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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loss of Civil Liberties

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Need for Reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Now there’s something wrong with that.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

We cannot do it here in Canada.

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

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

The Times Colonist reports:

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

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

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

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

No doubt the funds will come from the carbon tax.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should have known the capitulation was coming. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I did. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I answered “What would Jesus say?” 

“Render unto Caesar”

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

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

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

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

It’s a rejection of science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebel News reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haven’t we learned enough already?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am sure your members would even contribute more.

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

23/02/21

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

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

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

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

The principal of conflict of interest was breeched. 

A Government given the powers to investigate itself. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23/02/16

Strike One 

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

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

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

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

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

One could say Flawed —

Strike Two 

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

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

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

Other persons and groups were calling for similar action. 

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

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

Note the words ‘truly independent’.

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

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

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

Independence lost – conflict of interest on full display. 

One could say flawed!

Strike Three

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

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

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

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

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

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

One could say flawed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whew!! 

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

And the public is cynical? Throw them all out!

23/02/19

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

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

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

Not true, just the operating account. 

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

Oh, no, just keep spending. 

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

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

Look at Ontario and California if one wants examples. 

23/02/07

I woke up thinking of Paul Simon’ s lyrics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And we all let it happen!

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

To put it crudely, many were bought off!

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

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

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

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

And all that history came tumbling down on the individual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No accountability and transparency.

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

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

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

‘Slip sliding away . . .’

23/02/01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Conservative Official Opposition?

Source: My Magna Carta For Canada

23/01/31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can objectivity prevail in such a circumstance ? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23/01/25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23/01/09

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

The judiciary has overstepped its authority. 

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

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

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

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

A colon was placed after these words. Why?

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

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

It surely isn’t from the Constitution itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What balderdash! 

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

‘CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

PART I

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

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

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

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

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

And as such are integral to the Charter.

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

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

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

But worse than that!!

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

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

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

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

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

And they were and are wrong on this!

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

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

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

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

Judges interpret law and the Politicians make that law. 

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

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

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

Honourable A. Brian Peckford PC 

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

23/01/07

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

‘Finance Minister Bill Morneau waited two years to disclose a private corporation that owns a villa in southern France that he shares with his wife to Canada's ethics watchdog, CBC News has learned.

In fact, Morneau only disclosed the corporation to conflict of interest and ethics commissioner Mary Dawson's office after CBC News discovered its existence and began asking questions.’

But have no fear, he is being given ample opportunity to publicize his new book. Paul Wells of MacLeans magazine renown has a review out on his book and is to interview him, so he brags, on January 23 at Munk School, University of Toronto.

Apparently, Morneau devotes but one page to former colleague, Jody Wilson -Raybould. You know he was tangled up with Trudeau Jr. in that SNC-Lavalin Scandal – trying to get Corporate people to be relieved of messy court proceedings and interfered with the normal course of justice that Raybould was trying to maintain in her Department of Justice. 

So people in high places can do just about what they want but let a person like Tamara Lich stand up for our rights under the constitution and she is brought in shackles to a court to appear before a former Liberal Trudeau supporter. 

No one to help her to be relieved of her court appearance and ongoing harassment.

23/01/04 – They will fail in the court of public opinion and the world of common sense. Yet we may lose our democracy.

What is this country coming to? A man who is a household name across the Globe. A person who stands for common sense and writes books detailing that.

Oh! And he was raised in a democratic country where expressing your views,  and exercising free speech, was a given.

And now the silly so-called professional association of Ontario wants to try to destroy him. They tried before. Didn’t work out well for them then and it will not now!

Now some jealous, attention-seeking individuals contact this professional organization and seek his professional scalp because a doctor of psychology expresses his views. 

And the incompetent, woke soaking, professional association has nothing better to do than pursue petty word play accusations laid against an honourable man who has the gall to speak truth and boldly express that in public.

The Administrative State expressed through professional organizations and universities are a big part of what is killing democratic Canada. The political leaders are doing their part either openly or lacking the courage to really do anything. And the police and judiciary seem in overkill mode with Tamara Litch and this past few days with John Carpay of the Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms. 

Witness Dr. Charles Hoffe, Dr. Stephen Malthouse, Dr Francis Christian and Dr. Byram Bridle, Daniel Bulford, and Tom Marazzo. All targeted.

The people must speak, it’s  the only answer to saving our democracy! 

If they do not and fall back into their decades-long slumber the state will win,  the people will lose and democracy will die.

Read The Daily Wire story on the issue HERE.

23/01/02

The book ‘Turtles All The Way Down’ edited by Zoey O’Toole and Mary Holland on which you no doubt are already tired of hearing about from me, does a wonderful analysis of this. 

1. In 2005 journalist Dan Olmsted did a review of the incidence of autism in Amish children in Lancaster county, Pennsylvania. He found that there was a lower incidence of autism among them than in the regular population. He theorized this lower incidence was the result of lower vaccination rates given the Amish did not adhere to the use vaccines. Although this review was published far and wide no one ever followed up with a detailed scientifically based study to validate or invalidate MR. Olmsted’s findings. What an opportunity for the CDC or other research institutions to find out the facts.
   
2. The Homefirst clinic in Chicago, operated by Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, indicated that they don’t know of a single case of autism, among the thousands of unvaccinated children they’d had under their care over more than 30 years of practice. Once again, the information was known but no one followed up to test the validity of the clinic’s claim.
   
   
3. In Israel, at the Ruppin Academic Center, a study on Ethiopian children in Israel but who were born in Ethiopia compared with other Ethiopian children who were born in Israel. The incidence of autism was higher among those children who were born in Israel versus those children born in Ethiopia. And it is known that Ethiopian born children had fewer vaccines, if any, than Israeli born children whose parents were Ethiopian. This study has not be referenced by any U.S. agency or any funding provided to test the results of it.
   
   
4. Another incident where children of Somali descent born in Minnesota, had high incidence of autism. In Somali autism is unknown and their language does not even have a word for it. No follow up by anyone.
   
5. Three attempts to pass laws in the U.S. Congress to study the vaccinated and unvaccinated for the incidence of autism – 2007, 2013 and 2017 – have all failed to get passed, not even get to the first phase of the legislative process. The Congress representatives involved were Caroline Maloney and Dave Weldon in 2007 and Bill Posey involved in 2013 and 2017.

What’s going on? No one it seems wants to even do a VU (vaccinated vs unvaccinated) study to test these very disturbing findings. None have been done to this day. Yet the incidence of autism diagnosed in children today is much higher than in earlier times. And there are more vaccines now. 

Pages 209, 210 and 211 in the book is where you will find detail of the above incidents. 

The book has 1,200 references that you can access free. And there you can validate what the book is saying. Here is the link ­https://tinycurl.com/TurtlesBookEngRef to the 1,200 studies. 

Turtles All The Way Down, Vaccine Science and Myth 

Forward by Mary Holland, J. D. 

Edited by Zoey O’Toole and Mary Holland

I wake up almost every morning thinking of this abomination, Parliament voluntarily giving up its power. 

One of the most egregious acts of Parliament in the modern era by providing in law, legislation which mandates that the Federal Government can conduct conflict of interest measures like an inquiry to examine itself. 

Can you imagine the Parliament of Canada actually, deliberately bestowing power by law upon the Government to examine itself?

That’s what happened when the Emergencies Act was introduced by the Conservative Government of Brian Mulroney to replace the War Measures Act. 

So the whole idea was/is that if the government of the day invokes this act –declares an emergency and gains all this extra powers that when it is all over, there is to be an Inquiry to determine whether the Government acted properly under the Act. 

Here is the authority the Parliament ‘gave’ to the government to examine itself. 

• 63 (1) The Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency
• Report to Parliament
(2) A report of an inquiry held pursuant to this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament within 360 days after the expiration or revocation of the declaration of emergency.

For those unversed in government terminology, the Governor Of Council means the Cabinet, essentially the government. 

This act was introduced by the Hon. Perrin Beatty who was the Defence Minister at the time. 

It is under this Section 63(1) the Trudeau government earlier this year outlined the terms of reference and appointed a commissioner. 

And if it is possible, it gets worse. Everybody goes along with this charade as if it has some semblance of legitimacy.

A Government examining itself. 

This new normal is a contradiction of accountability and responsible government.

When reformers were campaigning for legislatures before Confederation they were campaigning for representative government, citizens were to have a voice through a duly elected legislature. 

But more, they were also campaigning for responsible government where the Cabinet of the Government of the Day would be composed of people who were elected to that legislature. In other words, accountability of the government to the legislature or Parliament. 

Nova Scotia achieved responsible government in January 1848, and in March of the same year the Province of Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and New Brunswick and three years later Prince Edward Island and in 1855 Newfoundland. 

So are we now having Parliament retreating to the 1840s by giving up the power that was hard won even before Confederation? 

Source : Responsible Government— The Government of Canada — Robert MacGregor Dawson—University of Toronto Press

As the New Year approaches one has to look back and assess just how blatantly dismissive , undemocratic our leaders have become.

October , 2021

I wrote to all the 11 first Ministers of the Provinces and The Federal Government seeking their position on the procedure (that they all had at their disposal ) to test the constitutionality of their draconian unconstitutional mandates initiated allegedly to combat the so called covid crisis.

Most did not even have the courtesy to respond. The one that did respond was my native Province where I had been the First Minister for a decade. In this case the Government there threatened me that if I indicated publicly what their response was and the reason that they provided me they reserved the option to take me to court. Their answer was that they could not tell me. And the reason was they could not infringe upon the lawyer/client relationship—the Province’s Department of Justice and the Government.

April/ May 2022

I wrote all the First Ministers including the Territorial Leaders (who now go by the title as Premier) to inquire as to whether they would support a Citizens Led Independent National Inquiry to ascertain the constitutionality of the lockdowns and mandates implemented across the country and to the legitimacy of the medical science used .

Once again the silence was almost complete. New Brunswick Government did respond but only to say that they would have the their own Legislature, which they controlled, investigate their mandates and investigate the legitimacy of their lockdowns and mandates .

September 2022

I wrote the new leader of the Conservative Party requesting that he do three things to prove he is really different than his predecessors: one have his party complete audited financial statements every year of his Party and have them published on the Party’s website, two , support publicly a citizen led inquiry into the pandemic, investigating the constitutionality of the measures taken, and the science behind the measures and three, propose an amendment to the Conflict if Interest Act whereby MP’s cannot sit in the Parliament if they violate the law as determined by the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner or a Canadian Judge.

No response.

Years ago if someone told a Canadian citizen that a former first minister of this country could not get present first ministers to respond to a letter he wrote them on important policy issues I suspect most would exclaim that this cannot be true.

But it is true—and furthermore most people do not care —and the main stream press ignore it because most of them have received money from the very Governments about whom they now are now asked to carry negative comments . Think tanks and other observers of the political scene cast it all off for some spurious reason, and universities, those once bastions of seeking truth and democracy and accountably , have abdicated their mission and responsibility to society. And no opposition leaders in any of the jurisdictions said one word of support to the ideas I was advancing let alone contact me.

Obviously , Governments and large sections of the population have lost their way in the practice of representative and responsible Government, abandoned our democratic reformers who were fighting for such ideas even before Confederation in 1867. For example my native Province , Newfoundland and Labrador , achieved Representative Government in 1832 and Responsible Government in 1855.

How would those reformers view the present leaders of this once proud democracy as they continue to ignore what made this country special and important in the world?

22/12/18

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.”

22/12/12

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.