Canada exhibits herd immunity on objectivity and conflict of interest 

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.



The National Citizens Inquiry – almost there, and then?


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.


To the judiciary, stop

putting words in my mouth


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 



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.


Our former law-breaking finance minister is back in the news


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.


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.


And so,  now ‘they’ are after the great Jordan Peterson again

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.


Autism and vaccines -

why the evasion?


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 ­ 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


Deliberate deception:

The Canadian federal Emergencies Act

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

The Deliberate Silence Of Canada’s

Governments And Leaders

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?

So Here’s The Problem, Canada

Majority of provinces get equalization

this year, even smug Ontario


So how are we to get change if six provinces are getting equalization – $23.9 billion this year.

Finance Minister Freeland announced this record amount last week in the House of Commons.

It takes seven provinces and the federal government to get a change to the Constitution.

Do you think any of these equalization provinces are going to be interested in taking a look at changing the formula if, as is likely, there may be some reduction to some of these provinces?

Let’s name them: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario. Perhaps now one can see why Alberta may be a little put out!

And what do all those Provinces who DO NOT receive equalization have in common? They all produce – wait for it – fossil fuels, the commodity the federal government is trying to eradicate.

Quebec helped scuttle the Energy East Pipeline but they don’t mind taking Equalization through the back door, made possible by the four (Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia fossil fuel producing orovinces.

Mighty (or so we are led to believe) Ontario, will get $412 million this year.

And when was the last time you saw an auto plant in Ontario being constructed without government assistance?

And aren’t there some big pharma vaccine-producing plants being built with government money in Ontario and Quebec? No problem with building plants that produce vaccines that injure, but all kinds a problems with alleged fossil fuel and climate. The Government of Canada on its own website boasts of bio manufacturing investments of over $1.2 billion in Ontario and Quebec. Strange World.

Yep, we are in a heap of trouble. What with Charter Rights and Freedoms violations by governments breaking out everywhere spurred on by Big Parma, Big Media, Big Tech and nowthe Judiciary. And they are all that being topped up with an income distribution system crying out for change but protected by the so-called cozy “majority.”

I was denied the opportunity

to speak at a Canadian university


A law student friend of mine thought it would be a good idea to have me come to his law class and explain my involvement with the Constitution Act 1982 (last surviving First Minister who helped craft it and whose signature is on its foundational document) especially given the recent national interest in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a main feature of the Constitution Act.

Well, the student was quite excited and was under the impression that the professor would endorse the idea. When the student approached the prof about the idea he seemed interested and said he would call me and work out the details.

Aware of the strange world we now inhabit I contacted the student to remind him that he should make sure his professor has the endorsement of his “bosses” on the idea.

The student has since contacted me to say that the opportunity for me to speak has been denied. The student explained that in the days leading up to the professor’s answer the prof seemed aloof and avoiding him. When the student finally got to speak to the Professor, here are the students words: “To my surprise my professor hinted strongly at the fact that the university had not approved of your presentation, and he had not reached out to you.”

Sadly, there are many Canadians who still believe this kind of thing does not happen in this country. Some would even doubt my honesty in the matter or that surely there must be something more to it.

Well, there is not.

Of course, this follows other like rejections this past year including the local high school where approval had been given for me to speak but withdrawn two days before the event, the local Mayor rejecting my offer to brief the city council, and the local Provincial Legislative Representative who put obstacles in the way of me providing my constitutional position on Provincial Mandates and the history of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the Provincial Government caucus.

Such is the state of freedom of speech and hence democracy in our country today, one with which sadly, it seems, many Canadians are in agreement.