows that vitamin d is very very
69:49
important for your health and that it's
69:51
a great uh
69:53
vitamin as it relates to your immune
69:56
system yet no government in canada has
69:59
been advancing and promoting vitamin d
70:01
during this very critical time when
70:03
studies have shown that those who have
70:04
adequate levels of vitamin d have less
70:07
hospitalizations protecting those that
70:09
have
70:10
you know adequate levels so one would
70:12
think that they're really concerned
70:14
about public health one of the first
70:15
things they should have had at every
70:17
press conference they had go get your
70:19
vitamin d levels tested right and then
70:22
start taking vitamin d if in fact your
70:24
levels are low and we all know about 80
70:26
percent of people who live in northern
70:28
climes like canada have a deficiency
70:31
in in vitamin d so here we had a really
70:34
cheap way of helping so the
70:37
hospitalization rate could have been a
70:38
lot less
70:40
than than what it was just by people
70:42
taking regular vitamin d and so this is
70:45
a really really common sense concept
70:48
that had lost all meaning in some kind
70:51
of different approach and it all had to
70:53
be pharmaceutical all had to be some
70:55
kind of you know vaccine it just
70:57
couldn't be a vitamin d and zinc and
71:00
vitamin c and kerosene and other things
71:02
like that not to mention iberonectin or
71:05
hydro hydroxychloroquine which has been
71:07
on the market for 40 or 50 years yet
71:09
they're telling us to take a vaccine
71:10
that hasn't had the tests that these
71:12
other two have had
71:14
so let's let's recapitulate and maybe we
71:16
should close because we covered an awful
71:18
lot of territory and i think it'll take
71:20
the listeners of this podcast a fair bit
71:23
of time to digest everything that's been
71:25
discussed already
71:26
and so you're mounting a challenge to
71:29
the
71:30
integrity and constitutional
71:33
appropriateness of a series of laws that
71:35
have been passed in canada over the last
71:37
two years and you're mounting that as
71:39
one of the establishers of the charter
71:42
upon
71:43
which the entire country is predicated
71:45
making the claim that these actions
71:47
violate both the spirit and the law that
71:50
governs our land at the deepest possible
71:52
level of analysis that's the first thing
71:55
the second thing is
71:57
the collusion between the press and and
71:59
the governmental agencies that are
72:02
circumventing the parliamentary process
72:04
is so intense that it's almost
72:05
impossible to have this discussion in in
72:08
the public landscape it there aren't
72:10
venues for that
72:12
no i can't i've tried it's not like i
72:14
haven't tried i'm not making this kind
72:16
of uh uh um statement without without
72:20
evidence i i don't come by all of this
72:22
lightly i don't want to do what i'm
72:24
doing i'd rather not have to do this as
72:25
a canadian and especially as a first
72:27
minister who was involved in the council
72:29
right yeah this is not this is not a
72:32
trivia
72:33
i've written the national post i've
72:34
written other newspapers and they have
72:36
not carried my stuff nor have they ever
72:38
gotten back to me and all of them also
72:40
know that i'm out there on my blog which
72:42
kicks 10 000 to 15 000 readers every day
72:46
and a lot of them know that so i've had
72:47
to go to alternate media and i've done
72:49
about 50 interviews before i launched
72:51
this lawsuit all over canada two and
72:54
three hours long and i get hundreds and
72:56
hundreds of emails a day responding to
72:58
what i'm doing
73:00
and now i've been led to where i am
73:02
today to actually as one individual with
73:05
others
73:06
file a lawsuit against the government of
73:08
canada in the federal court on the
73:10
travel ban to give it specificity so
73:13
that i can make this kind of lawsuit
73:16
and how do you think if if you had your
73:20
will and you had
73:22
you were acting in accordance with the
73:23
idea that someday the sun will shine and
73:26
have not will be no more
73:28
what do you think canadians should do as
73:31
a consequence of receiving the
73:33
information we have today
73:35
and of of
73:37
and in terms of their reactions to the
73:39
fact of this lawsuit and its potential
73:41
outcomes so if you could call on
73:43
canadians to deliver what they should be
73:45
delivering as individuals given the
73:47
situation we're in now what would you
73:50
recommend for them to do
73:52
i would recommend the following please
73:54
don't go down a bunch of rabbit holes
73:56
talking about a monarchy of 100 years
73:58
ago i get all this all the time that
74:00
canada is only a corporation it's not
74:02
really a country and all of that stick
74:04
with what we know for sure and we know
74:06
we have a constitution and two written
74:08
documents one when we were formed
74:11
another in 1981 they are documents that
74:13
were passed legally through
74:15
parliamentary represe democracies and
74:18
they have been exercised they have been
74:19
used so the very fact that they've been
74:22
used makes them a reality because part
74:24
of our constitution is also custom and
74:26
convention and that customer convention
74:28
proves that what we have is valid okay
74:31
so what they should be doing is sticking
74:33
with the elected
74:35
all of the elected people in their
74:37
legislative assemblies
74:39
everybody in the legislative assembly
74:41
right up to the premier and in the
74:42
federal government
74:44
go
74:44
write your mps write your mlas
74:48
ask them and demand meetings with them
74:51
to go through what are you doing about
74:52
this what is your argument against in
74:55
favor of these mandates when all this
74:57
information is available so canadians
74:59
must start to really activate their
75:01
civic responsibilities in a huge way and
75:05
then involve themselves in legitimate
75:07
organizations who are open and free that
75:10
are going to help you do this kind of
75:12
okay so so you're saying that we should
75:14
trust the basic institutions
75:17
we should have faith in them because
75:18
they've worked for us in the past
75:20
they've united our country and and are
75:22
drawn from a tradition that has united
75:25
countries for long before that
75:27
and that we should start using them
75:29
properly and responsibly
75:31
and also like in my particular case the
75:33
justice center for constitutional
75:35
freedoms rocco galati in toronto who's
75:38
got a constitutional foundation and he's
75:40
uh initiating actions against the
75:43
federal government there's another one
75:44
calling the canadian constitutional
75:46
foundation itself in ontario all of
75:48
these organizations who are looking for
75:50
the support financial support they
75:53
should be supported because they are
75:54
very they're vanguards they are they are
75:57
protected we can put links to them we
75:59
can put links to them in the description
76:00
of this video so we'll have my if you
76:02
can get your team to to give us all the
76:05
links that you would like to put in the
76:06
description of the video then we'll do
76:08
that and we'll do our best to get this
76:10
out well hopefully tomorrow as soon as
76:13
we possibly can
76:15
well thank you very much but i really
76:17
think that if we get back to
76:18
participating in our democracy we can
76:21
turn this around but we and and it may
76:23
come to also like the truckers convoy
76:25
now
76:26
peaceful demonstration civil
76:28
disobedience is also a part of democracy
76:31
legitimate civil disobedience we must
76:33
protest in front of our legislatures in
76:35
a peaceful manner
76:37
demonstrating and articulating our
76:39
position in a rational way and so part
76:42
of that is definitely a concern about
76:45
the manner in which governance itself is
76:47
being conducted in the county in canada
76:49
and a call for return to parliamentary
76:50
supremacy and proper procedures
76:53
absolutely
76:54
absolutely well thank you very much for
76:57
speaking with me today and for and for
77:00
all of the people who are listening to
77:01
this thank you for your attention and
77:03
and pay attention because this is a
77:05
non-trivial occurrence and um if we're
77:07
careful and wise maybe we can weave our
77:09
way through this without having things
77:11
crumble into anything resembling chaos
77:13
around
77:14
us thank you very much very great
77:17
pleasure to meet you sir
77:21
we'll talk again perhaps as this unfolds
77:24
okay thank you
77:28
okay
77:30
what's that there's gonna be two things
77:32
yep
77:34
um
77:37
if
77:39
mr peckford and if you can give us short
77:42
summaries of
77:44
how it feels for him to have
77:47
helped build his establishment and to
77:50
see where we're going with it
77:52
i don't think i've got the energy
77:54
i don't think i can do it i think but i
77:56
do think we should talk about we should
77:58
talk about this procedurally there's two
77:59
ways we could release this in my
78:01
estimation
78:02
we could start
78:04
with the bio
78:06
and and proceed through that way or we
78:09
could include because we started
78:11
recording you and i started recording
78:13
before we even started the discussion
78:15
there's kind of part of me that thinks
78:17
that we should just
78:19
also include that
78:22
and so i'm fine with that
78:26
yeah that's fine yeah
78:27
okay so what we'll do we'll get eric to
78:30
get you this video as fast as possible
78:32
okay and you can take a look at it
78:34
especially the opening and see if but i
78:37
i think making this as transparent as
78:39
possible is is exactly the right thing
78:42
to do and so we'll do like no editing
78:44
and we'll release everything we can
78:46
well you know what you're you're right
78:48
on line with me i that's my whole
78:50
inclination my whole instinct that's the
78:52
way i've operated all my life and i
78:54
beautifully like that yeah well this is
78:56
one of those they say that you shouldn't
78:59
ever
79:00
if you like sausages you should never
79:01
see how they're being made but
79:04
this is one of those situations where
79:06
people need to see how the sausages are
79:08
being made
79:09
yes absolutely
79:11
i couldn't agree more
79:12
okay and here i've got another question
79:14
for you too um
79:16
tell me what you think about this
79:18
it's conceivable so i'm in touch with
79:20
rex murphy all the time and i've told
79:23
him that something was brewing although
79:24
i didn't tell him what um do you think
79:27
it would be worthwhile to get this video
79:29
to him
79:30
as fast as we can to see
79:32
what first of all what he thinks about
79:34
it but also to
79:37
inspire him conceivably to start
79:40
attending to this and to
79:42
working on building his criticism
79:46
that would be what do you think about
79:47
that i think you could do it uh
79:50
say tomorrow afternoon quite likely
79:52
after the justice center released their
79:54
press release
79:55
okay it should be you can you can do
79:57
what you like with it now
79:59
but that would be the best timing
80:01
yes because you don't want to involve
80:03
anybody else no matter how legitimate
80:05
yeah until really after the
80:07
you you can release your things whenever
80:10
you want the lawyers have agreed right
80:12
and that's the agreement i have so that
80:14
you you can preempt the press release
80:16
but we leave it there on death till the
80:18
press releases out
80:19
tomorrow afternoon then you the first
80:21
person you can contact is rex okay will
80:24
you will you get your people to put that
80:26
in writing to me in an email and also
80:28
include eric on that because i don't
80:30
want i'm i'm somewhat scattered as a
80:33
consequence of the discussion and i
80:34
don't want to make any mistakes in this
80:36
procedure
80:37
okay okay okay estimate for when what's
80:41
up for when the press releases oh when
80:43
and when will the press release be going
80:45
out tomorrow the best i have for my
80:47
lawyers is tomorrow afternoon
80:49
tomorrow afternoon
80:50
it could be you know three or four
80:51
o'clock more afternoon okay so i'll get
80:54
going out tomorrow okay well i'll get
80:56
eric to continue coordinating this with
80:58
your people i'm not going to have any
80:59
time to pay attention to this over the
81:01
next today because i'm completely
81:03
stacked with meetings and i have a
81:05
lecture public lecture tonight so i'm
81:07
going to be kind of out of the loop i'm
81:08
going to leave it in eric's hands he's
81:10
very capable and reliable and he can
81:12
just communicate with peace as you've
81:14
been doing and the other of the team and
81:16
copy me and we'll be back to you right
81:18
away okay okay
81:21
all right well away we go
81:24
away we go the way we go
81:26
all right pleasure to meet you sir and
81:28
hopefully at one point we'll be able to
81:29
meet in person
81:30
yes and and i say the last word i'll say
81:33
what you have participated in here today
81:37
is a very important
81:38
contribution to hopefully restoring our
81:41
democracy through the charter
81:43
that's all is important to me that's the
81:46
only thing i do from 8 o'clock in the
81:48
morning till 11 o'clock at night is
81:50
pursuing the ideas that i pursue with
81:52
you today
81:55
thanks very much
81:56
bye bye
81:58
bye
82:01
all of that
82:07
and that the last statement as well yep
82:10
thank you tammy okay so you can handle
82:12
this can you yep absolutely team's all
82:14
prepped and ready to go so we are going
82:16
to get started on it as soon as i can
82:17
get them the files which will be very
82:18
soon
82:20
all right
82:24
[Music]
82:42
you