Supreme Court of Canada to hear Newfoundland and Labrador Charter case. Should we be hopeful?

In what can only be considered a surprise move the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear an appealof a decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. Surprise because the Newfoundland and LabradorCourt of Appeal refused to hear the appeal of this exact case.

For The Appeal Court it was the all too familiar excuse of the whole thing being too moot for the Court.

But now the SCC, has agreed to hear the case. The parties, Kimberly Taylor and The Canadian CivilLiberties Association appealed to the court.

Here is a copy of the Civil Liberties Press Release dated April 26, 2024:

“Arbitrary travel restrictions infringe on the mobility rights of Canadians.

CCLA’s challenge of Newfoundland government’s Bill 38 will continue before the Supreme Court of Canada(SCC), so that Canadians have clear, predictable, and stable answers to fundamental questions affectingtheir basic mobility rights.

Back in May 2020, CCLA challenged the constitutionality of the Newfoundland government’s Bill 38 beforethe province’s Supreme Court. This Bill provided for a travel ban between provinces and other restrictivemeasures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. CCLA asked the Court to declare Bill 38 in violation of s.6 (mobility rights), as well as other Charter rights. CCLA also argued that the law could not be saved by s. 1,which says that limits on rights must be reasonable and demonstrably justified.

In September of 2020, the province’s Supreme Court found that the travel ban did violate the s. 6 Charterright to mobility, but that such infringement could be justified under s. 1.

CCLA pursued this case before the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal. In August of 2023, theCourt of Appeal refused to settle the merits of the appeal under the motive that it was moot, since the banhad been lifted.

This was done despite all the parties urging the Court of Appeal to decide the appeal on the merits.

CCLA is pleased to learn that the SCC just granted its application seeking leave to appeal in this case. Thiswill allow the SCC to address novel questions about the scope of mobility rights in Canada and the extent towhich government can limit Canadians’ rights to move freely around the country.

CCLA is grateful for the excellent pro bono work of Paul Pape, Shantona Chaudhury and Mitchell McGowanfrom Pape Chaudry LLP in this file.”

Like the Association I am pleased that the highest court is going to hear the case. One can only assume thatit will not just issue a silly moot decision given that they could have let the Court Of Appeal decision ofNewfoundland stand and not hear the case.

I hope the highest court considers the following given it is high time for the Constitution Of This Country tobe fairly applied and interpreted as written. Courts have not the power to rewrite this sacred document. They are not omnipotent. That is for the people through their elected representatives as expressed inSection 38 of the Constitution Act 1982 in which the Charter is located — the Amending Formula.

A. The intent of Section 1 Of the Charter was that it could only be applied in a war, insurrection, the statebeing threatened circumstance. As one of the First Ministers involved and whose signature is on the originalPatriation Agreement I submit this point of view was what was operative at the time of the construction ofthis section. All remaining First Ministers whose names are on that document are no longer with us. Sadlyno court has called me to provide my view.

This intent is clear In Section 4 (2) of the Charter :

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

So decisions that have been made concerning the Charter should only be made in this context. Numerouscourt deliberations here and in many western jurisdictions have considered intent in determining thelegitimacy of legislation. This is not novel or new.

Hence, a glaring, fundamental mistake has occurred in interpreting our Charter.

B. The blatant omission of considering the opening words of the Charter in any interpretation of legislationby the Courts is an abuse of the Charter, our Constitution. Where is the power provided the courts toengage is such omission? Those words are:

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

The one reference of which I am aware in the courts literature to any consideration of the opening wordsrelating to God was by an Alberta Judge in a lower court foolishly indicated that the creators of the wordsdid not identify God as being a Christian God. All the creators, the first Ministers, were Christians —that’s all.What an insult to our history and traditions and the authors?

And this has been allowed to stand???

And what about the rule of law ? Little if anything has been done in considering and interpreting this point.

C. As for Section 1 itself of the Charter. If one can get past the previous points, which is impossible, but let’sspeculate: the court in question in Newfoundland, like the courts across the land, have disfigured, misinterpreted the wording of this section —-

Rights and freedoms in Canada

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

What is of crucial importance is ‘demonstrably justify ‘ and a free and democratic society ‘—-is it not?

Many try and evade confronting these concepts by emphasizing ‘reasonable ‘. But ‘reasonable ‘ is qualified, ifyou will, with ‘ as can be demonstrably justified ‘ and ‘ in a free and democratic society.’

This was deliberate by the creators, authors of this section.

So, as we all know such reasonable demonstration would be a cost benefit analysis, a tool used frequentlyby Government in considering new policies or programs —and this case especially when sacred rightsenshrined in the constitution were to be taken way!!! Yet, there was none!

And what about the Provincial Emergency Management organizations that were already established in all theProvinces with immediate expertise. Were they consulted? Not one!

No such attempt was made and the Governments did not conduct even a cursory cost benefit review andthe courts eagerly accepted the one sided Government narrative. Yet experts like Lt. Colonel David Redman who had been involved in Emergency Management and had written extensively on it were neverconsulted !

And ‘free and democratic society ? Was there any meaningful engagement of the Parliament of Canada orthe Legislative Assemblies —-not really, ——only to delegate power to unelected bureaucrats and relieve thepoliticians of direct responsibility. Where were the Parliamentary Committees? The sober consideration of allpoints of view in an open public session? Of independent science ? Does not free and democratic societyentail such deliberations?

And to those courts / governments who talk about little time—in this Newfoundland case it was 6 monthsbefore The Supreme Court of the Province ruled and 15 months for the Court of Appeal to issue a nondecision! So much for serving the people!

As for the concept of ‘mootness ‘ that has been most dramatically used by the Federal Court and theFederal Court of Appeal and The Court of Appeal in Newfoundland ? This is a construct of the court not theConstitution.

It denies a citizen the right to know whether a Government action to which a citizen was subjected violatesthe Charter. Should a court idea of mootness, refusing to rule on whether a Government action of onlymonths before overrule the people’s right to know if their rights and freedoms were violated ?

Is not this the role of the Court ? To protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens from Government overreach ? That was and is the whole point of the Charter!!

Whether the Government action is presently operative or not should be irrelevant, especially when millionsof citizens were involved and especially when it involved rights and freedoms protected under the Charter, our Constitution.

There may be a role for mootness if a frivolous matter is established but by any measure what we arediscussing is anything but a frivolous matter, even though The Newfoundland Court of Appeal in calling thewhole thing ‘ moot ‘had the gall to find the Government’s action of denying rights ‘ fleeting.’

Courts have abdicated their solemn responsibilities to the people in the exaggerated use of such Courtconstructed procedures.

So the highest court can go back to ‘first principles’, and examine intent and the opening words of theCharter and place them in full context in any interpretation of the Charter. If this were done then Section 1of the Charter would not even be in play.

Constructing a hypothetical i.e. considering Section 1 of the Charter during the so called ‘covid emergency’, well, even if we do, the Government and Court reasoning would have failed as demonstrated above.

There is an opportunity through this case as well as the one in which I am involved for our highest court toget it right——to return to the full constitution and re-establish the ‘supremacy of God and the rule of law, ‘the legitimate role of Parliament, to the plain meaning of demonstrably justify, and the importance of intentin interpreting our Charter.

Is the Supreme Court of Canada up to the challenge? Will our Constitution, our democracy be restored?”

40-plus years of lies

Wikipedia and other so-called authorities continue the falsehoods

The anniversary of the Constitution Act 1982 is upon us, having received Parliamentaryapproval on March 29, 1982 and Royal Assent on April 17, 1982– and the prior approval of nine provinces without which there would be no Constitution Act 1982.

Of course, Wikipedia and other authorities still get the whole thing wrong. Let me quote part of what Wikipedia says online:

‘In September 1981, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Patriation Reference that provincial consent was not legally necessary, but to do so without substantial consent would be contrary to a longstanding constitutional convention. [11] Trudeau succeeded in convincing nine provinces out of ten to consent to patriation by agreeing to the addition of aNotwithstanding Clause to limit the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [12] as a result of discussions during a First Ministers' conference and other minor changes in November 1981.[13]”

A. Convention by definition are customs longstanding. In constitutional terms that is why they are called ‘conventions.’In other words what Trudeau Sr and the FederalParliament was trying to do wasunconstitutional.

That is why Trudeau Sr came back to the table.He was forced to if he still wanted to do the deal. Wikipedia does not state that.

B. And Trudeau Sr persuaded no one – ‘succeeded in convincing no one.’ he and the parliament of Canada lost in the patriation reference.

Rather, it was a provincial proposal initiated by the government of newfoundland and labrador (began night of Nov 4 and morning of Nov 5) that succeeded in breaking the deadlock between the provinces and the federal government on the afternoon of November 5, 1981 and which later became known as the constitution act 1982.

Copies of these documents are on pages 263 to 269 of my best selling book of 2012. ‘ some day the sun will shine and have not will be no more.’ the book is still available on kindle, and in some public libraries.

And i still have the documents in my possession.

C. And the other changes were not minor. Hardly! They included:

An amending formula without which there would be no way for Canada to change the constitution and it was this that had prevented earlier constitutional efforts ( 10 in all) over the previous six decades.

Recognition constitutionally for the first time of our aboriginal peoples.

First time that equalization was given constitutional recognition

And the notwithstanding clause, a provincial condition, without which there woud have been no agreement.

And important amendments on renewable resources among other matters

This is the nature of our society today —and as one can see it started decades ago —when if the narrative did not gain favour with the elite,regardless of the evidence, it got maligned and ignored.

It was the premiers that forced Trudeau Sr to the table, that he and his unilateralism had lost.

Honorable A. Brian Peckford P.C.

Only Surviving First Minister Who Was A Signatory To The Patriation Agreement, Constitution Act 1982.

Tribute to the man who saved Newfoundland

Brian Mulroney was the best friend Newfoundland and Labrador ever had in the Prime Minister’s chair.

There was the Free Trade Agreement , the support to anti apartheid forces, and the acid rain deal with the Americans. To many in the nation’s eastern most Province it was something else.

A great friend of Newfoundland land and Labrador has passed.

Without Mulroney keeping his promise,the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would not be a have Province today. His pursuit with the Hon Pat Carney, his Energy Minister, to ensure the Province’s offshore hydro carbon resources were treated the same as other provinces onshore hydro carbon resources was monumental and changed the course of Canada’s constitutional development because the Atlantic Accord became applicable all across the nation.

In my 2012 book I said:

“Without Brian Mulroney there would be no Atlantic Accord, and without the Accord Newfoundland and Labrador would not be a "have" province today. And this book would have been much different.”

The book is entitled Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More.

To wife Mila and the family I extend on behalf of my wife Carol and I, our deepest sympathies.

Peckford, Bernier take travel restrictions

to Supreme Court of Canada

JANUARY 11, 2024

OTTAWA, ON: The Justice Centre announces that the Hon. Brian Peckford, the Hon. Maxime Bernier, and other applicants seek to appeal their vaccine mandate challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada. These Applicants argue that vaccine mandates are an issue of national importance and that Canadians deserve to receive court rulings regarding any emergency orders that violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In November 2021, the Government of Canada required all travelers of federally-regulated transportation services (air, rail, and marine) to provide proof of Covid vaccination. These restrictions on the Charter freedom of mobility prevented approximately 5.2 million unvaccinated Canadians from traveling by air and rail.

In response to these restrictions, Hon. Brian Peckford (last living signatory of the Charter and former Premier of Newfoundland), Hon. Maxime Bernier (leader of the People’s Party of Canada), and other Canadians took the federal government to court in February, 2022, arguing that the Charter freedoms of religion and conscience, assembly, democratic rights, mobility, security, privacy, and equality of Canadians were infringed by these restrictions. In addition,affidavits filed in this court action (e.g.,the affidavit of Robert Belobaba at paragraph 19) attest that, in a country as large as Canada, prohibitions on domestic and international air travel have significant, negative impacts on Canadians.

In an affidavit (at paragraph 29), Jennifer Little, Director General of Covid Recovery at Transport Canada, provided her Covid Recovery Team’s October 2, 2021 presentation, entitled Implementing a Vaccine Mandate for the Transportation Sector. The presentation outlined options and considerations for the purposes of seeking the Minister of Transport’s approval of the travel vaccination mandate.Her presentation outlined (at pages 12 and 13) that the Canadian travel restrictions in question were “unique in the world in terms of strict vaccine mandatefor domestic travel” and were coupled with “one of the strongest vaccination mandates for travelers in the world.” She admitted during cross examination (at paragraphs 162-163, PDF page 61) that she had never seen a recommendation from Health Canada or the Public Health Agency of Canada to the Ministry of Transport to implement a mandatory vaccination policy for travel.

At the same time, Dr. Lisa Waddell, a senior epidemiologist and the knowledge synthesis team lead at the Public Health Agency of Canada, admitted during a cross examination (at paragraphs 300-305, PDF pages 91-93) that there was no recommendation from the Public Health Agency of Canada to impose vaccination requirements on travelers.

In June 2022, the Government of Canada announced that it would suspend the travel vaccine restrictions, but that it would not hesitate to reinstate the mandates if the government considered it necessary.

As a result, the federal government (the Crown) moved to have Premier Peckford’s constitutional challenge struck for mootness (irrelevance). The Crown argued that the travel restrictions were no longer a live issue because they had been lifted and should not, therefore, take up further court resources. The Crown brought this motion after each side had produced expert evidence, called on experts to testify under oath, cross-examined the other side’s experts and witnesses daily for six weeks, conducted significant legal research, and prepared substantive written arguments. Lawyers for both sides spent hundreds of hours placing all the evidence and legal arguments before the Federal Court for its consideration. The only remaining step in the trial process was the presentation of oral argument, scheduled for October 31, 2022. The Federal Court was fully and properly equipped to render a thoughtful decision as to whether the travel restrictions had been a justified violation ofCharter freedoms.

Even though the federal government can impose these same travel restrictions on Canadians again, without notice, the Federal Court granted the Crown’s motion on November 9, 2023, and dismissed this Charter challenge as moot. The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed this lower court ruling on November 9, 2023. Effectively, the courts determined that a constitutional challenge to the use of unprecedented emergency powers was neither sufficiently interesting to the Canadian public nor an appropriate use of court resources.

Premier Peckford, Maxime Bernier, and other Canadians now seek to have the Supreme Court of Canada hear their case. This involves a two-step process, whereby the applicants first ask whether the Court is willing to hear the appeal. If so, the appeal will then be scheduled for a hearing several months later. The applicants in this case argue that the issues raised in their case are of national importance and that Canadians deserve access to court rulings about policies that violate the Charter freedoms of millions of Canadians.

(See the January 8, 2024 Leave Application of Premier Peckford here. See the January 8, 2024 Leave Application of Maxime Bernier here.)

Further, Premier Peckford and the other applicants warn that all challenges to emergency orders risk being deemed irrelevant due to the simple fact that emergency orders are normally implemented only for short periods of time. In most cases, emergency orders will be rescinded by the time a constitutional challenge makes its way through the court process and all the relevant evidence, along with legal arguments, has been put before the judge. For this reason, the Applicants argue that the courts should provide guidance on how emergency orders should be handled in the context of the mootness doctrine.

“If courts are going to affirm and uphold emergency orders that violate our Charter rights and freedoms whenever the emergency order is no longer in force, how can the Charter protect Canadians from government abuses?” asks John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre.

Emergency orders are not debated in, or approved by, federal Parliament or provincial legislatures. Rather, they are discussed confidentially in Cabinet such that ordinary Canadians are prevented from understanding the reasons for, or the legality of, emergency orders, such as mandatory vaccination policies that discriminated against Canadians who chose not to get injected. Therefore, it is only through court rulings that Canadians can learn whether a mandate or emergency order is constitutional.

“The Supreme Court of Canada has an opportunity to create an important precedent for how Canadian courts deal with all so-called ‘moot’ cases involving questions about the constitutionality of emergency orders,” stated lawyer Allison Pejovic, who represents Premier Peckford and Maxime Bernier.

“The public interest in this case is staggering. Canadians need to know whether it is lawful for the federal government to prevent them from travelling across Canada, or from leaving and re-entering their own country, based upon whether they have taken a novel medication,” continued Ms. Pejovic.

“The Court’s dismissal of constitutional challenges to Covid orders for ‘mootness’ has deprived thousands of Canadians from knowing whether their governments’ emergency orders were lawful or not. It is time for the Supreme Court of Canada to expand the legal test for mootness to account for governments’ use of emergency orders, which are devoid of transparency and accountability. Canadians have a right to know whether unprecedented mandatory vaccination policies, which turned millions of Canadians into second-class citizens, were valid under our Constitution,” concluded Ms. Pejovic.

I believe that there are more instance of abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation – James Madison.

I am writing this because I feel an obligation given that I am the last living First Minister who helped craft the Constitution Act 1982 and The Charter of Rights and Freedoms that forms part of it.

Secondly, I am doing it because I must speak on behalf of those deceased First Ministers, the majority of whom, would advance the views that I am advocating now.

And thirdly, I am doing it on behalf of many Canadians who feel they have no voice; those who have love ones who have died as a result of the vaccines and others who have been injured as a result of the vaccines ; and thenthose who have love ones who have died or have been injured as a result of the undemocratic lockdowns.

Who would have thought it would come to this?

In Christmas Season 2021 Governments across Canada make orders to diminish our democracy by limiting our rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and engage as little as possible the 14 Parliaments of this nation.

It has been, for all intents and purposes, an assault in two ways: one political and legal and the other, scientific.

A. The Science:

“The task of understanding the trajectory of a virus through a population falls within the purview of a few specific scientific fields. Lockdowns, in contrast, impact all aspects of our society. So, what we have here is not a singular, specific problem, to be tackled by a small group of “experts” with domain-specific knowledge and skills. Instead, we face a vast web of interrelated problems, demanding many different areas of theoretical and practical expertise.”

Professor Mathew Ratcliff, writing on the website Collateral Global, Professor of Philosophy, University of York.

It has been known for many months that the restrictions that have been placed on our rights and freedoms do not work. The Great Barrington Declaration of Oct 4, 2020 should have alerted Governments that their approach was wrong. This declaration was instigated by three world class medical scientists : Dr. Martin Kulldorlf, Professor at Harvard University, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Professor at Oxford University and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Professor at Stanford University. Here is part of what that declaration says:

‘The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.‘

This declaration has been signed by over 45,000 medical practitioners and over 15,000 medical and public health scientists.

Additionally, numerousstudies have shown the folly of wearing masks;yet our Governments continue to invade our person. The Swiss Policy Researchhas detailed 39 studies and their conclusion is :

‘So far, most studies found little to no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in the general population, neither as personal protective equipment nor as a source control.’

To pick just one of these studies:

‘A Danish randomized controlled trial with 6000 participants, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found no statistically significant effect of high-quality medical face masks against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community setting.’ Source : March 2021: Annals Of Internal Medicine.

Then there are The PCR tests: a flawed procedure not even meant for the purposes now used. Even the American CDC is phasing out their use in the Covid context. And the cycle threshold used in this country is so high that there is about a 5% reliability.It averages over 30, and some Provinces over 40, when 25 is said by experts to be the most effective cycle.

The following study is instructive

‘The research group of French professor Didier Raoulthas recently shownthat at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram).

This means that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.’

On November 30 Dr. Paul Elias Alexander( former Professor at MacMasterUniversity, former advisor to the US Government, former advisor to WHO) wrote the following on the Brownstone Website:

‘More Than 400 Studies on the Failure of Compulsory Covid Interventions

‘What follows is the current totality of the body of evidence (available comparative studies and high-level pieces of evidence, reporting, and discussion) on COVID-19 lockdowns, masks, school closures, and mask mandates. There is no conclusive evidence supporting claims that any of these restrictive measures worked to reduce viral transmission or deaths.

Lockdowns were ineffective, school closures were ineffective, mask mandates were ineffective, and masks themselves were and are ineffective and harmful. ‘

Dr. Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia has done a study showing the cure is worse than the disease. Part of abstract to his study states :

‘An examination of over 80 Covid-19 studies reveals that many relied on assump- tions that were false, and which tended to over-estimate the benefits and under- estimate the costs of lockdown.As a result, most of the early cost/benefit studies arrived at conclusions that were refuted later by data, and which rendered their cost/benefit findings incorrect.’

Where are the Governments and Our Courts on all this independent science? It’s not like its being hidden! One click of the mouse !

Sadly, It is being deliberately ignored.

And it is this faulty science that forms the basis of these unconstitutional measures and some early faulty Court decisions.

AND, the Governments and Courts deny what has happened in Florida, Sweden, and Uttar Pradish, India. This latter state of over 200 million people has been able to reduce medical problems by early treatment and have less deaths and so-called cases than other states that implemented lockdowns. AND THEIR VACCINATED RATE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN 50%.

Most tragically, Governments have denied the medical repercussions of lockdowns —the delayed surgeries and death, the delayed and cancelled specialist appointments, the increased depression and suicides.

Furthermore, they have deliberately downplayed the value of vitamin D, Zinc, Vitamin C and Quercetin in reducing hospitalization and the severity of the disease and the value of treatments used early such as, Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. Dr. Peter McCullough,a world renown researcher in the field has persuasively shown that early treatment could reduce hospitalization by up to 85%.

Prevention, once the hallmark of Public Heath Policy is absent from the narrative. Why is this?

Additionally, Governments have narrowly focused their efforts ignoring the Emergency Planning agencies on which they all have been spending millions of dollars over many years. Lt. Col. David Redman, an outspoken critic of the present approach, and former Emergency Director with the Alberta Government, has a very effective way to describe sound Emergency Management :

‘Let me give you all a new concept.

Think of Emergency Management in terms of an orchestra.

The Public is the audience, filling a hall.

At the front is the conductor. That is the Emergency Management Officer (EMO).

The EMO is not a violinist, a drummer, a woodwind player, or a brass player. The conductor does not specialize into one section of the orchestra. The EMO stays a part and leads the whole. The conductor knows each group in the orchestra, knows what they do, how they contribute to the whole, and knows how to get the best out of each section. Most importantly, the conductor knows how to get all the sections to work together to produce not just a good piece of music, but the best piece of music with the skills present. The conductor also knows what this orchestra is missing and where to go get those missing elements.

In the String section – let us call them the doctors – we have different types of violins, cellos, violas, etc. each with a lead (Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes). The Medical Officer of Health (MOH) is a generalist for Stringed Instruments, not one of the specialist leads. The MOH is promoted to be the leader of the String section.

Now, let’s imagine the orchestra conductor (EMO) is not available or is sent out of the auditorium and is replaced by the leader of the String section. This leader (MOH) is put in charge of the entire orchestra, in place of the conductor. The String Instrument leader is not trained on how all the other sections play, the methods for best use of their instruments, or if other sections even have a part to play.

Over in the drum section, we have a lot of instruments that keep the entire orchestra in tempo and coherent. Let's call them the power grid, water supply system and the food system. The String Instrument leader just assumes that they will always be there, so ignores them.

The real Conductor, now ordered out of the room, would never ignore them.

The Brass section has been told by the String Instrument leader to stop playing, period, because the violin conductor does not think they are essential for the music. Let's call them small business, tourism, air lines, etc.The Brass section members start to develop resentment, mental health issues, drug issues, and they sell their instruments because they have no income and need livelihood.

You see where I am going.

The EMO who is the conductor for all emergencies is sitting in the lobby and the orchestra collapses, the public covers their ears and starts to have social and mental health issues from the noise.

The audience agrees they never want to see this performance again, but there is no other show in town.

The media throughout has been extoling how great the new Stringed Instrument leader is, regardless of the music.

The Stringed Instrument leader continues to believe they are doing a great job, and it would have been worse if they were not in charge.

The public needs to understand we are going about this all wrong.

We knew better and chose to ignore all Lessons Learned from all previous Pandemics and ignore the pre-existing plans that were written from these Lessons Learned.

As an old army friend constantly says about what we are doing, “We are lost but making good time.”

And now a new study has just been produced by The Canadian Covid Care Alliance detailing the many flaws in Pfizer’s first months of trials entitled “ More Harm Than Good’, showing more problems from their vaccines than they prevent.

B. Legal and Constitutional Issues

The judge must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundaments values not yet found in it – Judge Aharon Barak, one-time presidet of the suprem court of Israel.

Save America, close Yale Law School – Bumper sticker

Governments have forged ahead with infringements on our freedoms like it was just another day in the park. The blatant ignorance, and casual approach regarding this is breathtaking. The arbitrary implementation of these measures is the greatest assault on individual freedom in the forty years that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been in effect.

A. Let it be recorded that The Charter of Right and Freedoms is the Supreme Law of Canada. So says Section 52 of the Constitution Act 1982. All laws in Canada involving Governments are subject to conforming with this Charter.

B. Let it be recorded that the first words of the Charter are : ‘Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:’

Note that a colon punctuation comes at the end —that is that everything that follows is in this context.

C. Present Government covid measures violate the Charter, especially Section 2, 6, 7, and 15.

D. Section 2 describes the freedoms individuals have relating to conscience, religion, expression and the press. Additionally other freedoms described are freedom of assembly and association. Today across the nation individuals are prevented from association and assembly.

E. Section 6 talks of Mobility Rights; the right to travel anywhere in Canada and leave Canada. Additionally, it describes the right to ‘to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.’ As we speak people are losing their jobs, thousands of them across the country, it being alleged that theirhealth status is inconsistent with Government edits.

F. Section 7 describes a person’s rights to ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.’ Right now our life and liberty are being violated and the coercion is rampant in violating our ‘security of the person.’

G. To top it off is Section 15 —‘Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.’

Presently I,and many thousands, do not enjoy equality before the law because we are prevented from going certain places that others can go.

Governments believe that they are immune from these protected rights and freedoms.

I contend they are not!

Section 1 of the Charter says:

‘TheCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsguarantees 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.’

This section does not apply to the present circumstance. When this was being written it was in the context of a serious threat to the state, a war, insurrection, a clear and present danger. A virus whose recovery rate is 99% and fatality rate is 0.08% (source, The Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms quoting Government documents)surely doesn’t qualify as a threat to the state.

Consider: the country took 114 years before it had a written charter of rights andfreedoms. America had one in 1791. And it was clear to everyone in 1981 when the Charter was being negotiatedthat a further opening of the Constitution was unlikely for many decades, generations away, if not more.Its already 40 years. Hence, what we were dong then was very, very important. And long lasting.

We were not negotiating fundamental freedoms and rights to be in the Constitution to see them easily taken away, especially by highly questionable science at best, and downright wrongdoing by many of the stakeholders at worse. And even then four tests would have to be met to override those freedoms and rights.

You see, if these rights and freedoms can be taken away in this circumstance, where the science is against what is being done, where more effective alternatives are medically available, where alternate approaches like the Redman approach are available, and where deaths and injuries from the so called ‘vaccines’ are more than from all other vaccines combined in the last 30 years, then the Charter becomes diluted, peoples rights and freedoms sacrificed on the altar of fear and convenience ; that means,then, future serious circumstances will be easier to justify violating our rights and freedoms using this present falsity as a precedent to bypass the Charter all over again.

The permanence we thought we achieved for individual freedoms and rights in the Constitution becomes a fleeting concept floating hither and yon in the shifting winds of political expediency, fear and faulty science and faulty approaches, not the bedrock of a secure democracy as we had thought.

That’s why this is all so wrong——

H. OK, for argument’s let’s assume that Section 1 applies to the present circumstance.There are four tests to be met:

Demonstrably justify

By Law

Reasonable Limits

Consistent with a free and democratic society

Has any Government in Canada met these tests ?

Where is the ‘demonstrably justify?’Nowhere to be seen! One would think that such harsh measures, denying personal liberties, people’s jobs eliminated,would require a cost benefit analysis, a report, a study. None exits.

Reasonable limits. There’s no reasonable limits but arbitrary edits, reissued over and over again, most often with no parliamentary oversight.

By Law——one would think that this would require a new law, requiring The Parliament, the peoples’ house to open and be intimately involved. When peoples rights and freedoms are being taken away is this not a matter for the peoples’ representatives ? If not, what is? In the Case of Section 33, the so called notwithstanding clause, in order for Governments to override Sections 2, 7, and 15 the Parliament must be opened and a new law proposed and passed before anychange can occur. And then with a time limit.

In a free and democratic society. This validates the previous point. How can a Government be consistent with the concept of a free and democratic society without the Parliament being intimately involved ? If in fact it was such a big issue as the Governments daily pronounce, then let the people speak through their elected representatives.

Furthermore, Many Governments are using existing laws that were in place long before this present circumstance existed. A new law is needed for a new circumstance, not hiding behind existing laws for other circumstances.

And so even if Section 1 applied, which I contend it does not, the Governments have failed these tests and therefore their actions are unconstitutional.

And then the Courts so far have failed us and abused the Charter.

J. Sins Of Omission and Sins of Commission

Perhaps no where is the fatal flaw ( error in law) of the various court judgements concerning the Charter of Rights and Freedoms more blatant than in the omission of consideration of the first words of the Charter itself:

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

Note the grammatical use of the colon. Everything comes after this !

All considerations of the Charter must be in ‘the context of, ‘under the umbrella of’ theseimportant concepts.

One does not have the luxury to pick and chose what parts of the Charter are to apply in a given case. The totality of the Charter mustbe considered, applied in any rendering of judgement concerning the Charter.

Nowhere in the judgements I have read considering the Charter in this circumstance has consideration being given to this important part of the Charter, its introduction, that is obviously to guide the rest of the Charter and its interpretation.

What does ‘supremacy of God ‘ mean ?

Is it a stretch to consider unalienable rights?

Does it not mean justice and fairness at the very least?

One is reminded of the US Declaration of Independence, A document very much a part of the jurisprudence of North America.

‘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.’

What does ‘rule of law’ mean ?

Does it mean following the law as written, consistency and justice?

Robert H. Bork writing in his book ‘Coercing Virtue’ states :

‘ One of the indispensable institutions of Western civilization is the rule of law. That rule is central to democratic government, a vigorous economy, and individual liberty. A functioning rule of law requires that law be understood to have force and moral of its own, a force and weight independent of the political and cultural struggles the moment.’

I submit that all the judgements rendered that involve interpretation of the Charter must involve consideration of all the relevant parts of the Charter. Failure to do so renders these judgements incomplete and hence invalid.

In the present context the recent judgements interpreting the Charter are invalid because they err in omitting consideration of the first words and concepts of that very charter, concepts that are suppose to guide the subsequent interpretations of the court.

The ruling by Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench of Manitoba for example makes this statement in his conclusions:

CONCLUSION

[54] There is no constitutional or any legal basis for invalidating the impugned provisions of the PHOs as argued by the applicants. Section 67 of the PHA represents neither an unconstitutional nor an undemocratic delegation of power.

This omits any consideration of the context in which this decision should have been made, that is the other relevant parts of the Charter !!

A judge does not have the authority, I contend,to arbitrarily decide what parts of the Charter to consider in deciding a case based on the Charter. If so it makes a mockery out of the concept of Justice. The Charter’s words mean something, all of them,and must be interpreted in the light of all the evidence submitted.

Additionally, the Judge omits any referenceto the substantial scientific information submitted by the litigants.

Finally, sacred individual freedoms and rights that took 114 years to form part of the Constitution are not to be swept away by ignoring the concepts that were to guide the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and form its context: the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Similarly, other relevant cases bearing on the present circumstance recently heard in the Supreme Court of BC, Beaudoin v British Columbia, 2021 and Klassen v British Columbia ( Attorney General) 20121 fail to include in their consideration of the Charter the first concepts introduced which are suppose to guide in the deliberation of the Charter.

Tangentially, the Manitoba case just referenced, the Judge did not carry out his obligation and rule using all relevant law, based on the evidence, but rather he bowed to an unelected bureaucrat stating that he, the judge, was not an expert in health matters, as if in all his other judgements he has made involved him beingan expert on all the various subjects that came before him. Are we to deduce that this is how judges decide these days? Not on the law interpreted through the evidence presented but on the views of one set of experts. This is an abdication of duty.

Let me describe a little of my views concerning BC First case, Beaudoin v British Columbia

While the judgerecognizes the importance of the Charter in point 56 in his ruling,although without specifically referencing,like he should have, the concepts of the supremacy of God and the rule of law,he goes onto essentially not recognize it in the manner in which he deals with the violations of the Charter later in his judgement.

Nowhere in this judgement is there evidence that the Province ‘demonstrably justified ‘ their multiple actions to restrict the freedoms and rights of the peopleOften one finds finds an over emphasis on the words ‘reasonable limits ‘ and less emphasis on the words ‘demonstrably justify’. In any plain reading of Section 1 it is about demonstrably justifying, by law, withinreasonable limits consistent with the values of a free and democratic society. None of these tests have been clearly established in the Judge’s ruling.

In October the Government and/or the Judge knew or ought to have known that many of the statements of the previous year by the Provincial Department proved to be incorrect. The incidence of receipt and transmission of the virus by the vaccinated being one dramatic example. In other words the very reason for the vaccine to prevent contracting the virus, proved blatantly wrong. And data from around the world was readily available about theincidence of cases rising after lockdowns were introduced. This is not rocket science and was available in independent publications of which there are many.

The frameworkof the Charter is contained in the opening sentence of the Charter. This in notmentioned anywhere in the Judge’s decision and renders incomplete a full assessment of the application of the Charter.

TheGovernment and/or the judge knew or ought have known that their/his slavish reliance on the now well know faulty science of the Provincial Department of Health ( Section 118) wasa big problem. Reference Sections 122–125 also refer.

The Government of British Columbia and/or the Judge knew or ought to have know of the significant health problems caused by the Government’s measures, delayed surgeries causing death and injuries. Public information was readily available where Government had delayed surgeries, delayed critical specialist appointments. Many know someone damaged by these lockdowns or who died.

We are talking about life and death and it behooves the Government and/or the judge to ensure they have the most relevant information. A full year previous, the Great Barrington Declaration was issued. Results from the Governments of Israel and the UK were readily available, real data showing the Provincial Government narrative to be flawed. And data from the US and Europe Government Agencies showing deaths and injuries from the covid vaccines to be more that all the deaths and injuries from all vaccines for the past 30 years.

And in the Judge’s own backyard at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Dr. Douglas Allen published a paper in April 2021 a full six months before his decision entitled ‘CovidLockdown: Cost Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature ‘ in which it was revealed that most of the data relied upon by Governments like the Government of British Columbia was unreliable and much of it false. 80 studies were examined.

Surely this information should be at least sufficient for a pause in what was being implemented.

The other aspect of this sad tale is that the Government of British Columbia has a obligation to bring all the latest scientific information to the Judge’s attention—-as the Judge and the Government keep saying —-IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. The Premier and Minister of Heath take an oath to conduct their affairs with integrity.

The Courts of Canada have a solemn obligation to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as written especially those concepts that undergird its very existence:The Supremacy of God and the rule of law. ‘ Constitutions ‘as Bork said, ‘ speak for permanent values. ‘

Summary

A. The science is not present to justify the draconian, arbitrary measures being used. Many times the cure is worse than the disease.

B. The measures violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bar has not been met to allow Governments to violate basic individual rights and freedoms. A 99% recovery rate sure does not pose a threat to the nation.

C. Section 1 of the Charter does not permit the Governments license to implement their measures. And even if it did the Governments have not passed the four tests necessary to take such action.

D. Early court decisions err in their judgments, failing to invoke all the relevant parts of the Charter and examine all the scientific information that was readily available.

E. The reason for putting the Charter in the Constitution in the first place was toprotect it from easy change. Constitutions represent permeant values. Trying to ‘square ‘ a virus out break with a ‘round ‘Section 1 just doesn’t cut it.

Conclusion:

This is all an affront to our Democracy, an abuse of our Constitution by selectivity and law making rather than interpretation; a mangling of the scientific method and the abandonment of reason.

It is up to the higher courts of this land to rectify this injustice and restore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to its rightful place protecting the freedoms and rights of individual Canadians against the false claims of Governments who are attempting to usurp it.

Appendix/Sequel:

The Four Horsemen of the Modern Era

If the above is not enough,we have the Four Horseman of the Modern Era circling over us like massive locusts, ready to pounce on any deviation in behaviour by the people to the Government edits.

Consider the power of the media. They formed their falsely named TrustedNews initiative that essentially blocks all news that is negative to their narrative that all is well and that the lockdown destruction is not real, and the hundreds of thousands of deaths from the vaccines is untrue. They play on attacking alternate views by playing the conspiracy theory card, up to now keepingthe masses in check.Meanwhile, in Canada they take $600 million from the Federal Government, this, the very group that is suppose to expose conflicts of interest in high places, be independent———-now fallen on their own sword.

Our Governments have become too big and undemocratic. The Parliamentsof this nation should be meeting regularly and oversee what is happening. The people are shut out and a small coterie of people in one discipline are running the show, completely ignoring the Emergency Measures that are in place ready to give the weight of of the many disciplines needed to properly manage the situation. The Prime Minister is acting like a President or Monarch; the power has shifted from Parliament to ThePrime Minister’s office by passing even the Cabinet. There are over 1400 working directly for the PM in the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office( this infoa few years ago, current stats were hard to come by) consuming an annual budget of $150,000,000. Yet, there are over 7000 other executives working for the Government. For a full examination of this dire situation let me recommend ‘ Democracy in Canada—-The Disintegration of Our Institutions’by Donald A. Savoie.

Big Pharma have their tentacles everywhere —from the local hospital purchasing agent to the Cabinet Room. The intermingling of people on Govt regulatory Agencies and Big Pharma is a prime example of the rot that has set in. These are the people who will not stand behind their product yet reap billions of dollars from the masses with its use; an experimental product whose long term effects are completely unknown. Pfizer has had to settle out of court for billions of dollars as a result of charges brought against them ; $175 million because of experiments on Nigerian Children, $2.3 billion to settle false claims that the company gave to Governments,, and $300 million regarding Chantix. And now the recent study by the Canadian Covid Care Alliancethat exposes their unethical behaviour in the conduct of their clinical trials on their covid vaccine. Note : ‘The claim was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy 7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.’

Big Tech is perhaps the most dangerous,hiding behind their portals to commit all manner of wrong doing and double speak. Their friendly ties with China, excusing many of the horrific abuses there, to gain their twenty pieces of silver and market access is well know. Acting as judge and jury to gain access to their sites smacks of corruption to which Governments seems powerless to act, given that many politicians receive substantial sums of money ( fronted through false so called non profits and other nefarious entities) from these tech behemoths.

This is now the nature of our western society, corrupted from within and without by these horsemen.

Hon A. Brian Peckford P.C.

Parksville. British Columbia, Canada

Our political leaders ignore

fairness and common sense

“For myself I am an optimist, it does not seem to be much use being anything else.” – Winston Churchill.

I often quote this statement from the great Winston Churchill. Reflecting over 2023 this again comes to mind.If it is democracy one is talking about we need lots of optimism.

Silence has marked the response from our leadership whether on the local scene, the Provincial scene or the Federal scene.

Even before this craziness began this last three years or so writing the Ministers of Health Provincially (BC) and Federally I received answers to my communication from others. The very bedrock of accountability and responsible government was missing and in the case of the Federal response the response wasn’t even from a person, it was a division of the Department, no name, no signature. The best the majority of leaders whom I have writtenseveral times can do is have someone activate an electronic response.

I am reminded of Dr. Charles Hoffe and his battle with the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons, the ultimate in authoritarianism as a medical professional can no longerquestion without being harassed and coerced by the authorities and denied revenue. Dr Byram Bridle of University of Guelph who in his writings reminds us all of just how many days he has been barred from his University office. As of Dec 14 it was 873.

And who can forget Dr. Jordan Peterson and his travails with the authorities. It seems the administrative state has completely taken over from our elected “leaders.”

This is most tragically highlighted in the unnecessary death of Albertan Shelia Annette Lewis, denied an organ transplantbecause she chose not to receive an experimental vaccine. What happened to personal autonomy? The World Medical Association Code of Ethics states:

“The physician must provide care with the utmost respect for human life and dignity, and forthe autonomy and rights of the patient.”

And a stupid Court ruling that a clinical procedure, although under Government management, was somehow not covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The brave followers of civil disobedience, trucker leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, are still before our courts of “justice.”

And the “Coutts Four,” what can one say?

In my own case and with other Canadians we have been deniedour right to know whether a Federal Government action violates our rights and freedoms under the Constitution.

Meanwhile our chattering, inept political leaders, with a mainstream media in tow,just spend money they do not have, ignore fairness and common sense and make promises they cannot keep.

We can only hope that a New Year will bring common sense and fairness, that someone will read the opening words of our Charter:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

The courts are wrong,

we do have a right to know

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 supposed 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.