Courts are denying our

right to know our rights

The Ontario Court Of Appeal is the latest court in Canada to misinterpret its role, using the excuse of mootness. This time it is people involved with the Police For Freedom.

Here is an excerpt from the Police For Freedom website:

“Ontario Court of Appeal Dismisses Vaccine Passport Case Brought Forth by Eight Canadians.”

“Once again, we see our courts dismiss important Charter challenges as moot, despite the government indicating that vaccine mandates will be reinstated, if and when they deem them necessary, despite the damage done to thousands of Canadians. Despite the importance of such a decision in determining where these policies stand within our Charter, or if they have been demonstrably justified, as is required by law.”

I contend the people have a right to know. Inherent in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the rightof a citizen to know whether his or her rights are being violated, prevented from knowing by a concocted Court procedure. This manoeuvre is weak reasoning and can never override a citizen’s right to know.

Those of us whose names are on the Patriation Agreement of 1981 never thought that, after 114 years, of finally enshrining individual rights and freedoms in the Constitution that the day would come when the Courts would unilaterally decide to prevent a citizen from knowing whether his or her Charter rights were violated as a result of a Government action.

Just because the Government action is nolonger in force (though it still could be again) does not relieve a Court from carrying out its solemn obligation to ensure a citizen’s right to know is honoured.

What’s the good of enshrining individual rights in a country’s constitution if later courts can build artificial boundaries around a citizen right to know whether a Government measure violated their rights.

A person’s rights are not time sensitive, you either have them or you don’t.

And a court is suppose to adjudicate, not procrastinate and deny a citizen’s right to know.

A Court supporting the Government in keeping secret whether a Government action violated a citizen’s Charter rights under the Constitution is the antithesis of the values of a free and democratic country.

N.B. audit of Pandemic response
requires a full public investigation

An open letter to: Premier Blaine Higgs MLA

Leader of The New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Party

Susan Holt MLA, Leader of the New Brunswick Liberal Party

David Coon MLA

Leader of The New Brunswick Green Party

Dear Leaders :

I have been made aware of the Auditor General’s Report requested by the Legislature on Mach 31, 2022 on the performance of the Government in the management of the response to the so called Covid Pandemic covering the period April1, 2020 to March 31, 2022.

I applaud the Legislature for seeing that this audit was initiated.

Having been alerted to the report by a Canadian Press Report and having since scanned parts of Volume 11 presented just a few days ago to the Legislature, I must express my shock on the many findings that have found very inadequate responses by the various Government Departments.

I wish now briefly to focus on the audit of thelead Department, The Department of Health. The summary of findings page 51–Section 4.13 states :

“technology was lacking and data was not always used to support staffing-level decisions

while various performance targets were established, outcomes were not consistently monitored, tracked or used for decision- making

there was inconsistent record keeping and documentation pertaining to infection and prevention control decisions

there was a lack of established criteria to support decision outcomes related to exemption requests escalated to the Chief Medical Officer of Health”

Further on many statements stand out. For example,

4.26 — An overall theme of our findings was that while data was available, it was not always used, analyzed, and reported upon in order to effectively support key decisions. Antiquated technologies, paper-based records, quick turn around times, and staff shortages were some of the contributing factors to this gap.

This is accentuated by:

4.77 Our office selected a sample of 33 OCMOH ( Office of the Chief Medical Officer Of Health) recommendations and asked the Department to provide evidence-based documentation to substantiate the decisions. TheDepartment was unable to provide requested documentation, acknowledging that they “did not create a compendium or a repository of all of the scientific articles, papers, publications and analyses it consulted during the pandemic and therefore we cannot provide a fulsome and detailed list of all of the evidence consulted and used when recommendations were being formulated.”

The AG had an appendix of how well previous recommendations of his 2019 report were implemented. Sadly only 55%have been implemented:

“A detailed review found that 55% of our recommendations from 2019 audits have been implemented.”

The AG in his Volume 1 Report in September demonstrated how the Province had not learned from the 2009 H1N1 Influenza report with its recommendations.

Now, what is crucial here is not only has the public service demonstrated incompetence but in so doing causedthe actions of the Government to violate our Constitution. Many decisions were made which violated the rights and freedoms of citizenssince the lack of evidence based decision making means that the requirement of demonstrably justify, key to satisfying Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was not met. Not only not met but there was no cost benefit analysis of any kind performed on any of the Government’s actions. Furthermore, the opening framework principles of the Charter were ignored.

Your Legislature now has the immense task to initiate action to bring accountability to what has happened ; to lead the way in Canada to re-establish our democracy and make our Parliaments the masters of our governance. As your AG said in releasing the report:

“When it comes to this type of situation, the pandemic, there's got to be accountability beyond the norms here," Martin said in response.”

I recommend that you three leaders announce your intent to recommend to the legislature a resolution toestablish a select committee of the legislature to oversee a public Inquiry into the results of the AG Report; to establish whether the Government actions made (health orders etc) contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, who is to be held responsible for these failures and to recommend what legal actions, civil/criminal are necessary.This should not be like the shams of the Rouleau and Alberta efforts where Governments set up Inquires to investigate themselves, but a truly public, transparent and independent action—supervised by the elected, those who are responsible to the people, not those who are responsible to the Government. This is what early reformers in New Brunswick were fighting for even before Confederation and accomplished in 1848!

The inquiry will be able to consider the devastation the experimental vaccines have caused and continue to cause, the role of Big Pharma (many of whom have been found legally guilty of bad medical actions, e.g. Pfizer paid $2.3 billion for Fraudulent Marketing in 2009 to the US Government) and a federalgovernment financially supported mainstream media in advancing an exaggerated medical issue. Many experts right here in Canada, medical, scientific, legal, ethics, are ready to testify before such an inquiry

Leaders, this will not go away.

Lives have been lost and injured by poor Government decision making, freedoms violated, rights abused, ignoring independent science and violating the Constitutional rights and freedoms of the citizens of our country.

You took the first courageous step, your AG was honest, now based on his findings you need to complete the job.

Canada is watching. What you do will have enormous repercussions on the future of democracy in our country.

Honorable A. Brian Peckford PC

The only living First Minister who is a signatory to the Patriation Agreement of 1981- The Foundation Document of The Constitution Act 1982 which includes The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We have at least one

honest public servant

 When I asked the Premiers to refer their measures to their highest court the Premier of New Brunswick was the only one who responded to say they would do their own study. Well, if this is what he meant then I should acknowledge that this Premier looks like he got something right on the COVID thing —or did the AG do this on his own?

 

Never mind, it was done and what I have been saying about there being no cost benefit analysis to demonstrably justify violating the Charter of Right and Freedoms has been vindicated. 

 

Will other Provinces come clean? Will other Provincial AGs do what this AG has done.

 

Quoting from a Victoria Times Colonist article of Dec. 14 referring to a Canadian Press Report:

 

“In his report presented to the legislature Thursday, Paul Martin said the office of the chief medical officer was unable to provide him with the scientific articles, papers, publications and analyses it used to formulate many COVID-19-related recommendations that informed the provincial government's health orders.”

 

The article went on to say:

 

“The Health Department said that because it lacked those documents, it "cannot provide a fulsome and detailed list of all of the evidence consulted and used when recommendations were being formulated," Martin said in his report.’

 

This should be headlines all over Canada.

 

The AG was asked whether people should be concerned at such lack of evidence based decision making:

 

He replied, “When it comes to this type of situation, the pandemic, there's got to be accountability beyond the norms here," Martin said in response. "And I would hope they would move toward that direction in the future to have those improvements set up in case this happens again."

 

Martin said he is "always surprised" when people don't keep documentation about health-related decisions. 

 

“If a doctor is overseeing any person or meeting with a person, they keep their files, they keep their notes, there's a file, there is evidence. I don't understand why it wouldn't be there in this case." 

 

An initial report from Martin on the province's COVID-19 response, released in September, found that New Brunswick did not learn lessons from the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. He said the province's pandemic plans were not updated with recommendations from the provincial government's 2009 report on the H1N1 crisis.

 

Last month, the province's outgoing chief medical health officer, Dr. Jennifer Russell, said "political preferences'' helped inform the decisions that were made during the COVID-19 pandemic, although she did not elaborate on them.’

 

All the Provinces of Canada and the Territories need an independent look. Do you think it is only New Brunswick that made decisions without sound scientific evidence?

 

People have died, people injured, jobs lost, economic hardship endured — as a result of delayed diagnosis, delayed surgeries because of COVID decisions without scientific evidence —not to mention the deaths from the experimental vaccines where it is a scientific fact that the COVID vaccines saw more adverse events in three years than all vaccines did in the last 30 years. 

 

Heads should begin to roll!

Conservative Party rejects
the supremacy of God

Very, very interesting, and deeply disappointing and disturbing.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution Act of 1982 has as its introduction and framework principles the following: “Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

One of the founding principles of the Conservative Party of Canada as described in their updated policy document passed at their September, 2023 says:

“A belief in loyalty to a sovereign and united Canada governed in accord with the Constitution of Canada,the supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions and the rule of law.”

Wow! Replaced “Supremacy of God” with “Supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions.”

So: First, this “Conservative” sentence is contradictory in that the Constitution does not say supremacy of democratic parliamentary institutions. It does say “Supremacy of God!” Yet, the sentence says it follows the Constitution.

Second, we know now why this Government in waiting has been so silent on this aspect of our Constitution.

Secularism has captured the ruling class and if there is a conservative out there who thinks this Conservative Party of Canada has any interest in adhering to our Constitution and the founding principles of our Charter,forget it!

Like the Liberals and the NDP, they have abdicated their leadership and allowed the courts to redefine our Constitution, without using the necessary amending formula that some of us fought so hard to achieve and which was one of the chief reasons that had prevented our own Constitution until 1982.

We are on a tragic road of moral confusion (so apparent in the secular curriculum developing in our schools and how the parent position so important in a Supremacy of God Judaeo Christian framework has been downgraded).“a free-for-all as we make it all up as we go along” rather than principles and standards, based on a real God, a power beyond ourselves. ‘

U.S. Supreme Court Judge Robert H. Bork stated in the introduction of his book Coercing Virtue. “increasingly, the power of the people of Western nations to govern themselves is diluted, and their ability to choose the moral environment in which they live is steadily diminished.”

Canadians confused about the Charter?

When judges, governments and media get it all wrong

Canadian Press does this story headlined: ‘People are confused': Survey suggests Canadians need education on Charter rights’

You are only learning that now, are you Canadian Press? Of course you are, you would not listen up to now.

The company Leger does a poll and asked some questions, not the most intelligent mind you.And this is the conclusion. And then the story has some quotes from the President of the Canadian Studies Association.

Lo and behold!

When thehigh school in my city refuses to allow me to speak to them on the Charter, my City Council, and a major University?

When the media has deliberately refused to carry stories from those affected by the unconstitutional mandates and lockdowns?

When the Federal Government can unconstitutionally invoke an Emergencies Act and snuff out civil rights, and freeze citizens’ bank accounts, and on and on.

When the Federal Government can,, through legislation unconstitutionally establish an Inquiry, appoint the Commissioner who is going to investigate, establish the terms of reference, all to investigate itself and the larger society buys into this charade.

When the Government of Alberta does likewise.

When Courts across the land render decisions on the Charter by violating it because they

A. Violate the intent of it

B. Violate Section 1 of it

C. Ignore the Framework principles which are suppose to guide the Charter’s meaning

When independent science is ignored by courts, governments and the media.

When Governments allow people to die because they exercised their Charter rights to refuse an experimental vaccine.

And peoples’ Charter rights are violated by being held in jail for months without appropriate legal process.

Oh, yes people are confused.

And no civics instruction in the schools! Right now, who could even teach it, the teachers know nothing about the Constitution.

We have a swamp that has organized the citizens’ confusion!

And to put a final embarrassing point on it – the poll was a web poll– the article says: “The results are based off of a web survey of 1,502 Canadians in September by the Leger polling firm. Online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they are not considered truly random samples.”

Total system change is needed,

nibbling at the edges won't do

The National Citizens Inquiry has released its final report. Some Day Canadians in sufficient numbers will realize That system change is needed, nibbling at the edges won’t do.

To all those who appeared before the Inquiry and all other ethical participants in this process I commend you. Sadly, attacking the symptoms won’t do anymore.

Canada is structurally broken. Look no further than the fact that not one of the 63 Government people requested to appear before the inquiry agreed to do so.

Structural change means the political parties, the parliament, the executive and the judiciary.

• When a Prime Minister can break our conflict of interest law multiple times and still serve as PM.

• When MPs can break the law and still serve in Parliament. When a judiciary ignores independent science and ignores the opening words of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

• When the tyranny of the majority ensures that Parliamentary Committees are shut down when there is still important business to be conducted.

• When a Prime Minister’s office becomes more a Presidential operation,

Then the British tradition of representative and responsible Government, for which our early reformers and our soldiers fought so hard, has been undermined and no longer working as intended.

My Magna Carta tried to address this but no one is listening.

Canada’s democratic decline,

The unelected elite know best?

Mussolini’s central Fascist doctrine: ‘Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

My falling out with the National Citizens Inquiry was as a result of the ethics violation inherent in thehiring by the Government of Alberta of Preston Manning. One of the principles of the NCR was to be free from Government. Then Manning, spokesman for the NCR, does a deal with a Government.

So, from day one, from my perspective, the Provincial attempt was a very questionable effort.

Democratic - Unelected

But what made it even more unacceptable is that the elected were to be shut out of the ‘Review’ the ‘Inquiry.’ The Legislature, the elected, was to be left in the dark.

The panel would be a group of unelected ‘experts.’ And we all know how experts did these last few years.

No panel representative of Alberta businesses, regular, ordinary citizens, none who were negatively affected.

And, of course, there would be no public hearings by this panel.

One of the reasons for the Covid catastrophe, provincially, (as well as Nationally and Globally) was the lack of democratic oversight.

An excuse for public input, by the Panel, was to provide citizens the opportunity to respond online to one question.

And, would you believe, that the public comments were not disclosed, just the panel’s summary of what was said?

Accountability

And the Review panel in its terms of reference dictated that there would be no consideration of any incompetence or violations of the law, the Constitution, by the Alberta Health Service or others carrying out the wishes of the Government/bureaucracy.

Hundreds wereinjured, many died as a result of cancelled surgeries, medical appointments or from the untested, experimental vaccines.

All of this done in the time of the tragic passing of Shelia Lewis, an Alberta citizen, because she exercised her rights of bodily autonomy, and as the Charter Rights and Freedoms says, ‘ life, liberty and security of the person.’

The known lie of ‘safe and effective’ to remain unchallenged.

And everyone keeps their job. Well, one at the top lost her job. But what about the hundreds if not thousands involved on implementing the covidgovernment actions? Any assessment here?

Here is the objective of the panel in the Terms of Reference :

‘Objective’

The Panel’s objective is to review the legislation and governance practices typically used by the Government of Alberta during the management of public health emergencies and other emergencies to recommend changes which, in the view of the Panel, are necessary to improve the Government of Alberta’s response to future emergencies.’

So the panel was doomed from the day the terms of reference were announced.

Independence

The Panel was established by the Government – to study Government’s actions and governance. One would have thought that Legislative sanction would have been sought. Obviously, conflict of interest. Like the Federal Rouleau Failed effort, Governments investigating themselves.

The Panel members are for the most part involved with Government, directly or indirectly. The Chair, a friend of thePremier, two University of Calgary professors, an institution that got half its revenue from Governments, over $800 million this past year. Another member is a former Professor at MacMaster University, another Government sponsored University and John Major, former Supreme Court of Canada judge. One member is with the Montreal Economic Institute, perhaps the only member without direct Government connection.

I could not access the Financial Statements of the Institute except that it did report its total revenue and expenditure for 2022 and had a deficit in that year and receives money from Corporations. It should also be noted that in the annual report the Chair of the Review Panelis mentioned as being involved with the Institute.

This is not to say that these well known people cannot be and are not independent in dealings while sitting on a GovernmentReview Panel. However, it raises the perception of conflict of interest and hence raise questions of independence.

What is most unfortunate and shows the depths to which we have fallen:

A. I am unaware of any Alberta Government MLA objecting to the lack of Legislature involvement in this Provincial Review.

Nor any great uproar from the populace. Of course,I am aware that many ordinary citizens have given up on their voice being heard.

And

B. The acceptance to serve by the Panel Board members, knowing the lack of democratic process and accountability inherent in the Panel ‘s terms of reference, and the ethics questions surrounding its creation.

Without reformed truly independent inquiries the actions of Governments in Canada will remain without proper examination and democratic process.

It's not Public Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry, it’s the minister and Premier and Legislature who should be criticized and held accountable.

BC Conservative Leader said this according to Black Press: “(Quite) frankly, Bonnie Henry is preventing those people from being in our system. That is causing harm to our health care system and for that reason…we should be looking at a different health care officer in this province.”

We live in a province where responsible, representative government is supposed to exist. So it is the Cabinet and the Legislature that rule.

The public health officer reports to the Minister of Health and the Minister to Heath is responsible to the Legislature.Dr. Henry is not elected, Heath Minister Adrian Dix and Premier David Eby are elected.

So Dr. Henry is only doing what the Cabinet and Legislature gave her the power to do or allowing her to do unconstitutionally. It is the elected who are accountable to the people.

Boy, do we ever need civics taught in our schools!

‘I don't think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don't study the Constitution itself.’

– American JudgeRobert Bork

Judge Bork’s comments are relevant to this latest Court Dismissal. Captured by their own rules and interpretations Canadian Courts ignore the Constitution itself. And they are not about to consider the views of one, a former first minister who helped create the sections of the Constitution presently being examined.

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a part ofthe Constitution Act of 1982, is quite clear about what is needed to override the rights and freedoms provisions contained therein.

In the present case the Government Canada in invoking travel restrictions on unvaccinated Canadians citizens had to ‘demonstrably justify' such actions, consistent with what one finds in a ‘free and democratic society.’ Section 1 of the Charter.

The Government never demonstrably justified their actions, let alone within any reasonable democratic framework. As a matter of fact there was testimony in the Federal Court hearing that the Government had no scientific justification to impose the travel restrictions. Justification lacking.

But lo and behold the Court, accepting the Federal Government argument that the travel restrictions now lifted at the time of Court hearing, although they could be imposed any time in the future, was all ‘moot’, a term, of course, that the court itself has invented.

I, and my fellow litigants, and the other 6 million Canadians are left not knowing whether our rights to travel were violated or not. And the rest of the Canadian citizens remain in the dark as to what rights and freedoms they possess under the Charter.

My lawyer asked the Federal lawyers at theFederal Court hearing whether they would call me for cross examination given my involvement with the Charter. The answer was no.

In the later flawed Rouleau Inquiry my name was put forward to be a witness given the inquiry involved the Charter, that I was in Ottawa speaking on behalf of the Truckers Convoy and therefore could bring another perspective. I was not on the witness list.

Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C.

I read that Minister Bill Blair says the terrorist group Hamas has to be destroyed. Similar words even from softie, fantasy laden Bob Rae, our ineffective UN Ambassador. 

Then out comes our Trudeau Jr. indicating that he approves a ‘pause’ in hostilities in Gaza. 

 

Yet, Trudeau’s Government has labelled Hamas a terrorist group. 

 

Yep, he represents that out-of-this world-softie type who is spoiled and does not realize that there are evil  people around who want to kill other people. It’s happening every day all over the planet. Just now In Canada in a small Ontario city, five murdered, three of them children. 

 

And in the case of Hamas in Gaza, these terrorists have it as an article of faith —eliminate the Jews – its in their constitution – from the river to the sea their motto. I just carried the words of a young Hamas Terrorist calling his parents on one of his Jewish victim’s phones — “Look Danny, how many Jews I have killed?”

 

So pause so that more tunnels can be re-enforced to carry out more gruesome slaughtering?

 

The Palestinian people need to be rid of their terrorists — so that in the long run more lives will be saved on both sides. 

 

Or as many people say, the Palestine people have to take a lot of the blame because they have not rid themselves of these murderers and the Europeans and Americans and the useless UN have aided and abetted with Iran in the ongoing viability of this terrorist group by provided moral and financial support.

 

The Trudeaus have a lot to answer for in history if any valid one is ever written. Given how commentators and historians have twisted and distorted the Constitutional process known as the Patriation Agreement of 1981 in which I was personally involved, don’t hold your breath. 

23-10-21 – The State wants God out of our Lives. How else to explain what is going on?

This Remembrance Day issue just brings it all to the fore in a dramatic way.

Epoch Times reports The Department of National Defence has confirmed that chaplains can’t use the word God during official ceremonies such as Remembrance Day.

This follows Defence Minister Bill Blair’s dismissal as misinformation assertions by the Conservatives that military chaplains are being prohibited from saying prayers at Remembrance Day ceremonies.

In mandatory military ceremonies, “chaplains should not use the word God or other references to a higher power such as Heavenly Father, Department of National Defence  spokesman Derek Abma told The Epoch Times in an Oct. 20 statement.

The article goes on to quote the Department of Defence spokesman of referring to a Supreme Court of Canada Decision of 2015 concerning religious neutrality.

Well, I have not read that decision (but I will), but I did help create the Charter of Right and Freedoms, a part of the Constitution Act, the Supreme Law of Canada and the opening words of the Charter are: “Whereas the country is founded on the principles which recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

And that God was/is the Judeao Christian God – all the first ministers involved in the charter understood that this God was what our civilization was based on —the Judeao-Christian ethic. We knew no other God.

And Canadians know now why courts and the Rouleau Inquiry will not hear from me.

Because I will inform them that the decisions that have been made and are being made by the Courts involving the Charter are wrong!

One judge in 1985 mentionedin a decision that the Charter authors never said Christian God and therefore they have free reign to interpret as they see fit.

How wrong, how without involving context, intent, custom, convention, concepts often mentioned in arriving at court decisions.

The momentous September, 1981 decision of the Supreme CourtrejectingTrudeau Sr. Government’s position that the unilateral government Patriationproposal was constitutional was decided becauseof Constitutional convention – custom – that important unwritten part of our Constitution.

And here we have it in the opening words of the Charter and in the custom/convention of our society andthe veterans’ ceremonies that what the Government through the Department Defenceand the Military leadership is doing is violating our constitution, its written and unwritten parts.

God is in our written Constitution and our unwritten Constitution (customs, convention) but not allowed in our Remembrance Day Ceremonies?

Into what evil hole have we fallen? If someone wants to change the Constitution there is a Constitutional way — right in the Charter. Using the old Trudeau unilateralismas the Supreme Court said in 1981 is unconstitutional.

The International Energy Agency says it would require

millions of miles of transmission lines

 

By The Editorial Board of the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 19, 2023.

 

The International Energy Agency said this week that 49.7 million miles of transmission lines – enough to wrap around the planet 2,000 times– will have to be built or replaced by 2040 to achieve the climate lobby’s net-zero emissions goal. This amounts to a plan for everyone to buy more metals from coal-fired plants in China.

 

Grid investment, the IEA report argues, is needed to carry additional renewable energy “as the world deploys more electric vehicles, installs more electric heating and cooling systems, and scales up hydrogen production using electrolysis.” By its estimate, the world needs to spend $600 billion annually on grid upgrades by 2030.

 

Unlike fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, solar and wind projects are typically many miles from population centres. That means long transmission lines, some under the sea to take electricity from off-shore wind installations. Tens of thousands of extra power transformers will be needed to step up and down voltage.

 

All of this would cost trillions of dollars and require enormous quantities of metals. “Copper and aluminium are the principal materials for the manufacture of cables and lines,” the IEA report says. Transmission lines also need insulators, such as cross-linked polyethylene and ethylene-propylene polymer—both derived from fossil fuels.

 

Transformers are made of the same specialized steel used in charging stations for electric vehicles. Smaller transformers require non-oriented electrical steel, used in EV motors. The green-energy gold rush has contributed to shortages of both types. Buyers of transformers “face a wait of over 18 months,” the report notes.

 

Meantime, advanced economies must replace aging equipment to prevent power outages and safety hazards. About half of the transmission and distribution lines in the U.S. are more than 20 years old, according to the IEA.

 

Where are the materials going to come from? 

 

The report doesn’t say, but the most likely answer is China, which dominates global copper, steel and aluminum production, owing to its lax environmental regulation and low labor costs. Over the past 20 years, primary aluminum production has increased ninefold in China while declining 68% in the U.S.

 

Metals manufacturing takes massive amounts of power, and coal accounts for 60% of China’s electric generation. 

 

In other words, the IEA’s path to a net-zero grid would involve emitting a lot more CO2, even assuming it wasn’t a political non-starter, which it is.

 

I see from the Epoch Times that the Conservatives are calling for a Committee to Investigate CBC and its refusal to name Hamas as Terrorists.

 

This is the soft, ridiculous Canadian way. 

 

Form a Committee and spend more money on what is obvious. Don’t take a stand.

 

The Conservatives should force the government in full Parliament to debate the ongoing existence of CBC,  Mr. Poilievre. This is an abomination!

 

Our public broadcaster refusing to call Hamas a terrorist organization whose adherents just slaughtered babies, fathers and mothers, and who have in their guiding principles the eradication of the Jewish people. Who teach their children to hate the Jews. 

 

What is happening to our country? All semblance of decency is being drained from our society. 

 

And the best the Official Opposition can do is demand a committee to investigate ?

 

Pray for our nation. 

 

Oh, I forgot. veterans can’t pray anymore at their ceremonies. 

 

Tennyson’s words ring out: “You ask me why though ill and ease within this region I subsist ?”

 

A common misperception is that all the Jews were forced into the diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. then, 1,800 years later, the Jews suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. 

 

In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years.

 

The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 

1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land, 

2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people, 

3) the territory was captured in defensive wars, and 

4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

 

Even after the Second Temple’s destruction and the exile’s beginning, Jewish life in the Land of Israel continued and often flourished. Large communities were re-established in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the 9th century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa, and Caesarea. 

 

The Crusaders massacred many Jews during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as many rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem, and elsewhere during the following 300 years.

 

By the early 19th century—years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement—more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel. 

 

The 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the re-establishment of the Jewish State.

 

Israel’s international “birth certificate” was validated by the promise of the Bible; 

 

uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; 

 

the Balfour Declaration of 1917; 

 

the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; 

 

the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; 

 

Israel’s admission to the U.N. in 1949; 

 

the recognition of Israel by most other states; and—most of all—the society created by Israel’s people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.

 

Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its “right to exist.” Israel’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgment…There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its “right to exist” a favor, or a negotiable concession.

—Abba Eban 

Source:

Michael Bard

Jewish Virtual Library 

 

23-10-12 – You can’t make this up! When Danielle Smith interviewed me just a short two years ago before she ran for the Party leadership, she was full p— and vinegar — democracy, the people, freedom, no coercion, nothing forced, let the person decide. Especially as it relates to the pandemic. She was curt with me about the Charter and its reach and effectiveness.

Then she is no sooner in power and she appoints Preston Manning to a Covid Inquiry helping to cause an ethical, conflict of interest issue within the already established National Citizens Inquiry in which Manning was intimately involved dealing with the National problems of mandates and lockdowns etc. all across the nation, including Alberta.

I informed Smith of this. I recognize that Manning should have resigned from the NCI, but she could have made it a condition of his appointment on her Provincial one, thereby avoiding the conflict-of-interest issue. She did not.

Then did the Legislature get involved? You know Democracy? That which Smith was all about and of which she relentlessly attacked her opponents and the federal Government? No, the Government proceeds to appoint members to the Inquiry and terms of referencewithout any reference to the elected Legislature.

And were there Public Hearings?

Well, I went to the website of the — wait for it —- Public Health Emergencies Governance Review Panel, you know the Covid Panel, but the bureaucracy already made sure the name reflected their capture.

Any reference to public hearings, when and where etc? No, no.

Just the following meaningless words from the website:

“Experts and members of the public are invited to share their input on whatamendments to legislationcould better equip the province to cope with future public health emergencies.”

Not another word about the public let alone public hearings.

Oh, the next thing on the website is“Thank you for your input, we are currently reviewing feedback.”

You got to be kidding! No, right there in black and white, just look, read it yourself.

Democracy hijacked!

Now we learn that masks are already back in the health facilities of Alberta, before the flawed inquiry has even reported and without the Legislaturebeing involved.

Epoch Times Reports

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says Alberta Health Services (AHS) has the autonomy to bring in mask mandates in acute care facilities, but says she is still committed to not bringing in "province-wide mask mandates."

“I believe that if Albertans want to wear a mask, they should. AHS has announced their decision to implement a new masking protocol in AHS acute care facilities," Ms. Smith said in a statement to The Epoch Times on Oct. 11.

“We recognize that AHS currently has the autonomy to make this decision. It is my expectation that no Albertan will be denied access to health care.”

In a statement posted on the AHS website and social media on Oct. 11, AHS said it has issued the “Use of Masks to Prevent Transmission of COVID-19 Directive,” to come immediately into effect, and it will allow zone executive leadership and site leadership of acute care centres to decide whether to require masking by all AHS staff, doctors, midwives, students, volunteers, and workers in hospital laboratories.

Zone executive leadership is defined by AHS as the management team consisting of a chief zone officer and a zone medical director, while site leadership is the individual or individuals responsible for a specific facility of operation within AHS.

The two are supposed to work collaboratively to decide if masking is necessary.

Patients, Visitors

AHS said that if the “enhanced measures” are put into effect, masking will also be required for patients, visitors, family members, and designated support persons in emergency departments in acute care facilities and hospitals.

The directive said masking will be required if a masking poster is posted on patient doors. Masking under the newly-implemented Alberta directive will also be required for workers, family, support persons, and visitors when the Medical Officer of Health recommends masks during an outbreak, by staff with COVID-19 symptoms or a positive COVID test, or in contact with a “severely-immunocompromised individual.”

AHS said the directive is in place to support individual zone and site leadership to determine if masking is necessary, and could include elevators, hallways, common areas, gift shops, and cafeterias, as the site itself decides.

The leadership is supposed to carry out a risk assessment in order of importance, firstly considering the rate of hospitalizations in people with COVID-19; as well as the outbreak number, size, and impact; the percentage of beds occupied by COVID-19 patients; test positivity; and situational context. The assessment “should be done” in collaboration with the zone medical officer of health, AHS indicated.

AHS states the leadership should be reviewing the mask directive if circumstances change.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says Alberta Health Services (AHS) has the autonomy to bring in mask mandates in acute care facilities, but says she is still committed to not bringing in "province-wide mask mandates."

“I believe that if Albertans want to wear a mask, they should. AHS has announced their decision to implement a new masking protocol in AHS acute care facilities," Ms. Smith said in a statement to The Epoch Times on Oct. 11.

“We recognize that AHS currently has the autonomy to make this decision. It is my expectation that no Albertan will be denied access to health care.”

Wow, Smith saying AHS has the autonomy. Who gave it them? The Government and Legislature!

Responsibility lies with the Premier, The Government, the Legislature! No buck passing please!

And it is “my expectationthat no Albertan will be denied access to health care.” A rather lame pronouncement.

Should not a special Legislative Committee on Health be established to oversee any new health restrictions?

Interesting that the Premier is quoted as saying “acute care facilities“ but the rest of the press release indicates it to be more than just acute care facilities. A littledouble speak, methinks.

Was it not Bureaucracy that led to the tragic circumstance of a death concerning transplants? In Alberta.

And right in thisAlberta release carried by Epoch Times is the following —

“AHS also indicated that the management could implement masking requirements even beyond those allowed by the directive.”

This is the government, administration that promised a new day in political governance, a beacon for all us freedom lovers, accountability advocates across the nation.

23-10-02 – As one surveys the scene locally, provincially, federally and globally the absence of honesty overwhelms. 

 

This is so pervasive that Robert. J. Kennedy Jr. Highlights it as the first item in his presidential campaign. Sad isn’t it that Kennedy’s uncle and father were both assassinated and yet decades later we have learned so little. And then his own government refuses him protection as if all candidates had a similar personal history 

 

Near the beginning of the so-called pandemic I was naively surprised when Dr. Charles Hoffe was so maligned here in British Columbia by the authorities as he attempted to get medical help for his patients. I called Dr. Hoffe to confirm the reports of this injustice. This was to be followed by many more cases across Canada as the state crushed  to obliterate dissent: Dr. Stephen Malthouse, Dr. Francis Christian, Dr. Roger Hodkison, Dr.Byram Bridle Dr. Paul Alexander, Dr. William Makis, and Dr. Chris Milburn, to name just a few. 

 

This is occurring, we were told, in one of the best places to live on the globe. 

 

Then we witnessed the press, with their financial assistance firmly secured, pursue with governments this continued information suppression. In my own case papers that would normally carry my articles suddenly ignored them. Jordan Peterson said to me when I did my interview with him, why just write the newspapers. He was later to learn that some people’s view were carried while other were not or only when they were embarrassed into it.

 

The premiers and their ministers hiding behind their public health officers as medical science was turned on its head. The complete breakdown of representative and responsible government ensued as blatant violations of the Constitution by Government increased. No cost benefit analysis, no ongoing parliamentary involvement. 

 

The federal government spokesmen callously advanced half truths on a gullible public even when credible science contradicted their propaganda. 

 

The capricious pharmaceutical companies signing billion-dollar deals with incompetent and shady governments. 

 

People’s rights to free speech, assembly, association, travel, and religion summarily dismissed.  And this to be confirmed by a uninformed, lazy judiciary, twisting or ignoring the plain meaning of our Constitution.

 

The Hippocratic oath, informed consent, bodily autonomy, concepts developed over centuries  arrogantly ignored, replaced with experiential, never used before drugs where all liability was waved. Drug companies who earlier were found guilty receiving such largess from shallow leaders.

 

Perhaps what is most devastating is the lame role of the judiciary as a whole and the blatant interference of our Chief Justice. 

 

Justin Trudeau, we all knew about him and the incompetence of the premiers, ministers and bureaucrats suddenly becoming politicians. We saw it on display every day. 

 

But the Judges?   

 

Legislative, executive  and judicial, the three pillars of our democracy have dramatically fused into one as democracy dies.

 

I have tried to propose measures to restore some semblance of democracy through my Magna Carta, but few in power are interested, when the system cuts you out from speaking in a local high school, a major university and even your municipal council, you know the jig’s up. 

 

When political parties do not want to publish annually audited financial statements, when the mainstream political parties continue to allow their MPs to break the law and still sit in the Parliament, when inquiries are established which perpetrate conflict of interest violations and break ethical standards, the conduct of meaningful public policy is impossible.

 

Honesty must come first, without it legitimate political governance is a non starter and democracy cannot flourish. 

 

Right now in Canada, honesty is shunned and unpopular.

 

23-09-29 – I thought she was against this. Experimental, no long term studies, no liability, world wide millions of adverse reactions from taking the vaccines and thousands dead. Government agencies in the USA and Europe are reporting this.

She actually interviewed me about violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Governments were engaged in by coercing people just before she ran for the leadership of her Party.

And now she is the Premier and her Governmentthrough her Minster of Health is announcing as reported by the Calgary Herald”

“Albertans will be able to start booking appointments for influenza and COVID-19 vaccines beginning Oct. 10.

“In a news release Thursday, the government announced that the shots will be available at Alberta Health Services clinics and pharmacies starting Oct. 16. Booking appointments can be done during the previous week through the online Alberta Vaccine Booking System atbookvaccine.alberta.ca/s/booking, by calling 811, or directly through clinics or pharmacies.’

It goes on to say: “The government said that ahead of that, starting next Tuesday, Albertans living in congregate care will be able to access respiratory virus vaccinations through their facilities. However, it did not provide details.”

The release also didn’t provide any specific information about who is eligible beginning Oct. 16, but encouraged Albertans to help limit the spread of infection by staying at home when feeling sick, washing their hands frequently, covering coughs and disinfecting frequently-touched surfaces.

“Albertans can also choose to wear a well-fitting mask in crowded indoor spaces to help reduce the risk of becoming sick and help protect others from being exposed. Albertans are encouraged to speak with their primary care provider if they have questions or concerns about immunizations,” the release said.

Health Canada announced it had approved Moderna’s latest Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine for Canadians six months or older, formulated for the XBB.1.5 Omicron variant, two weeks ago.’

And doesn’t this sound like former Premier Kenny’s Chief Medical Health Officer and his former Minister of Health?

“Dr. Mark Joffe, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, said in the release being immunized for influenza and COVID-19 can help protect Albertans and those most at risk for severe disease.

“Taking steps to prevent viral infections will also improve an individual’s overall health,” he said.

“Health Minister Adriana LaGrange, who on Wednesday declined to say whether she would get a COVID-19 shot, saidkeeping up with immunizations is an excellent way to protect yourself against the respiratory illness season.

“Doing what you can to prevent severe illness will also help secure our health care system for those who need it most,” she said.

Doesn’t this sound like the statements made by Governments at the beginning of the fabricated Covid pandemic?

Obviously they have not readthe book “Turtles All The Way Down — Vaccine Science and Myth.”

Nor have they studied the work of real health experts like Dr. Peter McCullough, who just appeared before the European Parliament and asked European lawmakers to take COVID-19 vaccines off the market, warning that the vaccines are responsible for a host of illnesses, including heart inflammation, blood clots, and neurological diseases.

These elected and appointed people hide the damage these vaccines have caused in scores of independent studies. This information should be front and centre so that people will have all the information to decide what, if anything, they should do.

Where is the cost benefit analysis? Where is the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of “demonstrably justify” and “a free and democratic society?”

Where is being guided by the supremacy of God and the rule of law?

Isn’t the Smith Government appointed Covid Inquiry suppose to provide a report onmistakes in the past and recommend better ways to respondin the future?

Why is the Government getting ahead of the Inquiry findings? Sabotaging the Inquiry.

Has the Inquiry held any public hearings?

Alberta’s promise of following independent science, opposed to irrationality, fear and against coercion has been broken.

23-09-25 – A former Nazi was recently applauded in Parliament. Ignorance knows no bounds in this land. Now the politicians are trying to backtrack, but there is no excuse.

It is abhorrent, it is a disaster!

I am daily reminded of our ignorance about our own Constitution as the elite and political class abuse and disfigure our Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

But if we know not our own history, then such shocking international ignorance is tragically to be expected.

We learn littlein our schools, history as a subject is gone and civics as a subject does not exist and testing and grading in many of our schools is no more.

We know little and pretend we know a lot.

Just a few months ago a European Union MP came to Canada and the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition maligned her. The PM and the Leader of the Opposition are now trying to hide their ignorance and/or prejudice now that there has been some push back.

I have been refused an opportunity to speak in a public school and a public university in this land. I am the only living first minister who was part of the creation of the Constitution Act 1982, a part of which is The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Yet, I witness the applause of the Federal Parliamentarians for a person involved on Hitler’ s side of theSecond World War while seeing a democratically elected EU MP maligned. At a time when Canadians are before our courts for their legitimate civil disobedience opposing the state’s action for having their rights under the Charter taken away.

When will this madness stop?

All those elected in our House of Commons should be fired!

I still give grades; the Parliament of Canada gets an F.

23-09-20 – Protests across the country often got lost in what is at the core issue.

Does a parent have a right to be involved in what gender/sex information is in the public school and what is being taught on this issue? Is the family still an integralpart of our society?

Where do most children come from when they come to school in the morning and where do they go when they leave school in the afternoon? They come from and go in most cases to the family home – whether one parent or two parents, whether apartment, condo, house.

If then the parent is still the PARENT or PARENTS then does it not logically follow that that Parentor Parents has/have an obligation, responsibility to nurture and guide that child until they reach the age of maturity? Isn’t this our custom?

That such nurturing and guiding must by definition include theformal education of that child.

Does the state have the right to withhold crucial information on gender/sex information in which a school is involved, from the parents of the children? It is the parents who created the school and provide the money for its functioning, not the other way around.

The school is the servant of the people as is the Provincial Parliament. And Provincial Government through the Provincial Parliament holds the power over education.

The first words of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says – “whereas this country is founded on the principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

What God?

All the first Ministers who signed on to the Charter in 1981, including yours truly, followed the Judaeo Christian God, our country was founded on values and morals of the Judaeo Christian tradition.

We knew no other God!

And that means, as everyone knows, if they are being honest, this tradition has as one of its tenants that there is a primary position for the family in society existence, growth and success and the crucial role of parents in the realization of the ongoing success of this tradition.

Nothing new here.

It is just that ‘the people’ have ‘allowed ‘ the state ‘, the Provincial Parliament, the Provincial Government, the Provincial Education Department and the School Boards to have full reign of what is in our school libraries. our school curriculum, and what the teachers teach.

The people must insist on a new contract. Not a new teachers’ contract – but anew peoples’ contract with their servants ­– the Provincial Parliament.

The Provincial Parliament, The Provincial Government, The Department of Education, the School Boards must all be called to account.

And the people must insist on a new arrangement with the Provincial Government in the education of children. That means changes to the Education Act of each Province.

People must now be strategic: Petitions and protests are of some help, but the vested interests, the unions and those who now jealously hold the power and jobs, will sabotage, conflict of interest notwithstanding.

But the people must take matters in their own hands. organize in each Province and insist on meetings (Committees representing the parents) with every school board and every MLA. Then with the Minister ofEducation and the Premier outlining the changes that are necessary in the Education Act.

The existing political parties are not to be trusted. They have allowed this situation to be. They have created it.

This must be a grassroots people movement – all egos put in the freezer.

This is not a Trudeau issue. If you can just honour the Constitution. Education is provincial – Section 93 of the Constitution Act of 1867.

Legislation respecting Education

In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education,

So if the country, the parents want real education change, ongoing input in education curriculum. teaching,they must in civil, organized fashion in all the Provinces make representation in a new peoples’ movement.

The Territories education system would be hard pressed to resist such change and the people there should do the sameas I am recommending for the Provinces.

It seems to me that. sadly, that is the point we have reached in our democracy.The existing process has failed us.

We must invent a new process with the people directly involved until the necessary changes are made.

In the end it is the peoples’ votes that will bring about the fundamental change that is crying out for attention.

The great political philosopher Baron De Montesquieu ( 1689–1755) said: ‘That government is best which governs least." "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves." "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Report Number One  – 23-09-09

We hear a lot of talk . . . from all political parties. 

 

A lot on ethics and integrity. But as we know, little has been done. 

 

MPs can violate the Conflict Of Interest Act and still serve in the House of Commons. 

 

But what do they actually put in writing? 

 

I have written the Leader of the Conservative Party asking him to have his Party endorse an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act to disallow any MP from serving in the House of Commons if found in violation of the Act by the Ethics and  Conflict of Interest Commissioner. The leader has not answered my inquiry.

 

And now we know why.

 

This what is being proposed at the convention, taken directly from the material on policy. 

 

‘2023 Submission #1005 - 6. Empowering the Ethics Commissioner

 

“The Conservative Party believes in empowering the Ethics Commissioner with more punitive options for repeat offenders of the Conflict of Interest Act as it applies to MPs and Senators to ensure compliance. A "three strikes" rule will be implemented, with extremely cost prohibitive fines for first offence, double for a second and disqualifications of the member from all public and lobbying positions for life for a third. Ministers will be subject to increased penalties commensurate with their offence and inherent responsibilities.”

 

Wow!

 

No disqualification from serving as MP for breaking the law the first timeor the second time, you have to break the law a third time for “disqualification of the member from all public and lobbying positions for life.”

 

And what does this disqualifications from public and lobbying positions mean? The House of Commons? If so why not say so? 

 

And what does extremely cost-prohibitive fines mean?

 

So folks, there you have it! A Party in waiting to be a new federal government whose commitment to integrity and ethics is . . . ?

 

Report Number Two - 23-09-09

 

The Hill Times newspaper in Ottawa reported that the Convention rejected a resolution that would have seen lobbyists disqualified from serving  on the National Council of the Party. 

 

Now this would have been a step forward.

 

The news report state the federal Conservatives voted down a resolution that called for disallowing lobbyists and vendors from seeking a national council position, one day before the vote for a new national council is scheduled to take place.

 

In advance of the start of the three-day Conservative Party policy conference in Québec City, the riding associations sponsoring the resolution calling for disallowing lobbyists and vendors from seeking a seat at the table had set up a website and campaigned against national council candidates who are either lobbyists or vendors for the party.

 

“There are at least five lobbyists running for national council. Three come from the same firm,” reads the opening sentence of the website nolobbyistsoncouncil.ca. ‘

 

The resolution had a lot of riding support throughout the country. 

 

The news report provides the wording of the resolution and those ridings in support :

 

“Already there are exclusions to who can run for national council and this expands the list to others who are typically more prone to have a personal interest in a matter that could conflict with the broad national interest,” reads the resolution. “We should want to avoid electing candidates who have to recuse themselves from voting due to a conflict of interest because then the province which elected that candidate will suffer relative under-representation when the matter comes to a vote, without a voice at the table. That further disenfranchises the members in that province. Best to proactively reduce those circumstances as much as possible with the additional filtering criteria for optimizing national council candidates.”

 

The resolution entitled “Eligibility to stand for election to national council” had been sponsored by the Conservative electoral district association (EDA) of Vancouver Centre, B.C., and co-sponsored by 14 other ridings, including B.C. ridings – North Okanagan-Shuswap, Burnaby North-Seymour, Steveston-Richmond East, South Surrey-White Rock, Vancouver Quadra, Vancouver East and Port Moody-Coquitlam.

 

Interesting most of the ridings supporting the resolution are from Western Canada, with B.C. having more than any other Province. Quebec has only one and The Atlantic Provinces did not have any ridings supporting the resolution.  

 

Sadly here again the Conservative Party of Canada had an opportunity to stand up for integrity in political parties, and political governance. I could find nothing about this resolution on the party’s website highlighting the resolution to come before the convention.

 

There was even a website set up to support the resolution: www.nolobbyistsoncouncil.ca.

 

Mainstream political parties are incapable of advancing ethics principles.

 

The system must change, new political parties.

 

“Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”. This dictum was laid down by Lord Hewart, the then Lord Chief Justice of England in the case of Rex v. Sussex Justices, [1924] 1 KB 256.”

 

Why was it only Maxime Bernier among political leaders who stood up for our Charter Rights of assembly and free speech, and travel and was arrested? And who is still fighting in court with me on the Federal Travel Ban!

 

Canadians are slow to change, and democracy, and hence ethics and honesty suffers. 

Report Number Three - 23-09-12

I got to thinking – a government in waiting convention and no recognition of the three-year brazen abuse of science and power and our Constitution.

There were ego-driven public health officers given power by shallow parliamentarians. No recognition of how our whole governance has been turnedupside down, the Constitution trashed, disfigured and ignored.

And the celebratory mood of the crowd as they smell blood and the gaining of power – the transfer of red Liberal to blue Conservative.

It reminds me of history and the Roman crowd of Caesar’s day. Is there something in the vaccines that reduce a person’s empathy? Our memory? Or is this who we are, hidden in our material prosperity?

Makes you wonder.

We must not forget the many who died and the many injured because of Government incompetence and stupidity. I have files full of stories from people all over Canada – the grand daughters disallowed travel, having been sent passage money by their dying grandmother in Australia.

The man in central Canada who lost his job because he visited by car (prevented from flying ) his sick relative in western Canada and had an accident delaying his return.

People seeing their sick parents or grandparents outside windows of seniors homes and hospitals.

The slavish subservience of many to bloated bureaucracies and ego-driven politicians. Witness the problems in Ontario and Quebec seniors homes uncovered by the military not the medical public servants.

And it continues.

All those Conservative MPs at the Convention who cowardly were absent from the Trucker’s Convoy now congratulating themselves for nothing. The gall!

And they are among the MPs who voted for Bill C-4 making illegal for parents to help their children with their God-given biology. As the courageous Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, said in a note commenting on Conservative Leader Poilievre and his MPs:

‘We can’t forget that less than two years ago, he and his trained seals unanimously voted with the Liberals and NDP in favour of bill C-4, which promotes the transitioning of kids and criminalizes parents and counsellors who want to help them accept their body.”

The tragic irony of all this is that at the same time as this Convention is partying Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, two of the Trucker Convoy leaders, are before the courts for asserting through civil disobedience the right of Canadians through their Constitution to earn a living, the celebration of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of “life, liberty and the security of the person”,rejecting government coercion and fiat.

Report 4 - 23-09-12

The Conservative Convention in Quebec City had no mention of amending the Emergencies Act and stopping the conflict of internet and bad ethics, and a lack of accountability.

One of the biggest National issues facing Canada is the unconstitutional use by the Federal Government of the Emergencies Act in relation to the constitutional Truckers Convoy.

As written, the Act allows the Federal Government to establish a Commission to examine its own actions when the Act is invoked. This is blatant conflict of interest – government given the power to examine itself.

We saw this put to use this year through the Rouleau Commission.We were seen worldwide as undemocratic, a tyrannical state.The Federal Government having the power to appoint theCommissioner and setting the terms of reference to examine itself.

What a chance for the Conservative Party of Canada to show some integrity, sound ethics and honest governance.

The application of this Act was unconstitutional by ignoring the first words of the Charter, Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law and violating the Conditions of Section 1 of the Charter – demonstrable justification and adherence torule of law in a free and democratic society.

This silence,this mistake of omission, places this Party in the same dishonest and unethical position as the Government theyaccuse of dishonesty and unethical behaviour. And this does not even include the other unconstitutional actions of freezing of citizens’ bank accounts, restricting the right of travel, association assembly, the lack of accountability of those who imposed and supported lockdowns and mandates.

Tamara Lich and Chris Barber are before the Courts while many in Government are free from accountability of mandates, lockdowns and the approving of experimental drugs that are harming thousands.

23-09-07 – There is an incredible ignorance among our MPs and MLAs.This truth came home to me over the last three years when I was asked to engage with MPs AND MLAs concerning the Constitution and especially that part of the Constitution called The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Many, almost all, over 90 per cent, did not know the history of the Charter, that it has only been a part of our Constitution since 1982 and none really knew what it contained.

It was a most shocking experience.

So how can we expect MPs or MLAs to question their Party or Governmenton the constitutionality of recent mandates and lockdowns if they have not read the relevant Constitutional provisions and understand them? How can they vote on mandates and lockdowns — they just followed their party like sheep — mere zombies in a supposedly-democratic process.

These MPs and MLAs should not be a part of any Canadian Parliament.

Now I read about our billion dollar subsidized leftist CBC and a new series they have, interviewing some MPs concerning what is wrongwith our democracy. The title of the article was ”MPs saying democracy is fraying, but there is hope”, Sept. 2, by Christian Paas-Lang

“Fraying”?

Blaming social media – need to talk to one another – the people believe they are not being heard. You don’t say? Ignoring completely that they’d are presiding over a dying parliamentary democracy

WOW. They don’t realize we have lost a lot of it?

Are they, CBC and the MPs, just ignorant or are they deliberately trying to hoodwink us some more?

Does CBC think they are doing all of us a service as they lamely interview eight MPs?

Please note: Not one of the MPs raised the fact thattheir Parliament’s power has been diminished;

that the PM runs the show from the PM’s political office and the falsely-named Privy Council office involving hundreds of staff;

that their Committees are the tyranny of the majority, no checks or balances;

that their own position means that introducing a private member’s bill will likely take years to get debated if at all;

that the invoking of the Emergency Act was unconstitutional;

that the Rouleau Commissionwas a disgrace, a blatant conflict of interest;

that science has been corrupted;

that the freezing of citizens’ bank accounts because they were exercising their constitutional rights was itself unconstitutional and symptomatic of tyrannical regimes;

that the media are bought and a part of the Government’s false narrative;

that the PM has broken the law five times and because of loose accountability provisions that they could change is still an MP and PM;

that their Parties do not publish annual audited financial statements;

that the Government is massively in debt;

that the judiciary has participated in the abuse of independent science and the disfiguring of our Constitution;

that people have died and seriously injured by deliberate bad public policy!

These unqualified legislators, in their ignorance, express false hope, oblivious to our precarious situation as if some mending at the edges could right the ship of state, possessing a child-like stupor of our position.

23-09-05

And so it has come to this. A System which sees its top Judge speak despairingly about people who later are to come before the very system over which he presides.

A System that sees the Prime Minister of this country violate the Conflict of Interest law five times and is still Prime Minister and is still sitting in the House of Commons.

A System which freezes the bank accounts of people who exercise their constitutional rights to protest.

A System which ignores the Constitutional provision of the ‘Supremacy of God’ and ‘the rule of law.’

A System that ignores independent science and legitimate alternate medical products to push its own flawed narrative.

A System that advocates the lie of ‘safe and effective.’

A system that deliberately attempts to malign people like Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Byram Bridle and Dr. Jordan Peterson.

A system that refuses to hear the views of the only living first minister who signed the Patriation Agreement, the foundation document of the Constitution Act 1982 which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A System that sees the elected representatives in the Federal Parliament and Legislatures of the Provinces and the Territories continue to re-enforce this travesty upon its citizens.

Our ancestors in British North America fought for and gained representative and responsible Government even before Canada became a country through the BNA Act of 1867.

Whence Canada’s democracy?

23-08-31 – When the heat comes on blame others. Mr. Premier how about fixing your own house?

For example, that carbon tax. Think that tax is not inflationary?

Do you think that doesn’t hurt farmers, small businesses and ordinary people?

How about living within your means and reduce borrowing thereby reducing inflation. You are borrowing to just keep the lights on.

Your total debt, according to your own figures in the Public Accounts, stands at $90 billion at the end of March 2022.That is with a B and that is $3 billion more than the previous year.

Perhaps reduction in those over-the-top regulations might help. Canada comes 122 in how long it takes to getan electrical permit, according the WorldBank. There are 121 countries which are more efficient in issuing anelectrical permit. No doubt your government with its innumerable regulations contributes to this shameful statistic.

So, perhaps People in Glass Houses shouldn’t throw stones. Clean up your own housebefore asking others to clean up theirs.

23-08-18 – Many write, call me, asking me to explain in simple terms why I keep saying that. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is an important part of the written part of our Constitution, the Constitution Act 1982. 

 

Reason One 

 

The opening words of Part 1 of our Charter says this:

 

PART I

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

 

 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

 

These are the very first words of the Charter — and note at the end there is the punctuation mark — a colon!

 

This means to anticipate what comes next, especially with the first word being the word ‘whereas.’ 

 

Therefore, phrases ‘supremacy of God’ and ‘the rule of law’ were meant to give a framework in which the other following parts of the Charter were to be considered. 

 

What has happened is that Government mandates and lockdowns, through public health orders and other similar means,  have ignored considering this in any of their decisions, boldly saying these actions follow the Charter, conform with the provisions of the Charter.

 

The courts have followed this Government behaviour in confirming these deliberate acts of omission, saying the Governments’ actions are within the Constitution.

 

But they could only say this because they performed a trick— they left out the FRAMEWORK CONCEPTS  through which the rest of the Charter was to be considered. 

 

There is nothing in the constitution that says the Governments or Courts could ignore the opening words of Part 1 of the Charter. 

 

So we have a violation of the charter. This is an act of omission.

 

Governments or the Courts are not at liberty to select what parts of the Constitution they will use to set public policy or render a judgement. 

 

If that were true we all could select what laws we want to follow. We all know there would be no civilized society, no rule of law, if that were to happen. 

 

Governments are obligated to see to it that any new policy or program meets all of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Courts must do the same when rendering judgements based on the Charter. 

 

In one court case back in 1983 a Provincial Court Judge in Alberta named Stevenson addressed the opening words of the Charter saying it still shows that 

 

‘the Charter does not recognize any particular denomination, and (noticeable by its absence) it does not refer to a Christian God.’

 

This is what apparently other courts have relied on as we see in a recent court decision in Alberta that references this!

 

But the first Ministers who approved this wording of just the word God were all Christians — we believed it to be self evident. 

 

We only knew a Judaeo Christian God.

 

Do you remember the words of the US Declaration of Independence ——

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

So one Judge tells me AND NINE OTHER FIRST MINISTERS WHO WERE ALL CHRISTIANS what God WE WERE referring to in 1981 when WE signed the Charter. ?

 

SO WE HAVE THE SINS OF OMISSION BY MOST GOVERNMENTS AND COURTS AND THE SIN OF COMMISSION BY ONE PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGE  IN ALBERTA And QUOTED IN A COUPLE OF OTHER CASES. 

 

Brian Peckford  ! Why Do You Say Governments and Courts Are Violating Our Constitution ( Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) ?

 

Many write , call me , asking me to explain to them in simple terms why I keep saying the Governments and the Courts have been violating The Charter of Rights and Freedoms , an important part of the written part of our Constitution, the Constitution Act 1982. 

 

Reason One 

 

The opening words of Part 1 of our Charter says this:

 

‘PART I

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:’

 

These are the very first words of the Charter —and note at the end there is the punctuation mark —-a colon !

 

This means to anticipate what comes next , especially with the first word being the word ‘whereas.’ 

 

Therefore, phrases ‘ supremacy of God ‘and ‘the rule of law ‘were meant to give a framework in which the other following parts of the Charter were to be considered. 

 

What has happened is that Government mandates and lockdowns, through public health orders and other similar means   have ignored considering this in any of their decisions , boldly saying these actions follow the Charter, conform with the provisions of the Charter.

 

The courts have followed this Government behaviour in confirming these deliberate acts of omission , saying the Governments’ actions are within the Constitution .

 

But they could only say this because they performed a trick—-they left out the FRAMEWORK CONCEPTS  through which the rest of the Charter was to be considered. 

 

There is nothing in the constitution that says the Governments or Courts could ignore the opening words of Part 1 of the Charter!! 

 

So we have a violation of the charter . This is an act of omission.

 

Governments or the Courts are not at liberty to select what parts of the Constitution they will use to set public policy or render a judgement . 

 

If that were true we all could select what laws we want to follow. We all know there would be no civilized society , no rule of law, if that were to happen . 

 

Governments are obligated to see to it that any new policy or program meets all of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Courts must do the same when rendering judgements based on the Charter. 

 

In one court case back in 1983 a Provincial Court Judge in Alberta  named Stevenson addressed the opening words of the Charter saying it still shows that 

 

‘ the Charter does not recognize any particular denomination, and (noticeable by its absence) it does not refer to a Christian God.’

 

This is what apparently other courts have relied on as we see in a recent court decision in Alberta that references this !

 

But the first Ministers who approved this wording of just the word God were all Christians —-we believed it to be self evident . 

 

We only knew a Judaeo Christian God!!!!!!

 

Do you remember the words of the US Declaration of Independence ——

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- 

 

So one Judge tells me AND NINE OTHER FIRST MINISTERS  WHO WERE ALL CHRISTIANS what God WE WERE referring to in 1981 when WE signed the Charter. ?

 

SO WE HAVE THE SINS OF OMISSION BY MOST GOVERNMENTS AND COURTS AND THE SIN OF COMMISSION BY ONE PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGE  IN ALBERTA And QUOTED IN A COUPLE OF OTHER CASES. 

 

Reason Two 

 

Even if one could get past this———and let’s for argument sake say we can —there is the issue of intent —what did the authors of the Charter intend when they approved Section 1 of the Charter :

 

1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

 

Many try and say this gives Governments and Courts the latitude to take away rights and freedoms with mandates and lockdowns in an alleged health emergency.

 

The intent of the authors was this could only be used if the country’s  existence was in peril, war, insurrection. There was no such situation in the last three years with this manufactured pandemic. 

 

How do I know that?

 

Because I was there.  My signature  is on the Charter. 

 

And look at Section 4 (2) in ——-

 

‘(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

 

That’s how we were thinking.

 

Reason Three 

 

Now if you can get past these two reasons and still be sane —-well , let’s ‘for argument sake ‘ say you can —-you then have the Governments and Courts to prove that the policies , programs , mandates and lockdowns must be ‘demonstrably justified ‘ and ‘in a free and democratic society’ to satisfy this Section 1. 

 

Have any of  Governments produced a report showing that what they were doing was ‘demonstrably justified’ like a cost benefit analysis? 

 

No! Not one!!!

 

Would not ‘free and democratic society ‘ mean that the Parliaments of Canada , all fourteen, be involved  where the Constitutional rights and freedoms of their voters , citizens were being proposed to be taken away? The Parliaments were rubber stamps —-not engaged through Parliamentary Committees etc. 

 

And the  Governments could have referred ( they all had the power) their proposed  policies directly to their highest court to check and see if what they were doing was constitutional . Not one did. I wrote all of them recommending this. 

 

Then there is the SCIENCE 

 

Many experts like Professor Douglas Allan of Simon Fraser University have shown that there were facts coming out as early as August , 2020 that what Governments were doing would involve more harm than good. 

 

There was lots of independent good science from the Great Barrington Declaration to scientific studies by Canada’s own Covid Care Alliance to the experiences and study of Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Stev Pelich , Dr. Roger Hodkinson , Dr. Francis Christian, Dr. Byram Bridle , Dr. Jordan Peterson and many more. 

 

There were many international studies carried by Doctors for Covid Ethics , the World Council of Health, the British Hart Group, Panda, the Brownstone Institute and leading researchers like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik of FLCCC , Edward Dowd , and Dr. Peter Cole , Stev Kirsh, Alex Berenson, and Robert Kennedy Jr. and the Children Health Defence professionals. Then there is the great work of Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer documents. Even US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has commented and citing Aristotle , noted that ‘ even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.’

 

There are many who have not heard of the book ‘Turtles All The Way Down ‘ Vaccine Science and Myth ——-there are others  who have heard of it but are afraid to read it, including medical people. Anyone interested or involved in medical science needs to read this book with its 1200 references. 

 

And then there is the ultimate test —Common Sense 

 

An experimental new substance for a vaccine , the makers of which had ‘immunity’ from litigation if the product failed and Drug Companies and Government at the same time saying such was safe and effective when they had negative information they were hiding. Drug Companies peddling a vaccine that had already been found  guilty of wrong doing in their medical research .

 

The law of common sense was violated .

 

Perhaps you know now why the courts don’t want to hear from me , why schools and universities refuse a chance for me to speak  and why the mainstream press are so hostile. 

 

Summary : 

 

Governments and Courts ignored parts of our Charter , tried to tell me what I meant by God in the Charter, ignored the intent of the Charter’s authors in Section 1 ,  and did not meet the tests of Section 1 of the Charter. 

Independent Credible Science was and is blatantly ignored and abused .

Common sense has disappeared. 

 

I will also attach Modern Canadian Constitutional Myths , an article that I wrote some time ago that is also relevant to this discussion. 

 

My best seller book of 2012 ‘Some Day The Sun Will Shine And Have Not Will Be No More ‘ has more information ( pages173 to 177 and pages 251 to 288) including copies of the original documents produced at the Constitutional Conference that created the Charter.  The book is still available electronically from Amazon.

 

 

Modern Canadian Constitutional Myths 

 

1. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Pierre Eliot Trudeau ‘s Charter 

 

The Charter , part of the Patriation Agreement, was approved( signed) by 9 Premiers and the Prime Minister, Pierre Eliot Trudeau, on November 5, 1981. It is the authorizing document making possible The Constitution Act 1982 . It belongs to all Canadians. A unilateral action by Mr. Trudeau and his Government which included a Charter was rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada as unconstitutional in a decision on September 28 1981. 

 

‘The court wrote: ‘We have reached the conclusion that the agreement of the provinces of Canada, no views being expressed as to its quantification, is constitutional­ly required for the passing of the "Proposed Reso­lution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada" and that the passing of this Resolution without such agreement would be unconstitutional in the con­ventional sense.’

 

1. The British Monarchy can still change our Constitution. 

 

Accompanying the Constitution Act of 1982 is the Canada Act with the following statement :

 

‘No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.’ In order for the U K Monarchy to exert power on Canada now one would have to see the Crown over rule the UK Parliament and violate the Constitution. 

 

1. In 1981 The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was negotiated as a stand alone document. 

 

In 1981 a package of proposals was negotiated which included the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was called the Patriation Agreement .The next year when legislated and  Proclaimed it became known as  the Constitution Act of 1982 containing  61 sections, 34 being The Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Other items include Aboriginal Rights, Equalization and Minority Language Rights, and non renewable natural resources 

 

1. The Bill of Rights of 1960 was sufficient . Canada did not need the Constitution Act 1982/Charter of Rights and Freedoms

 

The Bill of Rights of 1960 was a Federal Act covering just Federal Jurisdiction .  Section 5(3) says ‘The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.’ Furthermore, this Act could be changed any time by a majority of MP’s in the Federal Parliament. 

 

The Constitution Act of 1982 /Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a National Document for all the nation , covering both Federal and Provincial jurisdiction. As Section 52 says : ‘The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. ‘Furthermore, to change the Constitution would take the agreement of 7 Provinces and their legislatures and the Federal Government and the Federal Parliament representing  50% of the Population. 

 

1. Section 1 of The Charter allows The Governments’ mandates /lockdowns  that have and are occurring during the so called ‘pandemic. ‘

 

The intent of Section 1 was for it to apply only when the country’s existence was in peril—war , insurrection. The so called ‘pandemic ‘ did not meet this threshold . The idea of impending peril to permit override is right in the Charter . In Section 4 of the Charter reference is made to ‘real or apprehended war ,invasion or insurrection ‘ to extend the Parliament beyond the mandatory five years’. 

 

Even if Section 1 did apply the tests of ‘demonstrably justify ‘ and ‘free and democratic society’  in that Section were not met by any of the Governments in imposing their mandates/lockdowns. 

 

1. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a secular document .

 

Part 1 of the Charter states : ‘Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:’ 

 

In other words the Charter is to be understood in the context of these two principles, one being religious, non-secular. 

 

 

Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C.

Only Living First Minister Who Helped Craft The Constitution Act /Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Peckford42.wordpress.com 

 

Sent from my iPad

 

 

Even if one could get past this – and let’s for argument sake say we can — there is the issue of intent. What did the authors of the Charter intend when they approved Section 1 of the Charter?

 

1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

 

Many try and say this gives Governments and Courts the latitude to take away rights and freedoms with mandates and lockdowns in an alleged health emergency.

 

The intent of the authors was this could only be used if the country’s  existence was in peril, war, insurrection. There was no such situation in the last three years with this manufactured pandemic. 

 

How do I know that?

 

Because I was there.  My signature  is on the Charter. 

 

And look at Section 4 (2) in ——-

 

‘(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

 

That’s how we were thinking.

 

Reason Three 

 

Now if you can get past these two reasons and still be sane —-well, let’s ‘for argument sake ‘ say you can —-you then have the Governments and Courts to prove that the policies, programs, mandates and lockdowns must be ‘demonstrably justified ‘ and ‘in a free and democratic society’ to satisfy this Section 1. 

 

Have any of  Governments produced a report showing that what they were doing was ‘demonstrably justified’ like a cost benefit analysis? 

 

No! Not one!!!

 

Would not ‘free and democratic society ‘ mean that the Parliaments of Canada, all fourteen, be involved  where the Constitutional rights and freedoms of their voters, citizens were being proposed to be taken away? The Parliaments were rubber stamps —-not engaged through Parliamentary Committees etc. 

 

And the  Governments could have referred ( they all had the power) their proposed  policies directly to their highest court to check and see if what they were doing was constitutional. Not one did. I wrote all of them recommending this. 

 

Then there is the SCIENCE 

 

Many experts like Professor Douglas Allan of Simon Fraser University have shown that there were facts coming out as early as August, 2020 that what Governments were doing would involve more harm than good. 

 

There was lots of independent good science from the Great Barrington Declaration to scientific studies by Canada’s own Covid Care Alliance to the experiences and study of Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Stev Pelich, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, Dr. Francis Christian, Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. Jordan Peterson and many more. 

 

There were many international studies carried by Doctors for Covid Ethics, the World Council of Health, the British Hart Group, Panda, the Brownstone Institute and leading researchers like Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik of FLCCC, Edward Dowd, and Dr. Peter Cole, Stev Kirsh, Alex Berenson, and Robert Kennedy Jr. and the Children Health Defence professionals. Then there is the great work of Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer documents. Even US Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has commented and citing Aristotle, noted that ‘ even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.’

 

There are many who have not heard of the book ‘Turtles All The Way Down ‘ Vaccine Science and Myth ——-there are others  who have heard of it but are afraid to read it, including medical people. Anyone interested or involved in medical science needs to read this book with its 1200 references. 

 

And then there is the ultimate test —Common Sense 

 

An experimental new substance for a vaccine, the makers of which had ‘immunity’ from litigation if the product failed and Drug Companies and Government at the same time saying such was safe and effective when they had negative information they were hiding. Drug Companies peddling a vaccine that had already been found  guilty of wrong doing in their medical research.

 

The law of common sense was violated.

 

Perhaps you know now why the courts don’t want to hear from me, why schools and universities refuse a chance for me to speak  and why the mainstream press are so hostile. 

 

Summary : 

 

Governments and Courts ignored parts of our Charter, tried to tell me what I meant by God in the Charter, ignored the intent of the Charter’s authors in Section 1,  and did not meet the tests of Section 1 of the Charter. 

Independent Credible Science was and is blatantly ignored and abused.

Common sense has disappeared. 

 

I will also attach Modern Canadian Constitutional Myths, an article that I wrote some time ago that is also relevant to this discussion. 

 

My best seller book of 2012 ‘Some Day The Sun Will Shine And Have Not Will Be No More ‘ has more information ( pages173 to 177 and pages 251 to 288) including copies of the original documents produced at the Constitutional Conference that created the Charter.  The book is still available electronically from Amazon.

 

 

Modern Canadian Constitutional Myths 

 

1. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is Pierre Eliot Trudeau ‘s Charter 

 

The Charter, part of the Patriation Agreement, was approved( signed) by 9 Premiers and the Prime Minister, Pierre Eliot Trudeau, on November 5, 1981. It is the authorizing document making possible The Constitution Act 1982. It belongs to all Canadians. A unilateral action by Mr. Trudeau and his Government which included a Charter was rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada as unconstitutional in a decision on September 28 1981. 

 

‘The court wrote: ‘We have reached the conclusion that the agreement of the provinces of Canada, no views being expressed as to its quantification, is constitutional­ly required for the passing of the "Proposed Reso­lution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada" and that the passing of this Resolution without such agreement would be unconstitutional in the con­ventional sense.’

 

1. The British Monarchy can still change our Constitution. 

 

Accompanying the Constitution Act of 1982 is the Canada Act with the following statement :

 

‘No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.’ In order for the U K Monarchy to exert power on Canada now one would have to see the Crown over rule the UK Parliament and violate the Constitution. 

 

1. In 1981 The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was negotiated as a stand alone document. 

 

In 1981 a package of proposals was negotiated which included the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was called the Patriation Agreement.The next year when legislated and  Proclaimed it became known as  the Constitution Act of 1982 containing  61 sections, 34 being The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Other items include Aboriginal Rights, Equalization and Minority Language Rights, and non renewable natural resources 

 

1. The Bill of Rights of 1960 was sufficient. Canada did not need the Constitution Act 1982/Charter of Rights and Freedoms

 

The Bill of Rights of 1960 was a Federal Act covering just Federal Jurisdiction.  Section 5(3) says ‘The provisions of Part I shall be construed as extending only to matters coming within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.’ Furthermore, this Act could be changed any time by a majority of MP’s in the Federal Parliament. 

 

The Constitution Act of 1982 /Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a National Document for all the nation, covering both Federal and Provincial jurisdiction. As Section 52 says : ‘The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. ‘Furthermore, to change the Constitution would take the agreement of 7 Provinces and their legislatures and the Federal Government and the Federal Parliament representing  50% of the Population. 

 

1. Section 1 of The Charter allows The Governments’ mandates /lockdowns  that have and are occurring during the so called ‘pandemic. ‘

 

The intent of Section 1 was for it to apply only when the country’s existence was in peril—war, insurrection. The so called ‘pandemic ‘ did not meet this threshold. The idea of impending peril to permit override is right in the Charter. In Section 4 of the Charter reference is made to ‘real or apprehended war,invasion or insurrection ‘ to extend the Parliament beyond the mandatory five years’. 

 

Even if Section 1 did apply the tests of ‘demonstrably justify ‘ and ‘free and democratic society’  in that Section were not met by any of the Governments in imposing their mandates/lockdowns. 

 

1. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a secular document.

 

Part 1 of the Charter states : ‘Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:’ 

 

In other words the Charter is to be understood in the context of these two principles, one being religious, non-secular. 

 

 

Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C.

Only Living First Minister Who Helped Craft The Constitution Act /Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Peckford42.wordpress.com 

 

Sent from my iPad

 

23-08-03 – I just scanned the Epoch Times to see how they covered the decision.

 

A smattering of lawyers were contacted and gave comments. Interestingly, not one went near the supremacy of God concept that introduces the Charter and how the court decision ignored it, making the whole decision without validity. 

 

God has become pretty absent in many things in Canada these days. Oh, it was present a little when all those Christian Churches were burned but nothing was really done about a lot of it and there was no outcry from any quarter. 

 

I suspect that’s why I was not called by the Government of Canada in my lawsuit (with others) on the pandemic travel ban.

 

And why I was rejected as a witness at the flawed Rouleau inquiry.

 

And why this very Alberta Judge refused a request by a lawyer to have me appear as a witness.

 

Three strikes and you are out. 

 

And Epoch Times did not see fit to ask my opinion being the last living first minister who is a signatory to the Constitution Act 1982 of which the Charter is a part and which was at issue in this case. 

 

Funny thing about that. Some lawyers call it a victory, others a slim victory – blah, blah.

 

If one looks at how this judge tried to rehabilitate the Alberta health officer and reject independent science and other expertise there is little victory here. No talk of cost benefit analysis to see whether the test of  “demonstrably justify” was met. Or the intent of Section 1 that I could have given.

 

If one is to be glad that a Judge knows the difference between the powers of the Alberta Public Health Officer and the  Minister of Heath or Cabinet, then we have a very low bar for victory to be declared. 

 

The only slight ray of light was the acknowledgement that one of the claimants’ Charter religious freedoms were violated, but then the orders were invalid so little to celebrate here. 

 

I can only theorize that the initial sense of victory was as a result of someone in authority having done something wrong — but it was really a technical victory of who were to be the people to be responsible for all the health orders. 

 

Ironic it is since the Executive and the Legislature are always responsible for actions that happen by a provincial government. It’s called responsible government.

 

We see a lot on mismanagement here in the Provincial Government and a lot of faulty “reasoning” by the judiciary. 

23-08-01 - I made an error. In a previous post I said there were no references to God in any of the cases referred in the latest Alberta case involving the charter.

 

In r. V Big Drug Mart Ltd. April 24, 1985 reference is made in that decision to the remarks of Alberta provincial court judge Stevenson in 1983 where he opined quoted by the court:

 

 “Judge Stevenson adverted, at p. 76, to the preamble of the charter:

 

A purpose of the lord’s day act is to recognize Sunday as the day of rest for certain Christian denominations. If one now turns to the preamble of the charter we see that, "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God". Bearing in mind that the preamble may not carry the force of law, it still shows that the charter does not recognize any particular denomination, and (noticeable by its absence) it does not refer to a Christian God. The preamble surely is intended to reflect the multicultural and multi‑denominational make‑up of Canada. If, then, a law which in any way adversely affects the religious freedoms of Canadians is in conflict with the charter, it must be struck down in accordance with s. 52 of the charter.’

 

No—no—no. 

 

The first ministers in November 1981 thought it self evident. We were all Christians and the only God with which we were familiar was a Judaeo Christian God.

 

And the judge uses ‘intent’ as his reason.

 

As one who was there we did not intend it to be many Gods of various religions. We knew only one God, the Judaeo Christian God. 

 

It is sad indeed when a judge can have his opinion of what he thought the first ministers meant become the judicial interpretation and ‘the law’ of the country.  

 

And then opines also that ‘whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and rule of law:‘ may not carry the force of law? 

 

Excuse me? 

 

Does the judge provide an evidence of this? No! And the fuzzy wording of ‘may.’

 

The supremacy of God wording is in part 1 of the charter, your honour! It has the same force of law as all the other parts of the charter. 

 

Of course, the charter can be changed  – not by the judges, but by the duly elected provincial governments and the federal government and their legislatures and parliament, as provided for under the charter, part v. 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has slammed  COVID Emergency Powers, calling them the greatest intrusions on civil liberties’ in peacetime history. The justice opined in a heavy reflection as the high court dismissed a suit seeking to keep Title 42.

 

Gary Bai has an excellent report in The  Epoch Times on May 20, well deserving to be shared here.

 

Bai writes Justice Neil Gorsuch on Thursday lamented what he calls an intrusion into civil liberties by pandemic emergency decrees since the start of COVID-19 as the high court dismissed a suit on Title 42 as moot.

 

“Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country,” Gorsuch, one of six conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices, said in an opinion accompanying the court’s decision (pdf) published on Thursday.

 

Gorsuch wrote that emergency decrees ordering vaccine mandates and lockdowns issued by federal and state executive agencies resulted in an accumulation of power in those agencies and accompanied this loss of liberties during the pandemic. This view, some experts say, shines a light on the high court’s vision of restoring a balance of power in the federal government to that more aligned with America’s founders.

 

“The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government,” the justice wrote. “However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process.”

 

Gorsuch’s warning came as the Supreme Court dismissed a case brought by Republican attorney generals to keep in place Title 42, the emergency measure that the Trump administration implemented in March 2020 as a reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic. Both Trump and Biden administrations used Title 42 to expel illegal immigrants.

 

While the state’s case hinges on the more technical question of whether they can intervene in a case in another state to keep Title 42 in place, Gorsuch’s opinion indicated that the high court believed this question is no longer relevant as the public health emergency—to which Title 42 was designed as a reaction—ended in April.

 

Technicalities aside, Gorsuch took the opportunity to reflect on the bigger picture: namely, what he sees as a threat to civil liberties during the COVID pandemic when “executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale.”

 

Loss of Civil Liberties

 

The Title 42 case brought by the states illustrates this threat to civil liberties, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote in his Thursday opinion.

 

He acknowledged that the surging illegal immigration across the border is a “crisis,” and so was COVID. But he warned that “the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis,” and the fact that the executive branch used the pandemic as the pretext to deal with another crisis at the border is emblematic of the broader, fear-driven response from U.S. institutions that may have led to “the loss of many cherished civil liberties” during COVID.

 

“Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on,” the justice said, adding that violators were threatened with criminal sanctions and federal officials pressured social media companies into suppressing views they disagree with.

 

“They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans. They threatened to fire noncompliant employees and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement,” he wrote.

 

Gorsuch also noted the apparent inaction of the legislative branch—state legislatures and Congress—in response to these executive decrees and how the judicial branch, which was “bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them.”

 

“In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking-by-litigation,” Gorsuch added, referring to the effort by Republican states to keep Title 42. Collateral purposes refer to purposes other than those originally intended by the law.

 

The conservative justice warned that an important lesson from the pandemic is that “fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces,” and, citing Aristotle, noted that “even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.”

 

“Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate,” he added. “

 

“But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others.

 

“And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”

 

A Need for Reflection

 

1. Jefferson Powell, a prominent constitutional scholar who teaches law at Duke Law School, echoed Gorsuch’s view that the country should reflect on what the government did in response to Covid via emergency powers.

 

He quoted an opinion of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in the landmark Steel Seizure Case, that the founders “suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies.”

 

“My only disagreement with the assertion is that I see no reason to qualify it with ‘may’ – I do not think there is any question that the intrusions imposed because of the Covid virus on the civil liberties that Americans ordinarily exercise were the greatest in our peacetime history,” Powell, who served as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Clinton administration, wrote to The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

 

“This is, simply put, a historical fact, which Justice Gorsuch chose (understandably) to present in non-dogmatic terms,” Powell wrote.

 

John Malcolm, vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said that Gorsuch’s Thursday opinion reflected a “course correction” on the Supreme Court’s view of executive overreach that had been taking place since Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, started her tenure in 2020.

 

A prime example of that correction, Malcolm said, was when the court ruled (pdf) in a 5-4 vote in favor of a group of religious adherents in New York who sued the state to remove COVID restrictions imposed on worship activities via emergency decrees.

 

The New York case, with Barrett on the bench, was similar in facts to two earlier cases in Nevada and California, but its ruling ran counter to the two earlier rulings that were made when the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg was part of the Supreme Court.

 

“The Supreme Court said enough—this goes too far, and [the state executive branch] is impinging on the free exercise rights of these religious adherents,” Malcolm said.

 

Looking at the more distant past, Malcolm noted that out of about 

 

80 national emergencies declared from the beginning of the 20th century to today, 41 are still in effect—not including the COVID public health emergency, which ended in April.

 

Each one of these emergency declarations, he said, “gives the president and executive branch agencies extraordinary powers,” or power that goes beyond what the law normally prescribes.

“Now there’s something wrong with that.”

 

He observed that Gorsuch was making an “incredibly powerful statement” calling Americans to “not to step back and defer, but to step up and debate” during these emergencies: “Is this an emergency? Or are we going to let it curtail our civil liberties? If so, how? And in what ways? And for how long?”

 

Agreeing with Gorsuch’s view that these extraordinary authorities need to be seriously examined, Malcolm suggested: 

 

“What [Congress] probably needs to do is have a sunset provision that says, you can declare an emergency, but unless we reauthorize it, that emergency officially ends after six months, a year, two years, some reasonable time period.”

 

We’re sending cancer patients to the “terrible” U.S. health system.

 

If I have heard it once I have heard it a million times whenever I speak of the U.S. You mean where they have that awful health system. Ours is way better than their system. Wouldn’t want to live there. I have heard it very recently.

 

Well, lo and behold ­– NDP left wing, public health care advocates extraordinaire, the BC Government, has to finance BC Cancer patients to the U.S. for cancer treatment.

 

We cannot do it here in Canada.

 

How come Washington State has the capacity to handle out of country cancer patients?

 

One would think listening to my fellow Canadians that the U.S. would be sending patents for treatment here, not the other way around.

 

The Times Colonist reports:

 

“B.C. Cancer will start sending eligible breast and prostate cancer patients to Washington state for radiation treatments beginning at the end of this month as part of a two-year temporary initiative to reduce wait times.

 

Patients will be offered the choice of going to one of two clinics in Bellingham, at Peace Health St. Joseph Cancer Centre and the North Cascade Cancer Centre, starting May 29.

 

Patients will have all costs related to their treatment covered, including travel, meals and accommodation, through B.C. Cancer and the Provincial Health Services Authority, Health Minister Adrian Dix said at a news conference Monday.”

 

Put that in your credibility pipe and smoke it! How much extra will all this cost?

 

No doubt the funds will come from the carbon tax.

 

But wait, we have a deficit, so we will have to borrow the money or take it from some essential program because, remember, every one of our programs is essential.

 

And to top It all off, the Canadian patient has a – wait for it CHOICE– of two different U.S. health facilities. Remember we used to have such a word in Canada once upon a time.

 

Can you believe it? Alberta Premier Danielle Smith  was so adamant about the Sovereignty Act, looking at replacing RCMP for provincial law enforcement, and the Province’s own Pension Plan, etc.

 

Now I read in the Epoch Times as reported by the Canadian Press:

 

“United Conservative Leader Danielle Smith says she won’t campaign on some of her party’s more contentious ideas – sovereignty legislation, a provincial police force and an Alberta pension plan ahead of the May 29 election.”

 

Here are her own words: “They’re not in our campaign because I think we’ve got so many things that we have done that we’re excited about. We’re bringing in $10-a-day daycare,” Smith said. “We have a partnership with the federal government to be able to bring that through, and we expanded it out to both non-profit and private spaces. We’ve also undertaken a significant improvement in the health-care system.”

 

She even speaks well of  the federal government – and in an area that is the exclusive jurisdiction of the province. Wasn’t she against the Feds poking their nose into areas of provincial jurisdiction just a few months ago?

 

We should have known the capitulation was coming. 

 

I reminded readers at the time she signed the new health deal with Ottawa that the Province was being hypocritical. No federal nose in resource matters but let the nose come right in with federal dollars in health care.

 

And I reminded readers that the covid inquiry that she announced did not get the sanction of the Legislature. One would have thought this automatic given her stand on provincial rights and individual rights under the constitution when campaigning for the leadership. You know, full democracy. 

 

Money and power talk. Danielle Smith, who we thought was above this type of politics, has succumbed. 

 

This is the real time for her to show her bona fides – principles – in an election, to persuade people that a return to the division of powers in the constitution was necessary. Abiding by the Constitution. One wonders whether she consulted with Saskatchewan’s Premier on all this.

 

But it seems this strong provincial rights stand was only to appease the more hard core conservatives in the party for leaderships purposes, now with that achieved?

 

Now Alberta has lost the credibility in defending and advancing legitimate provincial rights and jurisdiction under the Constitution. 

 

By this move, now fully declared, the federal government of whatever political persuasion (because it really makes no difference) knows that the Alberta Conservative provincial leadership were really not serious about all that provincial rights bluster. It was just a mechanism to achieve the leadership of the Party – and provides the judiciary in future in difficult federal provincial decisions of jurisdiction the flexibility to side with the federal government. 

 

You don’t think the promise to take these critical important issues up after the election means anything now do you?  Or that it has any credibility?

 

Many years ago my wonderful Aunt Bessie, who moved to Bostonto further her nursing career, always told me that honesty was the best policyeven down to little tiny white lies. She confided in one of her annualvisits home that she was a Republican and contributed to the Party. When  Iqueried why she was a republican (1960s) she countered that she supported hardwork, the worth of the individual and earning one’s keep.  

 

She did, however, on one occasion ask me to answer the phone(before cell phones) as she rushed out of the house to the patioarea. 

 

“‘Just tell them I am out, and will call back later.”

 

And I did. 

 

“But why were you rushing out of the house, Aunt B”?

 

“Well I did not want you to tell a lie, so I was really “out.”

 

Well, make what you will of this. Aunt B laterapologized, saying this was really trickery and she should have taken the phonecall.

 

In surveying today’s scene and my interaction I get theimpression we are a long way from my Aunt’s ethics. This came home this pastweeks as I departed from organizations because of the loose manner in whichethics was being handled in governance procedures. When I explained this to acouple at a public event this week they (having followed my blog and statementsclosely) were quick to agree to my response – just so much honesty – it seems, theysmiled, understanding. Others responded to imply, yes, but “ just so much.”Perhaps this is taking it too far.

 

If there is one thing that must be non negotiable it’s honesty. 

 

When we are dealing with other peoples’ money, when youannounce principles of independence, accountability and transparency and fiscalresponsibility and attack others for lacking same then do likewise?

 

Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, written in 1385, isreputed  to be the origin of: “People in glass houses shouldn’t throwstones.”

 

English Judge Hewart in 1924 is reported to have said “Justicemust not only be done but seem to be done.”

 

Some might remember the recent story of my encounter withtwo Christian clergy in my rural Newfoundland riding in the 1980s. They hadasked whether I as premier could have the road to their cemetery improvedwhile the private contractor who won a competitive Government contact for thefirst pubic road on their island was still there free by that privatecontractor under Government contract. 

 

I answered “What would Jesus say?” 

 

“Render unto Caesar”

 

Democracy is only as good as the measure to which it is anhonest process. It has no place for “just so much/”

 

Many things in the public square might entail flexibilityand compromise, morality is not one of them.

 

The B.C. Legislature voted 64-1 against the truckers’ convoy and for lockdowns and mandates on April 17. 

 

Oh, the madness! It’s a rejection of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

It’s a rejection of science.

 

It’s a rejection of people being able to peacefully demonstrate.

 

Here is the resolution and some commentary as reported by True North news online:

 

“Be it resolved that one year after the anti-vaccine protests in Ottawa and communities including Victoria, South Surrey, Kelowna and Cranbrook, this House denounces the freedom convoy protests and affirms that public health orders, including vaccine requirements, have been an essential tool in B.C.’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic,” the motion read.

 

The motion received 64 yeas and 1 nay from lone BC Conservative John Rustad. 20 MLAs skipped the vote, including both B.C. Green Party members.

 

“Many BC United MLAs who call themselves ‘conservative’ simply didn’t show up,” Rustad wrote on Twitter.

 

Fear and lack of independent information still haunts the public square.

 

This on the  41st anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms becoming the law of Canada. All Canada should be outraged at this blatant display of ignorance of science and reason and insult to democracy – and all performed in the – yes, you guessed it, our Legislature.

 

230408 – So former Socialist anti-fossil-fuel Premier John Horgan joins a coal company board of directors.

First we have all that unethical behaviour of the federal Rouleau Commission. Second, the National Citizens Inquiry organizers breaking their own independence principles. And then third, new Alberta Premier Danielle Smith bypassing the Legislature to set up an Inquiry into government Covid actions.

And now this blatant hypocrisy: Nothing to see here folks, just move on.And Horgan is even snarky about any questions coming his way.

This is the person who headed the anti-fossil-fuel party, supported a carbon tax, and married with the anti-fossil-fuel Green Party which perpetrated fantasies on a gullible public.

So , that paragon of virtuous environmentalism, who stuffed down our throats this sacred bird killing, land destroying steel and concrete wind turbine alternate energy, was all for show, all a sham, he was a lover of coal all along.

Oh, but don’t forget this is metallurgical coal. Yes, and the Pope is Protestant, pigs fly and Socialism works.Not worth taking him out back to the traditional shed for a good trouncing.

As I keep preaching (my Magna Carta of a year ago) it is system change we need– traditional party change won’t cut it – the political landscape is cluttered with the evidence. The “fallen” Horgan is just the latest piece of Canada’s tragedy.

The Prime Minister of our country has violated the country’s conflict of interest five times — so says the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. And still he sits in the House of Commons and is the PM. 

 

The new leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition appoints an ethically disgraced former leader to be the new House Leader for the Opposition.

 

The Top Judge of our land publicly disparages the character of some of the citizens of this country, no hearing, no evidence.

 

The Federal Pubic Order Commission to examine the Federal Government’s actions relating to the Emergencies Act saw the Government appoint the Commissioner and set the terms of reference —a Government examining itself. And most Canadians went along with it. 

 

The National Citizens Inquiry broke its own standards of independence by supporting their spokesman to be also involved (paid $250,000) with another Covid Inquiry – A Government one! And many Canadians are going along with this. 

 

The Government of Alberta set up its own Covid Inquiry without reference to its elected Legislature, following the Federal Government’s unethical lead of examining itself. And many Albertans are going along with this. 

 

Now we hear via the spokesman for the Canadian Association For The Advancement of Science in Public Policy that British Columbia’s chief Judge Hinkson who is hearing actions by the Association against the Health Authorities of B..C is on a Foundation that has dispensed  money to some of B.C. Health Authorities.

 

Rebel News reports:

 

“B..C Supreme Court and Court of Appeal’s judge, the Honourable Chief Justice Hinkson, has been a member of the board of directors for the Vancouver Foundation since 2014.

The foundation, which was established in 1943 through a parliamentary act called the Vancouver Foundation Act, works “with individuals, charities, and businesses to create endowment funds, most of which are permanent” and grants for “hundreds of charities and non-profits in B.C.”

 

In recent years, recipients of donations from the Vancouver Foundation have included public health authorities and their partnering organizations including the Fraser Health Authority, Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, and the B..C Centre for Disease Control Foundation for Public Health (BCCDC Foundation).’

 

I note that none of the mainstream media has carried the story. It seems once again most people either are unaware of this story, or if they are, are prepared to say little to oppose such unethical behaviour. 

 

How can a society call itself a democracy if its leaders continually flaunt the very laws they have passed and are suppose to uphold.  

 

Without a moral compass, a democratic society cannot exist. Canada has lost that compass.  

 

230324 – Let the 172 MPs who voted for the government to call an inquiry return to Parliament and amend that motion to put the “Peoples” House in control. The government of Canada has disqualified itself from conducting and inquiry into foreign interference in federal elections.

 

Haven’t we learned enough already?

 

1. The Federal Public Order Commission was flawed, an embarrassment to any integrity loving Canadian. The Government examining itself!

 

1. The National  Citizen Inquiry broke its own rules of non government involvement when its spokesman simultaneously took $250,000 to be part of a Government Inquiry.

 

 

1. The Alberta Government Ignored their peoples’ House, its Legislature, and set up its inquiry to examine itself, hiring the conflict of interest spokesman of the National Citizens Inquiry as its leader.

 

1. The Chief Justice, our top Judge, and our Prime Minister without evidence or a trial, spoke disparagingly in public statements of the people involved in the legitimate truckers’ protest. 

 

Without the Parliament taking control I believe  the citizens of this country have no guarantee or trust that justice will be done on this issue given the lack of justice and integrity cited above on other important issues facing this country.

 

Our last vestige of hope for some integrity to be put back into our democracy is for the Federal Parliament, now that a semblance of backbone and accountability is being displayed by a majority of MPs, is:

 

Not to go halfway – no half measures here but for these 172 MPs to:

 

Take control and show Canadians that indeed they stand for integrity and truth in our Federal Politics. 

 

Don’t follow the Emergencies Act and have the Government examine itself. Let’s stop the intrigue behind closed doors.

 

Now we will see whether The Conservatives and NDP are playing the same old style politics or whether they really are serious about accountability and transparency and real Parliamentary democracy. 

 

I will send this article to the parliamentary offices of the Leader of the Conservative Party and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. 

A message to Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Official Opposition.

 

You promise if you form Government you’ll take Big Pharma to court over opioid deaths. What about Covid vaccine deaths?

 

We all know what happens to such promises. They get watered down or eliminated altogether. 

 

Stop kicking the can down the road! Introduce a bill, resolution now in the House of Commons calling on the present Government to take Big Pharma to court for Covid vaccine and opioid deaths.

 

If they refuse ask your Party to initiate such action. You are bragging about the millions of dollars you raise. Put it to some real use – now!

 

I am sure your members would even contribute more.

 

Embarrass the government, stop the talk, let’s see some action. 

 

23/02/21

An Open Letter To Our Federal  Parliamentary Leaders. The People Must Be In Charge. 

 

It must be clear to all serious political leaders in Canada today that the Emergencies Act has not worked. 

 

The main reason for that, I submit, is that it was poorly constructed in the first place.

 

Parliament made a grave error when it allowed the Government of the day that would invoke the Act to later appoint the Public Order Commissioner and to set the terms of reference of the inquiry into how effective the Government implementation of the  invoking of the Act was. 

 

The principal of conflict of interest was breeched. 

 

A Government given the powers to investigate itself. 

 

Need I remind Parliamentarians of Lord Justice Hewart statements in a case in 1924 where he opined:

 

“It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

 

Justice was not ‘manifestly and undoubtably be seen to be done’ in the recent Canadian context. 

 

As you are all aware you presently operate as Members of Parliament under the Conflict of Interest Act and Code and The Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. 

 

I recommend,therefore, that Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate, strike a Joint Parliamentary Committee to immediately review the present Emergencies Act with its main purpose to restore to Parliament the Power over the implementation of the Pubic Order Commission. 

 

This Committee would conduct hearings in every Provincial and Territorial Capital and the National Capital over the next two years and recommend to Parliament a new Emergencies Act which would render to Parliament the final power over the appointment of a Public Order Commissioner and set the terms of reference for such a Commission. Additionally, the Committee would be mandated to give special attention to the importance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the conduct of any powers exercised under the Act, and their temporary potential violation in the exercise of the Act, must entail a written justification to Parliament to meet the ‘demonstrably justify’ condition of Section 1 of the Charter. Parliament would decide whether the justification is valid. 

 

Obviously, the Parliamentary Committee would be free to examine all other aspects of the Act and make recommendations, but at its core, the Committee would be mandated to ensure that Parliament was in charge of any examination of the invoking of the Act by Government and that a full and thorough written analysis and justification of any potential temporary Charter breech by Government was tabled in Parliament. 

 

Some would argue that there are still Court proceedings ongoing concerning the Emergencies Act. I would argue that the Country has already witnessed the Emergencies Act failure in its blatant conflict of interest, heard the opinions without evidence from the Chief Justice of Canada and without there being a court appearance, and from various decisions of other Courts where the Charter and Science were ignored. This brings the whole system in disrepute and undermines our Parliamentary System of Government, especially responsible government where our Government leaders are accountable to Parliament. 

 

It is time for the people, through its democratically elected representatives, to restore democracy to our land. Citizens have lost faith in our institutions. This might be the last chance to reform our present system.  

 

Obviously, the Committee would be provided with all the necessary finances and expertise to carry out such a task. 

 

I will send this to the Parliamentary Offices of the leaders. 

23/02/16

Strike One 

 

Under Federal Legislation called the Emergencies Act (introduced by a Conservative Administration) the Government of Canada can invoke special powers and then must conduct a review of how those powers were used.

 

‘Whereas, under subsection 63(1) of the Emergencies Act, the Governor in Council shall, within 60 days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency;’

 

But it is the Government examining itself. The Governor in Council is the Cabinet. It appoints the Commissioner, and determines the terms of reference. 

 

And, of course, holding no one or organization to account. The terms of reference includes:

 

‘A) perform their duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization.’ 

 

One could say Flawed —

 

Strike Two 

 

Many in Canada saw that something more was needed, some independent, non governmental approach. In May 2022, I recommended as part of my Magna Carta for Canada:

 

‘A.  An Independent Public National Inquiry to Examine whether Government, (Federal, Provincial and Territorial) mandates and lockdowns were necessary and constitutional. People in Government and their agencies who are found guilty of breaking the law after due process MUST be brought to Justice.

 

Such an Inquiry CANNOT be led by any of the Governments of Canada who are the major subjects of the Inquiry. Instead, a Citizens Group MUST be formed for that purpose.   And these Governments and their agencies MUST open their books and release to the inquiry and the public all necessary relevant information concerning their actions during the pandemic.’

 

Other persons and groups were calling for similar action. 

 

As a result a National Citizens Inquiry organization was formed. On its website today it says, referring to its formation during the June to October 2022 period:

 

 ‘Over the past few months, hundreds of Canadians from coast-to-coast began focusing their efforts in the development of a collaborative, transparent, and truly independent national inquiry. Their efforts led to the National Citizens’ Inquiry, a completely citizen-led and citizen-funded initiative through Citizens Inquiry Canada, a newly created not-for-profit organization.’

 

Note the words ‘truly independent’.

 

Sadly in its formation and launching a curious thing happened. The Inquiry lost its ‘ independence’, one of the primary reasons for such an inquiry. 

 

The spokesman for the new organization, and one of the three directors of the new non profit, establishing the National Citizens Inquiry, the Honourable Preston Manning, suddenly ignored one of the Inquiry’s main goals of independence and signed a deal with a Provincial Government to lead, with renumeration, a Covid Provincial Inquiry (called a review) at the same time he was a key player in the citizens funded Independent National Citizens Inquiry. 

 

Independent National Citizens Inquiry, citizens funded and a Provincial Government Led Inquiry, Government funded, simultaneously. 

 

Independence lost – conflict of interest on full display. 

 

One could say flawed!

 

Strike Three

 

The Alberta ‘Inquiry’ that Manning is also leading is a Government ‘inquiry’ – The very thing the organizers  of the National Inquiry were trying avoid. It does not have Legislative or Citizen sanction per se. 

 

The Premier of Alberta in announcing the expert panel as it is called, note the word inquiry is not used anywhere in the announcement, said:

 

‘With this feedback in mind, the panel will review relevant legislation to ascertain whether there are amendments that can assist the government to improve their response to a future public health crisis.’

 

And Manning, a paid employee, said as part of the Government  statement:

 

“It’s crucial that we take the opportunity to review the province’s COVID-19 response and examine whether and how that approach can be improved in future health emergencies. I look forward to working with my fellow panelists and hearing from Albertans about how the province can best achieve this objective.”

 

So Government led, a conflict in that the lead person of the review is already a part of an alleged national citizens independent inquiry, and additionally there is no accountability in that there is no reference to holding anyone or agency of the Provincial. Government to account for their covid actions. 

 

One could say flawed. 

 

Canada’s attempts to objectively and independently address what many consider the non scientific, unconstitutional mandates and lockdowns have failed. 

 

People have died, many injured, jobs lost and disrupted, families destroyed, taxpayers money abused, individual rights and freedom callously cast aside and yet we find that our nation has failed to honestly account for the validity of the Government mandates and lockdown actions of the past almost three years.

 

 

First, a former Conservative leader and now the mayor of Canada’s largest city. 

 

And some (fortunately a few) keep telling me we don’t have an ethics problem.

 

Preston Manning presided over the announcement of an independent non-government national inquiry only to take a $250,000 job with a government.

 

And now Mayor John Tory admits to a unethical relationship with someone in his office during the height of his undemocratic, unscientific mandates and lockdowns. 

 

You can’t make this stuff up! Why the sudden resignation now rather than at the time?

 

Do you remember sanctimonious Tory and his national press conferences during the height of the fake pandemic? And now he talks of being away from his wife? Surely he jests. Is Toronto that big? Is he the mayor of Whitehorse and his wife is in Toronto?

 

Whew!! 

 

Of course, then there is PM Trudeau and his five conflict of interest violations and former Conservative leader Andrew Sheer accepting party money for personal use and he gets rewarded by being House Leader under Blue Suit Liberal Pierre Poilievre .

 

And the public is cynical? Throw them all out!

23/02/19

Socialists have a hard time paying off the debt if you have extra money. 

 

The latest provincial financial update says that the Province has a surplus on the current account, the operating  account. 

 

Nothing said about the capital account. More debt I suspect. You see this trick of separating the operating account from the capital account gives the impression that all our spending in a given year is now in surplus.

 

Not true, just the operating account. 

 

But the statement also says the Province is carrying a debt of more than $90 billion.  So why not put that surplus to reducing the debt? 

 

Oh, no, just keep spending. 

 

The Province mentions that this kind of operating surplus might be rare in the near future – all the more reason to start paying down our debt when we can rather than spend on new things which will only make it more difficult to take away when things are not so good – and then we will be in deficit to pay for these new things. 

 

That’s how we got to $90 billion debt we now have. 

 

Look at Ontario and California if one wants examples. 

 

23/02/07

I woke up thinking of Paul Simon’ s lyrics.

One posted meaning is: what can happen if one does not live deliberately? How interesting!

Canada is slip, sliding away – anti-freedom progressives and even some alleged freedom fighters are aiding and abetting this tragic effort.

I saw its beginnings, at least in my experience, during my time as a Minister in The Government of Newfoundland in the 1970s. As a Minister of Housing I experienced the hard hand of the Federal Government when it began discriminating among Provinces as it related to Federal Housing dollars to the Provinces.I saw it whenthe Federal Government attempted to deny Newfoundland its share of revenue and say over the then-developing offshore resources.Western Canada experienced it through the attempted National Energy Program.

It was most prominently on display during the early 1980s when the FederalGovernment tried to patriate and introduce a Charter of Rights and Freedoms unilaterally.

The dominant narrative tries to hide the fact that this unilateral federal move was rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada in September, 1981. Even lawyers and judges fail to reference it in talking about the development of our Charter.

Simultaneously, the bureaucracies of the Federal Government and the Provinces grew exponentially. Power began shifting from the Parliaments to the executive – and to the bureaucracy and government agencies. The judiciary became more activist and boldly asserted responsibility that it did not possess under the Constitution. Witness the decisions relating to the pandemic, and my own personal (with other Canadians a part of it) legal challenge, still under appeal – a so called expedited process. Six million Canadians discriminated from travel in their own countryin violation of their Charter rights.

And we all let it happen!

Coupled with these developments was the concept that deficit financing was necessary, a new modem tool that was crucial in modern growing economies.Deficits and debt became popular! And even to the point where the very meaning of a deficit was elastic – current account borrowing versus capital account borrowing. What a trick that has become with journalist and rconomists all over the country buying the deception.

To put it crudely, many were bought off!

This is most blatantly evident in the over $40 billion health transfers annually going from the Federal Government to the Provinces, distorting the constitutional framework of health care being exclusively provincial under the Constitution. Education soon followed and then social services.

The federal state became less and less and the Federal Government became more a NATIONAL Government. The Provinces lost. The power of the centre, especially Ontario and Quebec, that is Upper Canada and Lower Canada in history, were still in control.

Donald Savoie, governance scholar at the University of Moncton, in a landmark book in 2019 highlighted Canada’s weakening democratic position titled ‘Democracy in Canada, The Disintegration of Our Institutions.’ It was inevitable, says Savoie, given Canada’s founding without a better structural balance – no elected upper house, for example, representing the Provinceslike in the U.S. And the fact that the country has been incapable of wise constitutionalchange– witness my earlier reference to Pierre Trudeau unilateralism in 1981.

That has now seeped into the Judiciary! And the Provinces. Then the fake Pandemic hit!

And all that history came tumbling down on the individual.

It was and is all about the group, propaganda, group psychosis, the celebrity and graphic revolution as American historian Daniel Boorstin called it when in it was in its infancy in the late 20th century.

The AmericanBill Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are under attack as the classic liberal tradition and the enlightenment go up in smoke.

The international co-operation comingout of World War Two gets re-engineered to mean the erosion of the nation state, the diminution of individual rights and the rise of super international unelected agencies to dictate public policy around the globe.

This rejection of what it means to be human and organize is dangerously close to being an accepted plan by the government and their technocrats, high finance institutions, the new high tech billionaire class, big media and the flawed academic establishment.

In Canada, the three vital parts of our democracy: parliament, the executive, and the judiciary have seen the most important part being weakened, with the executive and judiciary in ascendent power. The Federal Agencies dominate and thePrivy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s and Pemiers’ Offices are in control.

Democracy hijacked! Ironic indeed that Transparency International has just highlighted Canada as having the worst corruption increases (index decline) of any country in the last five years. Its decline similar to Venezuela.

Imagine no government in Canada would endorse a national independent citizens-led inquiry to examine the constitutional and scientific validity of their pandemic actions. I had asked then in writing. Lives were lost, people permanently injured, jobs destroyed, untold psychological damage Individually and collectively ensued.

No accountability and transparency.

Then, such an Inquiry gets established outside of Government,with such a stated goal, but quickly deteriorated into the violation of the reason for its existence, its independence, and a blatant conflict of interest ensued, with personal agendas superseding the public good ; a non governmental approach turns into one in which one of the directors of the non-governmental non profit corporation agrees to be paid simultaneously to lead a parallel non independent, Provincial Government Inquiry.The very elites the Inquiry was to avoid. !

So it seemsallof society has been infected by this group dogma, this insidious approach to Governance, the control by the elites to the detriment of the citizen, the taxpayer and elected institutions.

Part of a summary of Don Savoie’s book reads: “As a result, the scope and size of government and Canadian federalism have taken on new forms largely outside the Constitution. Parliament and now even Cabinet have been pushed aside so that policy makers can design and manage the modern state. This also accounts for the average citizen's belief that national institutions cater to economic elites, to these institutions' own members, and to interest groups at citizens' own expense.”

‘Slip sliding away . . .’

23/02/01

On paper, yes. In action, doesn’t look like it.

Have Pierre Poilievre and his Conservative Party introduced resolutions, bills however you wish to describe them?Condemning the Covid federal lockdowns and mandates of thepast almost three years?

Supported an independent, non-government involved citizens’ inquiry examining the legal and scientific validity of the Government covid lockdowns and calling on the federal government to provide all information from thefederal government to the inquiry that is requested by the inquiry?

Condemned the Emergency Act as being a biased document favouring the Federal Government and protecting it from transparency and accountability?

Proposed amendments to the Emergency Act making it mandatory for the Parliament to appoint a Commissioner and determine the terms of reference of any future inquiry?

Proposed that the FederalGovernment remove itself from any involvement with the World Economic Forum?

Proposed that no new, international trade agreement will be signed by Canada that in any way diminishes our sovereignty as a nation?

Proposed to limit the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office combined to a maximum of 500 persons?

Proposed to amend the Conflict of Interest legislation so that no MP who has broken a conflict of interest law as determined by the Conflict of Interest/Ethics Commissioner or a Court can serve in the Parliament of Canada?

Proposed that balanced budget legislation must be introduced within three years and can only be overridden in time of war and or insurrection?

Proposed a new judicial appointment system involving Parliament, public hearings, and Parliament’s decision on appointments being final?

Additionally, has he or his Party called upon the Provinces to make mandatory a Civics Course in every school in Canada from Grade Eight to the Last year in High School?

Has he undertaken in writing to have posted on his party’s website the annual audited financial statements of his party?

If these actions have not been taken, what then is it that makes this, other than in name

A Conservative Official Opposition?

Source: My Magna Carta For Canada

23/01/31

Hon. Preston Manning should completely step away from involvement with the National Citizens Inquiry while leading the Provincial Alberta Inquiry. Moving from spokesman to advisor as announced today doesn’t cut it while also still remaining a director. It is verbal slight of hand.

I am not against the Alberta Inquiry. I have been calling for all governments to establish or support independent inquiries.

I am against conflict of interest which in this case arises when a director of the non-profit corporation established to create the NCI, acceptsa paid position with one of the governments to be investigated. The NCI was created to be independent of governments.

On its website the NCI says: “TheNational Citizen’s Inquiry (NCI) is a citizen-led and citizen-funded initiative that iscompletely independent from government.”

How can “completely independent from Government”be honoured when one of the three directors is a paid contractor with the government of a province? This defies any real meaning of conflict of interest.

Lord Chief Justice Hewart said as far back as 1924: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”. In no way do the NCI actions meet this condition!

For a citizens inquiry to begin with such promise of accountability and transparency, to be a truly independent voice forCanadians, to degenerate into connections overriding true integrity and independence is tragic.

I stepped away from the inquiry because of my public statements, Preston Manning should step away because of his actions.

Herd immunity relates to a large group of people being immune to a virus, a disease virus. We have heard a lot about that in the last few years. 

 

According to the book “Turtles All The Way Down” Vaccines, Science and Myth, herd immunity exits when a large portion of a population is immune to being infected by a particular disease pathogen. 

 

What is now becoming apparent is that Canada seems to exhibit such characteristics when it comes to group behaviour. A resistance to being able to see a conflict of interest or objectivity in our handling of our reactions to certain covid related matters.

 

Take for example the draconian Emergencies Act. The Federal Government implemented this draconian, unconstitutional Act. There was built into the Act a provision to examine the merits of using this Act.

 

Problem is the provisions of the Act allow the examination to be one where the Government gets to examine itself. Here is part of the Cabinet Order In Council: 

 

“Whereas, under subsection 63(1) of the Emergencies Act, the Governor in Council shall, within 60 days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency;”

 

The legislation allows the Government to appoint the Commissioner and set the terms of reference. And that is what happened. And few people highlighted the absurdity of it all. 

 

How can objectivity prevail in such a circumstance ? 

 

Another example is the National Citizens Inquiry, established outside of Government, organized and established by citizens and groups with deliberately no Government affiliation or connection. On its website the NCI talks of “a collaborative, transparent, and truly independent national inquiry.”

 

Therefore, one of the underlying ideas was that such an organization would be neutral and non governmental, a pivotal approach at a time when all one heard was the Government narrative relentlessly advertised by Governments and their health agencies, the paid mainstream media, big tech, and academia. 

 

But then the most prominent of the three directors and spokesmen of the non profit company set up to establish the NCI takes a paid position with one of the Governments, the policies of which NCI was suppose to objectively examine. How can objectivity prevail in such a circumstance?

 

It was amazing to watch the proceedings of the Public Order Commission as if it was all neutral and established to provide objective information when its whole structure was established by the very agency (The Federal Government) that was under scrutiny.

 

Similarly, the reaction to the now conflicted National Citizens Inquiry, as if everything is just unfolding as it should. Nothing to see here! 

 

It seems there is a national immunity at seeing the faults in ourselves – as if, as is becoming only too common today, reality is whatever we say it is. 

 

David Burfoot, an intentional ethics expert, put it well when he said:

 

“Research shows once a person is conflicted with a personal interest in a matter, their objectivity decision-making mechanics will be affected at all levels – even the subconscious. Indeed, we now know the more confident people are in their ability to remain objective in situations where they are conflicted, the more biased they are likely to be.”

 

And as Lord Chief Justice Hewart said in 1924: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”

 

Right now in such a divisive environment the pronouncements of these two people are most relevant and demand our attention.

 

And the great bard, to apply his words – the fault lies not in the stars but in ourselves.

 

 

23/01/25

I was a strong supporter of the National Citizens Inquiry. As a matter of fact, with others, I was in the front line suggesting such a measure.

 

On the steps of the BC Legislature on May 28, 2022 I issued what I called my Magna Carta, specific measures that I thought were necessary to re-establish our democracy and national integrity.

The very first item in that manifesto was: “An Independent Public National Inquiry to Examine whether Government  (Federal, Provincial and Territorial) mandates and lockdowns were necessary and constitutional.  People in Government and their agencies who are found guilty of breaking the law after due process must be brought to Justice.”

 

Such an Inquiry cannot be led by any of the Governments of Canada who are the major subjects of the Inquiry.  Instead, a Citizens Group must be formed for that purpose. And these Governments and their agencies must open their books and release to the inquiry and the public all necessary relevant information concerning their actions during the pandemic.

 

Many organizations got involved and lo and behold such an inquiry organization came into being and is up and running. On its website in the introduction section the following is stated: “Citizen-led accountability when governments stayed silent…”

 

And then goes on to say “Over the past few months, hundreds of Canadians from coast-to-coast began focusing their efforts in the development of a collaborative, transparent, and truly independent national inquiry. Their efforts led to the National Citizens’ Inquiry, a completely citizen-led and citizen-funded initiative through Citizens Inquiry Canada, a newly created not-for-profit organization.’

 

I was a member of the support committee organizing its formation. 

 

I resigned from the Committee because my vocal anti-government positions could be construed that the Inquiry was not truly neutral and independent having someone like me as part of it. Other committee members concurred or did not oppose my resignation. 

 

While a part of the committee I had expressed some views about the soft approach on accountability in the wording of the mandate and made concrete suggestions to strengthen that aspect. Hence, I had some concerns.

 

Nevertheless, I continued to support NCI and said so publicly on this blog. 

 

NCI has proceeded to organize and tens of thousands have written to the NCI indicating their moral support.

 

It is my clear understanding in talking to hundreds involved in the freedom movement that they supported NCI largely because it was independent of governments. That given what had happened since early 2020 governments were not to be trusted given the manner and nature of various government-initiated mandates and lockdowns. 

 

Recently one of the leaders of , the Honourable Preston Manning has accepted a paid position ($250,000 ) with the Alberta Government to lead that province’s own ‘Covid’ inquiry while still maintaining involvement with NCI. 

 

I have written to NCI expressing my concerns that such involvement with a Canadian government by one of the leaders of NCI puts in jeopardy one of the principles that is the bedrock of NCI’s existence – independence and non-governmental involvement as articulated not only by me but in the ideas outlined on NCI’s own website. 

 

NCI has responded that they have made changes to ensure there is no conflict in Manning’s dealings with the Alberta Inquiry and the National Inquiry. In other words Manning still being involved with NCI is acceptable.

 

In my involvement in government and business over decades I have come to realize even more than I had earlier the absolute necessity of integrity in all matters to ensure and safeguard a working democracy. I remember it said to me by more than one citizen that there was only one thing wrong with me and that was I was too honest. A compliment indeed. But there is this festering, nasty idea that there are levels of honesty in public and business life. 

 

And often it is not what is or was written but the natural exchange between parties too closely aligned but serving separate masters where real or perceived conflict arises. And when financial gain is involved that further complicates the situation. 

 

The reason why this Country and most of the world is in crisis is because its leaders have lost their moral authority to lead. Double standards, ethical and conflict of interest violations abound and misrepresentation and misinformation and partial science are sold as fact. Recently another federal minister was found breaking the ethics law joining the Prime Minister and Former Finance Minister Morneau. Conservative Party leaders use party funds for personal use. Health professionals have been fired for expressing their views and the esteemed intellectual Jordan Peterson is having to fight to keep his professional designation. 

 

All the more reason that a Citizen led independent inquiry’s behaviour must be utterly beyond reproach in its own operation and functioning when looking at government policies and programs which negatively impacted citizens all the way to death, injury, psychological distress, loss of employment and family disruption and separation.

 

Lord Hewart, Lord Chef Justice of England in 1924 said: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”

 

The present structure of NCI in my view presents a perceived conflict of interest. This is tricky business and to provide the opportunity to governments to criticize us for that which we criticize them surely undermines our credibility. 

 

The National Citizens Inquiry’s independence is at stake. The organization would do well to heed the advice, as I have done, of the Lord Chief Justice almost one hundred years ago.

 

23/01/09

Our political leaders have confused their authority, transferred it to unelected bureaucrats and otherwise empowered the Prime Minister’s office. 

 

The judiciary has overstepped its authority. 

 

They have ignored independent science and have ignored the words of our constitution or completely mangled the plain meaning of the constitution’s words. 

 

1. In applying the Charter’s Section 1 which allows Government to overrule the rights and freedoms granted, there are conditions for this overrule to be valid. Two of these conditions are : ‘demonstrably justify ‘ and ‘free and democratic society.’ In any fair and open society applying demonstrably justify would entail some sort of cost /benefit analysis. None was ever done in Canada regarding any of the numerous Federal, Provincial/Territorial mandates and lockdowns. And in applying free and democratic society one would think that this would have involved an ongoing role for Parliaments in Canada. This was not what happened. And the courts participated in this distortion of our Constitution.

 

1. But the most egregious is the deliberate avoidance of addressing the opening words of the Charter by the courts which are the framework through which the rest of the Charter was to be considered. They are:

 

‘Whereas this Country is founded on the principles of the Supremacy of God and the rule of law:’

 

A colon was placed after these words. Why?

 

Because it anticipates what is to come and that what follows is subject to these principles, that’s what!

 

So where are the courts’ authority of today for ignoring, abandoning parts of the Constitution but adhering to other parts of the Constitution? 

It surely isn’t from the Constitution itself.

 

No, its from a flawed reading by the courts where they insert their views and completely twist the meaning of ‘supremacy of God.’

 

In trying to find this flawed interpretation I asked a constitutional lawyer, Leighton Grey, whether of all the Charter cases of the last 40 years did he know of any where this issue of the opening words of the Charter were considered. 

 

And he identified one. There may be others and that is being researched. 

 

It was the case before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985 entitled R. Vs Big M Drug Mart Ltd., Case # 18125. 

 

In reviewing a lower court’s decision (Alberta) The Supreme Court of Canada through Judge Dickson quoted the Alberta Court of Appeal Judge in the case

 

“Judge Stevenson adverted, at p. 76, to the preamble of the Charter:

 

A purpose of the Lord’s Day Act is to recognize Sunday as the day of rest for certain Christian denominations. If one now turns to the preamble of the Charter we see that, "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God". Bearing in mind that the preamble may not carry the force of law, it still shows that the Charter does not recognize any particular denomination, and (noticeable by its absence) it does not refer to a Christian God. The preamble surely is intended to reflect the multicultural and multi‑denominational make‑up of Canada. If, then, a law which in any way adversely affects the religious freedoms of Canadians is in conflict with the Charter, it must be struck down in accordance with s. 52 of the Charter.’ 

 

Oh, its a preamble now and I suppose that means even though its part of the Charter it is somewhat less in importance? 

 

What balderdash! 

 

In reviewing the Constitution Act as written on the Federal Department of Justice website it make no mention of preamble. Its cites Part 1 of the Act and then under Part 1 

‘CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

PART I

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.’

 

So this makes no sense – the opening words to the Charter are the opening words to the charter – full stop!!

 

And as such are integral to the Charter.

 

And especially given that that these opening words end with a colon! 

 

Who are these people who can suddenly determine how these words are to be characterized – and in any case that characterization whoever thought it up is irrelevant.

 

The opening words are there IN the Charter and have meaning anticipating as they do the context in which the rest of the Charter is to be interpreted. 

 

But worse than that!!

 

The God that the first ministers approved to be insterted as the opening wors of the Charter was not a Christian God. Are you kidding me?

First ministers Bennett, Lougheed, Blakney, Lyon, Davis, Levesque, Hatfield, McClean, Buchanan and Peckford and Trudeau were all raised in the Judeo Christian tradition and the judiciary say that the Judeo Christian God was not the one they were thinking of when we approved these words.

 

Yes it was that God, and no other. That’s the only God we knew!

 

And the multicultural and multidenominational were not prt of the quation. It was bilingual and bicultural meaning English and French

 

So now you see how things can get garbled and totally misrepresented even by ‘learned ‘ judges ! 

 

And they were and are wrong on this!

 

In any case, it is not up the judges to determine the religious and spiritual nature of the country. 

 

If the country through its elected representative want to change the opening words of the Charter and what is to be the new religious and cultural nature of the country or anything else, there is an amending formula through which THE ELECTED can make such changes. 

 

The whole point of a Constitution is to provide stability and certainty. If the unelected branch of our system is to have the power to unilaterally change the nature of our country then representative and responsible Government is no more and what the reformers in the British North American Colonies, even before Confederation, were fighting for and what the First Ministers were fighting for in 1981 and 1982 is all for naught.

 

Let us remember there was a Supreme Court of Canada in September 1981 that rejected unilateralism (and that by an elected Prime Minister) as contrary to the Constitution and why we have the Charter we have today, negotiated by the legitimate elected leaders of the Provinces and the Federal Government. 

 

Judges interpret law and the Politicians make that law. 

 

And notwithstanding the distain some judges are reputed to have toward politicians it is the elected politicians who created the unelected judges, not the other way around!!

 

So there is a lot of work to do if we are to re-establish a true democracy – the Parliament strengthened as envisioned and was practised for decades, The Executive weakened and responsible to Parliament, and The Judiciary, weakened in the sense of going back to interpreting law not making it. 

 

In the interim, the Judiciary could lead the way by volunteering to reign in its illegitimate power and provide much needed leadership by interpreting the plain meaning of the Constitution as written. 

 

Honourable A. Brian Peckford PC 

Last Living First Minister Who Helped Craft The Constitution Act 1982.

 

23/01/07

Remember him? If you don’t, it is really OK.  He broke the Conflict of Interest Act. Here is a segment of the report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner inn 2021.

 

‘Following my examination of the documentary evidence, I am of the view Mr. Morneau afforded WE preferential treatment by permitting members of his ministerial staff to disproportionately assist a constituent. This unfettered access to the Office of the Minister of Finance was based, in my view, on the relationship between Mr. Morneau and Mr. Craig Kielburger, whom I found to be friends within the meaning of the Act. This treatment also constitutes, in my view, an impropriety under subsection 6(1) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, I find that Mr. Morneau has contravened subsection 6(1), section 7 and section 21 of the Act.  

 

And the Minister ‘forgot’ about an investment in France in which he was involved and only released that information when the CBC asked questions about the matter. Here is part of the CBC report of 2017:

 

‘Finance Minister Bill Morneau waited two years to disclose a private corporation that owns a villa in southern France that he shares with his wife to Canada's ethics watchdog, CBC News has learned.

 

In fact, Morneau only disclosed the corporation to conflict of interest and ethics commissioner Mary Dawson's office after CBC News discovered its existence and began asking questions.’

 

But have no fear, he is being given ample opportunity to publicize his new book. Paul Wells of MacLeans magazine renown has a review out on his book and is to interview him, so he brags, on January 23 at Munk School, University of Toronto.

 

Apparently, Morneau devotes but one page to former colleague, Jody Wilson -Raybould. You know he was tangled up with Trudeau Jr. in that SNC-Lavalin Scandal – trying to get Corporate people to be relieved of messy court proceedings and interfered with the normal course of justice that Raybould was trying to maintain in her Department of Justice. 

 

So people in high places can do just about what they want but let a person like Tamara Lich stand up for our rights under the constitution and she is brought in shackles to a court to appear before a former Liberal Trudeau supporter. 

 

No one to help her to be relieved of her court appearance and ongoing harassment.

 

23/01/04 – They will fail in the court of public opinion and the world of common sense. Yet we may lose our democracy.

 

What is this country coming to? A man who is a household name across the Globe. A person who stands for common sense and writes books detailing that.

 

Oh! And he was raised in a democratic country where expressing your views,  and exercising free speech, was a given.

 

And now the silly so-called professional association of Ontario wants to try to destroy him. They tried before. Didn’t work out well for them then and it will not now!

 

Now some jealous, attention-seeking individuals contact this professional organization and seek his professional scalp because a doctor of psychology expresses his views. 

 

And the incompetent, woke soaking, professional association has nothing better to do than pursue petty word play accusations laid against an honourable man who has the gall to speak truth and boldly express that in public.

 

The Administrative State expressed through professional organizations and universities are a big part of what is killing democratic Canada. The political leaders are doing their part either openly or lacking the courage to really do anything. And the police and judiciary seem in overkill mode with Tamara Litch and this past few days with John Carpay of the Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms. 

 

Witness Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Stephen Malthouse, Dr Francis Christian and Dr. Byram Bridle, Daniel Bulford, and Tom Marazzo. All targeted.

 

The people must speak, it’s  the only answer to saving our democracy! 

If they do not and fall back into their decades-long slumber the state will win,  the people will lose and democracy will die.

Read The Daily Wire story on the issue HERE.

 

23/01/02

The book ‘Turtles All The Way Down’ edited by Zoey O’Toole and Mary Holland on which you no doubt are already tired of hearing about from me, does a wonderful analysis of this. 

1. In 2005 journalist Dan Olmsted did a review of the incidence of autism in Amish children in Lancaster county, Pennsylvania. He found that there was a lower incidence of autism among them than in the regular population. He theorized this lower incidence was the result of lower vaccination rates given the Amish did not adhere to the use vaccines. Although this review was published far and wide no one ever followed up with a detailed scientifically based study to validate or invalidate MR. Olmsted’s findings. What an opportunity for the CDC or other research institutions to find out the facts.
   
2. The Homefirst clinic in Chicago, operated by Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, indicated that they don’t know of a single case of autism, among the thousands of unvaccinated children they’d had under their care over more than 30 years of practice. Once again, the information was known but no one followed up to test the validity of the clinic’s claim.
   
   
3. In Israel, at the Ruppin Academic Center, a study on Ethiopian children in Israel but who were born in Ethiopia compared with other Ethiopian children who were born in Israel. The incidence of autism was higher among those children who were born in Israel versus those children born in Ethiopia. And it is known that Ethiopian born children had fewer vaccines, if any, than Israeli born children whose parents were Ethiopian. This study has not be referenced by any U.S. agency or any funding provided to test the results of it.
   
   
4. Another incident where children of Somali descent born in Minnesota, had high incidence of autism. In Somali autism is unknown and their language does not even have a word for it. No follow up by anyone.
   
5. Three attempts to pass laws in the U.S. Congress to study the vaccinated and unvaccinated for the incidence of autism – 2007, 2013 and 2017 – have all failed to get passed, not even get to the first phase of the legislative process. The Congress representatives involved were Caroline Maloney and Dave Weldon in 2007 and Bill Posey involved in 2013 and 2017.

 

What’s going on? No one it seems wants to even do a VU (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) study to test these very disturbing findings. None have been done to this day. Yet the incidence of autism diagnosed in children today is much higher than in earlier times. And there are more vaccines now. 

 

Pages 209, 210 and 211 in the book is where you will find detail of the above incidents. 

 

The book has 1,200 references that you can access free. And there you can validate what the book is saying. Here is the link ­https://tinycurl.com/TurtlesBookEngRef to the 1,200 studies. 

 

Turtles All The Way Down, Vaccine Science and Myth 

Forward by Mary Holland, J. D. 

Edited by Zoey O’Toole and Mary Holland

 

I wake up almost every morning thinking of this abomination, Parliament voluntarily giving up its power. 

 

One of the most egregious acts of Parliament in the modern era by providing in law, legislation which mandates that the Federal Government can conduct conflict of interest measures like an inquiry to examine itself. 

 

Can you imagine the Parliament of Canada actually, deliberately bestowing power by law upon the Government to examine itself?

 

That’s what happened when the Emergencies Act was introduced by the Conservative Government of Brian Mulroney to replace the War Measures Act. 

 

So the whole idea was/is that if the government of the day invokes this act –declares an emergency and gains all this extra powers that when it is all over, there is to be an Inquiry to determine whether the Government acted properly under the Act. 

 

Here is the authority the Parliament ‘gave’ to the government to examine itself. 

• 63 (1) The Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency
• Report to Parliament
(2) A report of an inquiry held pursuant to this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament within 360 days after the expiration or revocation of the declaration of emergency.

 

For those unversed in government terminology, the Governor Of Council means the Cabinet, essentially the government. 

 

This act was introduced by the Hon. Perrin Beatty who was the Defence Minister at the time. 

 

It is under this Section 63(1) the Trudeau government earlier this year outlined the terms of reference and appointed a commissioner. 

 

And if it is possible, it gets worse. Everybody goes along with this charade as if it has some semblance of legitimacy.

 

A Government examining itself. 

 

This new normal is a contradiction of accountability and responsible government.

 

When reformers were campaigning for legislatures before Confederation they were campaigning for representative government, citizens were to have a voice through a duly elected legislature. 

 

But more, they were also campaigning for responsible government where the Cabinet of the Government of the Day would be composed of people who were elected to that legislature. In other words, accountability of the government to the legislature or Parliament. 

 

Nova Scotia achieved responsible government in January 1848, and in March of the same year the Province of Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and New Brunswick and three years later Prince Edward Island and in 1855 Newfoundland. 

 

So are we now having Parliament retreating to the 1840s by giving up the power that was hard won even before Confederation? 

 

Source : Responsible Government— The Government of Canada — Robert MacGregor Dawson—University of Toronto Press

As the New Year approaches one has to look back and assess just how blatantly dismissive , undemocratic our leaders have become.

October , 2021

I wrote to all the 11 first Ministers of the Provinces and The Federal Government seeking their position on the procedure (that they all had at their disposal ) to test the constitutionality of their draconian unconstitutional mandates initiated allegedly to combat the so called covid crisis.

Most did not even have the courtesy to respond. The one that did respond was my native Province where I had been the First Minister for a decade. In this case the Government there threatened me that if I indicated publicly what their response was and the reason that they provided me they reserved the option to take me to court. Their answer was that they could not tell me. And the reason was they could not infringe upon the lawyer/client relationship—the Province’s Department of Justice and the Government.

April/ May 2022

I wrote all the First Ministers including the Territorial Leaders (who now go by the title as Premier) to inquire as to whether they would support a Citizens Led Independent National Inquiry to ascertain the constitutionality of the lockdowns and mandates implemented across the country and to the legitimacy of the medical science used .

Once again the silence was almost complete. New Brunswick Government did respond but only to say that they would have the their own Legislature, which they controlled, investigate their mandates and investigate the legitimacy of their lockdowns and mandates .

September 2022

I wrote the new leader of the Conservative Party requesting that he do three things to prove he is really different than his predecessors: one have his party complete audited financial statements every year of his Party and have them published on the Party’s website, two , support publicly a citizen led inquiry into the pandemic, investigating the constitutionality of the measures taken, and the science behind the measures and three, propose an amendment to the Conflict if Interest Act whereby MP’s cannot sit in the Parliament if they violate the law as determined by the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner or a Canadian Judge.

No response.

Years ago if someone told a Canadian citizen that a former first minister of this country could not get present first ministers to respond to a letter he wrote them on important policy issues I suspect most would exclaim that this cannot be true.

But it is true—and furthermore most people do not care —and the main stream press ignore it because most of them have received money from the very Governments about whom they now are now asked to carry negative comments . Think tanks and other observers of the political scene cast it all off for some spurious reason, and universities, those once bastions of seeking truth and democracy and accountably , have abdicated their mission and responsibility to society. And no opposition leaders in any of the jurisdictions said one word of support to the ideas I was advancing let alone contact me.

Obviously , Governments and large sections of the population have lost their way in the practice of representative and responsible Government, abandoned our democratic reformers who were fighting for such ideas even before Confederation in 1867. For example my native Province , Newfoundland and Labrador , achieved Representative Government in 1832 and Responsible Government in 1855.

How would those reformers view the present leaders of this once proud democracy as they continue to ignore what made this country special and important in the world?