June 14, 2024

Our Members of Parliament,

law breakers as well as law makers


Part 2. You’ll find Part 1 HERE.


This is unbelievable.


We have an NDP MP from Manitoba who seldom comes in person to Ottawa to perform her MP duties but has to go in person, with her husband and twochildren accompanyingher, to Montreal, Quebec City and Ottawa during Christmas Time – its a Christmas Holiday ­– that ‘s what it is, for the whole family and a lot of the expense paid for by you and me.


This MP is part of a Party that did a deal with the Liberals to keep the Liberals in power. Her critic position means nothing, zero. She is using this false critic position to cover for a Christmas vacation for her and her family in Ontario and Quebec, much of it on the taxpayers’ dime.


Allowing MPs to participate online in Parliamentary business was a Covid measure which the MPs have now extended to non-covid work. Give an inch they will take a yard.


This MP can’t get to Ottawa that often to do legitimate work but wow family and all to Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City for illegitimate work. She was in Ottawa for fewer than 30 days when the Parliament was open for 70 days for the period in question. But a jaunt to Quebec city during Christmas with family?


And there is the report of her going to Windsor, to talk to someone about recreational facilities – a soccer facility? She had to go to Windsor to learn about financing soccer facilities for indigenous youth in Northern Manitoba! How insulting is that? Apparently her husband went to school and university in Windsor.


It’s entitlement run wild. And even to Detroit where she met with anti-democratic Congresswoman Talib.


Where are the written reports of this MP’s meetings, with whom, for how long, what was the subject matter?


And in this same report there’s the revelation that Conservative and NDP MPs held so-called ‘caucus meetings’ while attending a party Convention – not a Parliamentary convention. Apparently the new flexible rules allow for caucus meetings to be paid for by us, but this was a party event and the Conservatives and the NDP MPs stretched the rules, got together, called it a caucus meeting, and claimed expenses.


These are our MPs folks, law breakers as well as law makers.


If this Manitoba NDP MP is that interested in saving the French language, she could start in her own Province in and around Winnipeg where 3.8 per cent of Manitobans speak French. Perhaps she could help increase that number. That would be a lot less expense on the taxpayer! I jest!


We all know that would not fit a vacation definition.


As far as The Conservatives and NDP conventions are concerned Canadians should now know, if they did not already, that our MPs are in it for themselves, the voter is just an necessary appendage to access the money and false prestige.


We need to start again, a wholesale cleansing, in order to have a chance to retain some vestige of representative and responsible government.


June 8, 2024


Dr. Henry should be fired from

public health officer position

The Premier, Government of B.C., and the Legislature should ensure Dr. Bonnie Henry is no longer the Province’s public health officer.


In a stunning revelation a very important public servant in B.C.declares that she believes illicit drugs should be legalized.


A Global News article s states: “B.C.’s premier says he disagrees with the province’s top doctor when it comes to thelegalizationof illicit drugs.”


The top doctor, so called, Dr. Bonnie Henry, confirmed that was her opinion when questioned before a Federal Parliamentary Committee – legalize illicit drugs.


And she is still the top doctor.


Our Premier says that’s not a problem because he and the top doctor agree on 90 per cent of everything else.

Well it is a problem.


Because the drug problem in this province has been a disaster and Premier David Eby and the top doctor are two of the people responsible for this failed public policy. The top doctor can be fired and that should happen – Now.

Government’s own statistics has over 13,000 dead from illicit drug use since 2016.Does that not show a failed policy??

Who is accountable?


The province has been in a public health emergency because of this drug issue since that year – 2016 – 8 years!

Eby’s new position on being opposed to drug legalization I suspect hasmore to do with politics thanpublic health policy.

But how many people is Dr. Henry influencing in the bowels of the Government and what other positions does she hold on social policy that are at odds with the majority of legislators and citizens?


She is a present danger to the well being of this Province and no one will call her out.


Or the Premier or the Minister of Health.


These people are escaping two provincial public health disasters – the management of Covid and the management of illicit drug use. Thousands have died and many more thousands have been injured.


Is common sense ever to return? Will the people seek accountability?



June 6, 2024


There are so many people

who think everything is just rosy


I am just a conspiracy fellow, way past my best-before date, desiring to utter negatives. And that excuses it all. Kill the messenger, ignore the message.


That brings me to the President of The Canadian Medical Association. Does the BC Public Health Officer or the Health Officers of all the Provinces and Territories and the Federal Public Health Officer and all the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeonsreally believe what this person said? No vaccine injuries!


And the earth is flat!


Of course, one could add most of the judges in this country whose belief in the administrative state is downright scary.


Take the Chief Justice who opined about the truckers. No accountability for him. Still the Chief Justice!


The Prime Minister who has broken the law five times. No accountability. Still the PM.


The Rouleau Commission, Government described as The Public Order Emergency Commission. Just how it is described implies some public order infraction – the propaganda begun already. And its blatant conflict of interest –Government appointscommissioner, Government determines terms of reference. You can see why my name was eliminated as a witness. I just might call it out on the witness stand. Then the Province of Alberta, alleging it is different, follows suit with its own conflict of interest charade.


We won’t get into the conflicted National Citizens Inquiry except to say a good idea gone bad.


Our Parliaments succumbing to the rich and powerful, failing to even govern themselves let alone the society that elected them.


Do people read history? Of course, the education establishment has ensured that few study it anymore.


Take Aaron Kheriaty’s book “The New Abnormal, The Rise of The Biomedical Security State.” In his first chapter he forces us to remember the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. How all the elites bought into this sad, tragic public policy disaster. We don’t seem to have learned.


Our humanity falters.


What crime did Socrates commit, or Jesus of Nazareth? Many know of the Christian gospels, few of Socrates defence in 399 BC. As Socrates said about his accusers in his public defence (Plato’s description in The Apology):“and yet they have hardly uttered a word of truth.” And Luke says Jesus said of his pending death: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”


And in both it was truth that died. Something simple, profound and powerful.


What is it now that causes such an affront to basic truths – The American Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, both products of great sacrifice, lifting ourselves from intrigue, falsity and dishonour to liberty, freedom and exalting the rights of the individual.


And now back down again?

May 20, 2024

Open letter to John Rustad, Leader Of The B.C. Conservative Party – Ideas for reform – bringing back honesty


It is obvious to all who live in British Columbia that you and the Party that you now lead are a major political force in the political life of the Province. You and your Party will have a significant influence on public policy at least over the next several years.


Given that you left the Liberal Party (now the BC United) as an MLA and moved to the Conservative Party, and now its leader, you are well aware of how politics is ‘played’ inthis Province and Country.


I would urge you to reject the politics of the past and forge a refreshing new beginning in this regard.


Unfortunately, some of your first moves have not been encouraging. For example, appointing candidates to run for the Party.


I submit the following as necessary reforms to help re-establish democracy in our Province:


A. You should reject the easy, undemocratic process of appointing candidates for the various ridings. A local association should be established and that Association should conduct a nominating meeting through which the Party’s candidate is chosen by the voters of that riding. Accountability and transparency, and democratic leadership are best served using this process.


B. Being an MLA you are well aware of the conflict of interest legislation in this Province. An MLA can break the law and still sit in the legislature. It is all up to what the Conflict of Interest Commissioner decides and recommends to the Legislature, Section 22 of the relevant Conflict of Interest Act.


You should have in your platform that you will as a Government propose an Amendment to The Act ensuring that if an MLA has violated the law as determined by the independent Conflict of Interest Commissioner, that MLA should automatically be disqualified from serving in the Legislature. Lawmakers should not be able to be lawbreakers. How undemocratic is that!!


C. Society must cleanse itself of the coercion, intimidation, lack of freedom, and lies of the last few Covid years. Truth has been raped, medical science ravaged.


Many are afraid to speak because just about everything today involves Government, directly or indirectly.So people are afraid to confront their doctor or others in positions of power. There are five million without a doctor in Canada, almost one million in this Province.


Many citizens have been injured and some died as a result of unnecessary lockdowns and mandates leading to delays in specialist appointment and surgery.. Others were injured and died as a result of the experimental vaccines. There has been no responsible accounting of these tragic circumstances.


Society cannot move on until those responsible are brought to Justice.


It is hard to believe that only one Provincial Inquiry has been conducted, even though Health is a Provincial responsibility constitutionally, and that was a very flawed one with the Government ( Alberta) controlling the whole process ( terms of reference and members of the inquiry), the Legislature sidelined,a blatant conflict of interest. The Rouleau Commission was a Federal Government controlled event, the Government establishing the terms of reference and appointing the inquiry Commissioner,and the National Citizens Inquiry has been embroiled in ethics violations and infighting among its leaders.


You now have a golden opportunity to do things right.


I recommend that you state now as part of the Party platform that if you are elected Premier that you will initiate an independent inquiry supervised by the people elected to serve – a multi-party legislature committee to hold public hearings.


All government separtments and agencies will have to provide information and testify before the Committee as requested and under oath. And the Minister of Health, the Public Health Officer and the Premier who oversaw the Province’s covid response will be required to appear. And all other Provincial public servants and agents and agencies of the Government as determined by the Committee.


The Committee will be required to call independent medical experts from around the world, mandatory to have experts from the Government of the State of Florida, and experts from the Government of Sweden, the World Council of Health, the Children’s Health Defence and the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.


Additionally, it will be mandatory for the Committee to call Dr. Charles Hoffe and personnel of The BC College of Physicians and Surgeons to determine why Dr. Hoffe has been so maliciously maligned by the College.


The Committee will be required to call Dr. Douglas Allen, Dr. Stev Pelich, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Byram Bridle and Dr. Eric Payne for their testimony concerning Governments’ covid response. These are world class Canadian experts. And the Committee will be required to call vaccine experts, to determine the adverse events situation and having Dr. Jessica Rose appear, a Canadian with a stellar International reputation in adverse events and others of her stature..


The Committee will be required to call constitutional experts and not just Government experts, but including experts from the Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Canadian Constitutional Foundation, the Civil Liberties Association, Mr. Bruce Pardy of the Fraser Institute, The Canadian Association For The Advancement of Science In Public Policy and other National and International experts as determined by the Committee.


The Committee will be provided with the budget necessary and hold hearings in all regions of the Province.


The Committee will meet for at least a year and be granted extensions by the Legislature if so requested by the Committee.


D. In Section 4:06(c) of your Party’s Constitution the treasurer is to present accurate financial statements to the annual meetings of the Party. I applaud this commitment but I would recommend that you amend this section to be “audited financial statements and that such statements be put on your Party’s website every year for all to see.”


E. Your Constitution in Section 6:04 says that the Elections Readiness Committee MAY establish a Candidates Review Committee. I recommend that you amend this section to make the process mandatory. The party must be democratic in all its dealings.


F. Similarly, Section 6:05 exempts the Candidate Review Committee decisions from any appeal. Once again I recommend this be amended to conform with the other appeal procedures of the Party contained in Section 17.


G. Many voters do not trust the verbal promises often made by political candidates or the written commitments as contained in a party platform. They seldom become law and policy with any new government. And resolutions passed at Party conventions are not binding on the Party if it becomes Government.


You could change this.


You could have a formal document – a contract with the people in which you outline your platform and have it signed by all Candidates for the Party.


This would gain instant credibility and go a long way in bringing integrity back to our political process.


H. I applaud the climate, vaccine, budget, taxation parts of your platform. I would recommend that you amend the platform provision on a balanced budget giving a specific time line. Many past platforms of parties have had a general commitment and that ends up being more and more deficits, larger and larger debts. No balanced budget.


But all these positions are not binding without a formal contract as recommended above.


Why should any voter trust a Party without legally-binding commitments given the lies and broken promises of the past.


I. Given the blatant violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Governments and Courts during to so called pandemic period, as well as many violations even before this period, you commit to the principle that any new law or policy proposed by your government will be obligated to provide publicly written reasons of how this new law or policy conforms with the first principles our Charter: The Supremacy of God and the rule of law.


This will be a strong reminder to the Judiciary that they are in the business of upholding our Constitution, not ignoring parts of it, but interpreting all of it, and not issuing judicial fiat to changing the Constitution, an act that can only be done by the elected representatives of the people as outlined in Section 38 of the Charter.


Your public comments that you accept people of various views to the Party does not, I trust, mean that the party’s principles are to be compromised for the sake of numbers. Rather all are welcome who adhere to the Party ‘s contract with the people.


Respectfully submitted
Honorable A. Brian Peckford PC

May 18, 2024

The Canadian judiciary flunks again

– on the Constitution and science

Is it that hard to read these days beyond what you are fed?It seems that way with Canada’s Judiciary.


Take the BC Supreme Court Decision by one Judge Coval of the B.C. Supreme Court:

Ruling that Th Public Health Officer did not violateany of provisionsthe Constitution or contradict science by maintaining mandates for heath care workers.


First,the Judge has violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by ignoring consideration of the opening words of the Charter:

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


Second, the intent of Section 1 was for it to be used in war, insurrection, the existence of the country was at stake.There was no such condition prevailing duringthe so called Covid pandemic.


So, constitutionally, the Judge continues the assault on the actual words of the Charter by ignoring them and disregarding intent, a commonly used concept in many judicial decisions in Canada and internationally.


Three, the medical literature is full of evidence thatmandates do not work. Dr. Douglas W. Allen of Simon Fraser University, in the Province where the Judge resides, drew attention to this in hispublished report entitled “Covid Lockdown Cost/Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature”. Surelyhis honour has read this report reviewing 80 International studies highlighting the weak to non-existentevidence of mandates/lockdown effectiveness.


There is also the work of Japaneseresearchers showing a higher incidence of cancer among those vaccinated than was traditionally the case before the Covid vaccine was used.


Was the Judge aware of the work ofHart Group (one click away on computer) concerningcancer and the Covid vaccines? There are numerous other reports on the negatives of mandates, lockdownsand the negative effects.


Was the Judge aware of the Great Barrington Declaration and its authors, three of the most-esteemed scholars in medical research and the ongoing work of the may authors of the Brownstone Institute? A quick browse of theInstitute’s web page would cause the judge to legitimately doubt the Government narrative to which he is so solely devoted.


For brevity, let me just record one more source: Is the Judge aware, he ought to be, of the book Turtles all The Way Down, the Science and Myth Of Vaccines? The book and its 1,200references is trying to be ignored by the authorities but is readily available at Amazon and produces a devastating record of medical incompetence, and wilful ignorance and deliberate deception when it comes to vaccines.


Before Covid, science clearly stated the ineffectiveness of mandates, lockdowns and masks. Something changed in that approach that has never been explained. Why? Because it cannot be explained honestly.


So, scientifically, the Judge needs to update his science.


Sadly, another shining example of the state of our nation.


24-05-10

Rex Murphy, Canada’s great wit, passes


When a voter was asked many years ago why he did not vote for Rex Murphy in his losing attempt for a party nomination in his native Newfoundland, the answer to a local reporter was: "I would vote for Rex if understood those big words."


But later Canada understood him as an insightful, eloquent spokesman in his various media capacities. The CBC Cross Country Checkup program gave him the opportunity to converse with Canadians of every background and from every region. And I believe Rex enjoyed that interaction. And likely Canada got to appreciate his talents more in such roles rather than be trapped with a political party affiliation. Additionally, his later newspaper columns were keenly anticipated, enjoyed and appreciated by Canadians everywhere.


Rex attended Memorial University during my time there and we enjoyed English Literature both of us students in Dr. Pitt’s Romantic Poets course. And I served on the Students Council when he was the President.


We have lost a great scribe , an independent thinker, both in short supply in today’s world.

24-05-01

Preston Manning has a bad idea

 

Preston Manning recently proposed the ‘regions’ concept, an idea he would like to see endorsed by a future Canadian government. I suppose he is eager to see Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre adopt this idea. Perhaps he is acting for Poilievre to test the waters before he becomes PM. From all reports he is firmly with Poilievre.


Of course, having a given federal government or Parliament endorse anything these days is the kiss of death. And it can easily be changed by successive governments or parliaments. So little of value there. 

 

Manning is way off the mark.


First and foremost, we must address the COVID mess. The Government of Canada (and all the Provinces and Territories) has done its part to abuse our constitution and cause undue harm. Many including me are still fighting in the courts for justice. Those responsible must be brought to Justice. The Inquiry that Manning led in Alberta is a whitewash of what needs to happen. And the National Citizens Inquiry got in to trouble over Manning’s ethics. And has had a serious rupture since. Sadly, some honest people got wrapped up in that exercise. I still don’t see any audited financials on their revamped site.


Manning still does not get it that integrity and honesty must come first.


The next action is to make Political Parties and Parliaments honest.


So, secondly, have his friend Poilievre propose an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act such that an MP who breaks the law cannot serve in the House of Commons. I have written Poilievre but I am only a small fish and thus have been ignored. But big fish Manning might be able to cozy up to the leader and who knows? The Conservative Party in its latest convention failed to do this.

 

Thirdly, Manning can also impress upon the leader that the Conservative Party should publish on the Party’s website annual audited financial statements — let the people know where the money comes from and where the money goes. The Party collects and spends millions of dollars a year. And why not have a designated period at annual conventions where the budget is presented and members able to question the Party brass? That would be democracy.

 

Fourth. Then there is the business of Parliamentary Government vs Executive Government and Courts infringing on policy.  The PM’s office has become too powerful and the Parliament too weak. Note the SNC Lavalin affair. The Courts have abused the Constitution, as many recent decisions attest. 

 

These are immediate issues that have to be changed if our democracy is to be restored.

 

My Magna Carta on my blog (www.peckford42.wordpress.com) deals with many more. 

 

Proposing some “regions” concept through the Federal Government is a non starter.

 

Fifth. Manning needs to read The Constitution Act of 1867 and 1982.

 

The political structure of this country can only be changed through the Constitution. Trudeau Sr tried to do federal action and got rebuked by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1981. The Federal Government is not the national government. 

 

Manning begins the article with ‘Canada is a nation of regions.’

 

You can describe it how you like but constitutionally it is a federation composed of a federal government and ten provincial governments sharing power, Sections 91 and 92 of The Constitution Act 1867. That is the reality 

 

Manning mentions ‘with the co-operation of the Provinces’ only once in the article. And this is vague.

 

Any attempt to diminish the power or influence of individual provinces, which is likely under a ‘regions’ recognition, threatens the integrity of our Constitutional arrangement. There is already too much overreach as we see in the courts and the federal government’s encroachment in the areas of the environment and taxation. This sounds like the World Economic Forum in miniature – reduce the power of individual constitutionally existing units through the back door. Such federal action is misguided, unconstitutional and wrong.

 

Near the end of the article Manning demonstrates his lack of appreciation of our Federal system when he says:

 

“And thus the question: Could not official recognition of the regional character of Canada by the next federal government, and the fashioning of a pro-active but conditional response to the distinctive concerns and aspirations of each as suggested above, turn what has previously been a divisive national liability into a unifying asset for Canada as a whole?”

 

This is a National issue not a federal one. It would require a Constitutional action, a majority of provinces and the federal government in a very structured process.

 

One of the great achievements of the Constitution Act of 1982 was the Amending Formula that had evaded leaders from the 1920s to the 1980s. 

 

Canada can now amend its own Constitution without any reference to the U.K. It can mold what it wants.

 

So I suggest to Manning that if he is eager to assist in a more functional Canada he begin with the COVID mess, then with a more honest and more democratic federal parliament and Government and reformed Courts and then The Constitution which must involve the Provinces and The Federal Government. 

 

This is available in an already established constitutional procedure called The Amending Formula, Section 38 of the Constitution Act 1982. 

 

Throwing bandaids at a massive national wound by potentially further abusing our Constitution is clearly not an option. 

 

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


24-04-28

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?”



24-04-22

Boy it’s really getting strange

and scary out there. C’est le silence

 

The Times Colonist will not respond to my rebuttal several weeks ago to their article on vaccines. At one time they would carry my articles. What’s up? I thought the fourth estate was all about robust debate.

 

The new Leader of the BC Conservative Party has not answered my two e-mails to him, one last fall and the other in the last few weeks.  Last fall I wrote him recommending that he criticize the Minister of Health and the Premier on vaccine and health policy not the Public Health Officer. As a seasoned politician (?) he should know the PHO reports to the Minister and the Premier and it is they who report to the Legislature and the people. Criticize them!

 

Then there was/is Pierre Poilievre, leader of his majesty’s  opposition in Parliament,  who refuses to answer any of my e-mails sent to his parliamentary office.

 

I wanted to know if he would propose an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act whereby the loophole would be closed allowing MPs who break the law and continue to serve in the Parliament. Right now the PM has broken the Conflict of Interest law five times and still serves in the Parliament.

 

He likes to go around Canada preaching accountability and transparency perhaps the best place to start is with the MPs like himself first – and while he’s at it perhaps he could see to it that his Party publishes on the Party’s website the annual audited statements of his Party. 

 

So there you have it – Press, Provincial  and Federal. And I could go on!!!

 

We are being badly served even by those who are not in power – and two of them, the polls suggest, will soon be in power. 

24-04-17

Our rights are being trampled on

“Our legal system may find me/us guilty, but the legality and morality of our country are no longer aligned.”


This is a part of the statement by Marco Huigenbos of the Coutts Three after being found guilty of mischief for behaviour at the Alberta border during the Covid protests.


He hits the nail squarely on the head.


This country through its so-called legal system has ignoredthe Charter of Rights and Freedoms opening words: “Whereas Canada is founded on principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law” and abused Section 1 of the Charter by violating “demonstrably justify” and in “a free and democratic society”, and hence no longer has the decency or respect towards its people that is characteristic of a democratic nation.


Thousands have been injured and many hundreds dead as a result of governments’ mandates and lockdowns and blatant coercion and lies to use experimental health damaging vaccines. Peoples rights and freedoms have been trampled on and our Constitution destroyed.


These Coutts men are to be lauded for their courage, their faithand their tenacity in the face of the country’s leadership, at all levels, that has lost its way.


This present leadershippolitical, judicial in our country, at federal, provincial and municipal levels have abused the efforts our early 19th century reformers who were fighting for our rights and freedoms and have insulted all those who fought for our country’s freedom in the great wars.

Mr. Huigenbos’wisdom shines forth today.

24-04-11

A serious failure to communicate


An open letter to John Rustad, Leader, B.C .Conservative Party


I have read your communication to Michael Easton of the Easton Spectator, an internet news service In it you make two assertions.


A. “I have not seen an e-mail from Peckford.”


I sent you an e-mail on 12:12 p.m. March 30 concerning your removing Dr. Stephen Malthouse from being considereda candidate for your Party. I also sent it to the Party e-mail address in caseyou missed it at your Legislature e-mail address.


Additionally, I sent you an e-mail on November 15, 2023 concerning the role of a Public Health Officer.


B. “He has never been involved in BC politics.”


Obviously, your knowledge of your new party is limited.


I had been a member of the BC Conservative Party long before your recent conversion.


I have spoken at Public Meetings of the Party in Parksville and Duncan some years ago.


I attended the meeting that elected John Cummins as leader.


I provided policy advice on energy to the Party.


I prepared a report for the Party when John Cummins was leader concerning Provincial Policing Mr. Cummins and I held a Press Conference in Victoria releasing my report.

I was involved with the late Ian Pyfer of Victoria and the late Victor Burstall of Victoria, two highly competent lawyers, providing input into the Party’s Constitution.


By the way I conducted a one person inquiry for the Clarke NDP Government on the salmon fishery travelling to many parts of the Province holding hearingsIt gives one a sense of the place one should think and its politics.


I was involved for a short time with one of the leaders of your former party, Gordon Campbell,when his advisers sought my advice


I headed up a B.C. Provincial group advocating for the development of offshore oil and gas

So rather than ‘ never been involved in BC Politics ‘ I have been involved both at the Party and Policy level for many years.


And —I have been writing a blog for over 5 years,often on topics relevant to the province.

I regret that you never contacted me first when you decided toexpress an opinion about my political and policy activities in the Province.


Honourable A. Brian Peckford PC.


Sent to Rustad’s Parliamentary e-mail address and to the Party’s Inquiry e-mail address.

24-04-06

Oh, the B.C. Conservative Party is not Conservative? So says its leader


Did you get that? Conservative Leader John Rustad, in introducing his Party’s Candidate for Nannaimo-Lantzville, former socialist MLA Gwen O’Mahoney, explained: (from Today In BC)

 

“He said his party is not about being conservative or liberal or NDP or Green.” 

 

And, “We have been tracking people from across the political spectrum to be part of our party.” Wow!

 

Is that what you have to do to attract new candidates?

 

This is ridiculous.

 

I wonder how many of the conservative-minded people who have flocked to the party feel about that? And how some of the other recently nominated candidates for the party feel?

 

I thought Rustad was leader of the BC Conservative Party. So what happens to all the Party’s policy positions? 

 

What is lacking today is leaders and political parties who have a core set of principles and policies that they believe in and go about persuading other people that these are the appropriate principles and policies for that given jurisdiction. This attempt of trying to be all things to all people leads to a mishmash of  nothingness.

 

The NDP know who they are – big government, big spending, big deficits, big taxes, all for the collective, diminish the person, the individual – a blob of an administrative state – a plethora of regulations and petty laws, violators of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That ‘s what we have in B.C. today, both the once Provincial Liberals (foolishly renamed the BC United as if running a Province is all about labels) and the NDP have led us to an over-governed, over-taxed, union-influenced, bureaucrat-run Province.

 

One of the first signals of an “elastic party”, a non-principled party, was the party brass rejecting Dr. Steven Malthouse from being able to run for a nomination, who is standing up for principle, bodily autonomy, a person’s right to choose, the Hippocratic oath, opposing Government coercion. 

 

Now, the one party that seemed to want to get back to basics, to a real conservative framework of policy, even before the actual election, is showing the citizens that well you know this just might be just another mainstream party.

 

By the way, has there been a BC Conservative nominating meeting in the riding? Have other people had a chance to run for the Conservative nomination? Or is this more top down, undemocratic processes like we have seen in the other parties for years. For democracy to reign a local riding nominating process must happen first.

 

As Premier, I remember well many people rushing to my party wanting favours and have the leader endorse them. I insisted on being neutral, let the local riding association decide who their candidate should be.

 

You have to clearly stand for something clearly articulated and lead.

 

Being for everyone is a copout from establishing a platform and having all who wish to run support it and then persuade the majority that this is the right path for our society. 

24-04-02

A great missed opportunity

Too bad While Conservative Leader Pierre Polievre was in our neck of the woods – Nanaimo and Vancouver Island – that he did not:

Announce that he would introduce a resolution in the House of Commons at the next opportunity to amend the Conflict of Interest Act to ensure no MP could sit in the House of Commons if that MP had broken the law as determined by the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner or a Court of Law ? The PM broke the law 5 times and still sits as MP. How come all MPs allow this to continue?


And that his Party will publish on their website the annual audited financial statements of his Party.


And thirdly, that he will not, like his former boss Prime Minister Harper did, abuse the rules of Parliament, introduce bills in the Parliament that contain many items unrelated to the bills purpose – so-called omnibus bills. Harper in 2014 introduced two bills – C38 and C45 – 800 pages covering 160 laws and regulations.

Can we get some integrity back?


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.



24-04-01

24-03-30


24-03-25

BC Conservative Party

fails an early test


Sadly, the BC Conservative party fails an early test.


Dr. Stephen Malthouse of Denman Island was apparently accepted by the Party as its candidate in the new district of Ladysmith Oceanside, only to be rejected later.


Both Black Press and Epoch Times carry the story. The Sooke News Mirror, a Black Press paper, on March 28 carried the story saying:


“A Denman Island doctor suspended over COVID views is no longer running for the Conservative Party of B.C. less than one day after the party had announced his candidacy.”


The paper goes on to say that Estey’s (party president) statement does not include a reason for the party’s decision to drop Malthouse.


The Epoch Times also carried the story:


“The B.C. Conservative Party has cut ties with a Denman Island doctor whose licence was suspended in 2022 for signing mask and vaccine exemptions and making statements contradicting the regulatory college, just hours after announcing his candidacy this week.”


“The party did not offer any further explanation in its post and has yet to comment beyond its prepared media statement.”


It seems obvious that the dismissal concerned Dr. Malthouse’sCOVID views.


Butto anyone following the COVID narrative, this Party (apparently it was initially on the Party’s website) would have known that Dr. Malthouse was suspended by the incompetent College of Physiciansand Surgeons. The news article makes clear that he held views at odds with them and the Provincial Government. The news reports do not make clear whether Dr. Malthouse was ever given a full hearing by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. And look how they have treated Dr. Charles Hoffe!


And it is now clear and should be to leader John Rustad that theCOVID mandates and lockdowns were a massive mistake. Our own local professor at Simon Fraser University, Dr. Douglas W. Allen in a report in April 2021 pointed this out in reviewing the global research literature. The excuse by the President of the Party that they are new just doesn’twash if anyone was following public policy at all in the province the last four years, new party or not.


Has the “new” party already been captured by big government, big pharma? What has happenedto free speech?


The vaccine safe and effective story has been demolished: they cause injury and death and transmission happens among the vaccinated. We all know vaccinated people whohave contracted COVID — a lot of science actually says a moresevere COVID than experienced by the unvaccinated. Masks do not work and the PCR tests were flawed. Sweden and Florida experiences (rejecting lockdowns and mandates) put a lie to thepolicy that mandates and lockdowns as instituted by most of the world work. Science refutes British Columbia’s approach and that of most of Canada and many nations. Slowly the truth is being known. Look at the refusal now by people everywhere to continue taking the shots. There is too much collateral damage around not to be seen.


The BC Conservatives get it wrong on at least three counts:


If it’s Dr. Malthouse’s COVID views that have caused his dismissal they are rejecting independent science and are captured by the government narrative. They fail to see how our Constitution has been abused, rights taken away. Many thought, given their climate position, they would also see the light on COVID.


The Party has not been transparent (no reasons for why Dr. Malthouse was suddenly rejected as a candidate) something of which they accuse the government.Yet, they want to be the government and are close to being that if the polls are to be believed.


The Party is jumping on the bandwagon of denying free speech and personal medical choice.

I suspect this is not the “change” many British Columbians are seeking as they gaze down a debt-ridden, science-denying, rights-denying political highway.


24-03-26

How Good It Is To See Some Independent Constitutional Thinkers! Surely, We Will Find Some In Canada?


Curious readers might have noticed that in a recent column of mine on the career of the Professor of Constitutional Law, Seth Barret Tillman, by Tablet’s Amen Rosen, I highlighted one of Professor Tillman’s quotes.


It was : “If you’re trying to understand the past, the present often gets in the way and the past often gets rewritten to make itself useful to the present.”


Wow!


I thought of how the judiciary in Canada today are rewriting the Charter of only 40 plus years ago to make itself useful to the present. The ‘present ‘ of the judiciary is not what the Charter section actually said.


And in the same article another of Tillman’s gems:


“ We are too willing to accept explanations that have no explanatory force,” Tillman said.


How relevant to the ‘mootness’ argument in a case before the courts of which I am a part. There is no ‘explanatory force ‘ in the court’s argument in favour of using this ‘mootness’ ploy, denying almost six million Canadians a decision on the Constitutionality of the federal Government travel mandate, violating their mobility rights . The explanatory force is all on the other side.


Again, another quote


What are we doing as a society that we tell stories that don’t make any sense, and there’s no recognition that the story on its face wasn’t palatable, wasn’t believable?”


In the Manitoba Baptist Church case where independent science was ignored, the court’s story then – ‘the story on its face wasn’t palatable, wasn’tbelievable.’ To ignore independent science.


And there is more.


In the Coloradocase trying to deny Donald Trump a legitimate place on the Presidential ballot Professor Tillman and his colleague Professor Blackman advanced the following:

“During the arguments in February, the former president’s lawyers led with an idea that Tillman and Blackman had honed over the course of a nearly decade-long collaboration, the argument that had convinced an earlier Colorado trial court not to toss Trump from the ballot: Per Tillman and Blackman, the framers of the Constitutiondid not intendfor “officer of the United States” to refer to a holder of high elected office but to officials appointed by the the president, cabinet members, or courts, which meant that voters still held the final say over whether an alleged “insurrectionist” could be president.’


The framers of the Charter (I being one of the signatories)did not intend for questionable science in an alleged pandemic to be used (Section 1) to deny citizens of their rights and freedoms enumerated in the Charter.


This is all in addition to the Judiciary ignoring the opening words of the Charter (Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law) and violating the conditions of Section 1– ‘demonstrably justify’ and ‘free and democratic society.’


We desperately need a Tillman and Blackman in this country.

24-03-19

A sad day for Canada,
our democracy has been diminished


The Supreme Court Of Canada has ruled hockey players could train indoors but Christians could not pray together, even restricting outdoor worship. Box stores were open and small business were closed or restricted.


This is a scandalous verdict by the SCOC (6 to 3) on the Manitobacase brought by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms on behalf The Gateway Baptist Church challenging the closure of churches and restricting outdoor assembly.


The JCCF in its reaction to the decision said:

“The Winnipeg Jets could meet and train indoors with their extended crew, and summer Olympic competitors were allowed to train indoors. Outdoor gatherings were reduced to no more than five people, while at the same time hundreds of people could legally gather indoors at big box stores.”

The court can square any circle it seems in this country.


Take Section 1 of the Charter. The Court talks of reasonable but the section says “demonstrably justify within reasonable limits” and consistent with the rule of law and in thecontext of “a free and democratic society.”


None of this was met in this case. The court has abused the plain meaning of Section I of the Charter and I can personally vouch for the intent of the Section –the Court violated that. Nor wasany of this done in the framework of the opening words of the Charter: “The Supremacy Of God – and a Judaeo Christian God at that! The First Ministers who signed the Constitutional Document were all Christians.


The True North website says the Court says the Government does not have to meet a high bar in such cases.


One wouldthink that the Court’s view would be just the opposite when people were subjected to Government propaganda, that people were dying from delayed surgeries because of lock downs and mandate and that this was known or ought to have been known and that the vaccines did not live up to the promise by Governments.


The Courts are not there to support Government action but to examine the evidence – on health and constitutional groundsthe evidence shows our highest court has failed the nation.


24-03-18

I don’t support people who want to eradicate another people as Singh's motion suggests


Why would a Canadian federal political party support people who seek to eliminate another people?


“What was will be; what was done before, will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:19


“I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammed is the messenger of Allah – If they do, their blood and property protected.” Muhammad bin Abdullah, Prophet of Islam" – source “Sword And Scimitar” book by Raymond Ibrahim.


As readers of this editorial column know, I support the State of Israel and its fight to remain a state.


Israel does not seek the eradication of any people.


The Palestinian organizations support the eradication of the State of Israel. The Jews are the indigenous people of the land they occupy.


The Palestinians have no indigenous rights to the land they are trying to occupy.


“The Islamic doctrine of al-wala wa al-bara (loyalty, and enmity) which Mohammad preached and the Koran commands, captures all of this. The latter goes so far as to command all Muslims to “renounce” and disown relatives – “even if they be their sons, their brothersor their nearest kindred” – and to feel only enmity and hate for them until they believe in Allah alone (Koran 58:22 and 60:4).” Source : Book Sword and Scimitar – Raymond Ibrahim.


Part of NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’smotion:

———“House call on the government to: (a) demand an immediate ceasefire and the release of all hostages;(b) suspend all trade in military goods and technology with Israel and increase efforts to stop the illegal trade of arms, including to Hamas; (c) immediately reinstate funding and ensure long-term continued funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and support the independent investigation; (d) support the prosecution of all crimes and violations of international law committed in the region, and support the work of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court;(e) demand unimpeded humanitarian access to Gaza; (f) ensure Canadians trapped in Gaza can reach safety in Canada and lift the arbitrary cap of 1,000 temporary resident visa applications;(g) ban extremist settlers from Canada, impose sanctions on Israeli officials who incite genocide, and maintain sanctions on Hamas leaders; (h) advocate for an end to the decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories and work toward a two-state solution; and (i) officially recognize the State of Palestine and maintain Canada’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist and to live in peace with its neighbours.”


Israel received the highest rating for political rights among all states in the Middle East, according to Freedom House, which evaluates democracy and freedom around the world. My wife and I have met minority Druze and Bedouin leaders in their homes verifying their full citizenship as Israelis enjoying all the freedoms of the Jewish majority and who serve heroically in the Israeli arm forces.


There are more thn 130 Christian majority countries in the world, 49 Islamic and three Hindu. Israel is the only Jewish majority country in the world and has been the Jewish homeland for over 3,000 years.


Mr.Singh, your hypocrisy (indigenous rights), your false moral equivalency, and your support of terrorists groups and non-democratic states is appallingand the opposite of Canadian values.

May the majority of MPs in the House of Commons reject your unfortunate motion.



EDITOR’S NOTE - Canada will not change foreign policy based on an NDP push to officially recognize the state of Palestine, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said Monday.

March 11, 2024

Editorial boosting vaccines

lacks fact and evidence


The Times Colonist claims in an editorial – It's beyond dispute – vaccines protect us.


The newspaper says underlying factor in the rejection of vaccination is a growing disbelief in the science surrounding vaccines. Several childhood diseases long believed defeated are making a return. In Alberta, an outbreak of whooping cough has swept the province. Read their original editorial HERE.

 

Here’s how I see it in a letter to the editor. 


The editor,


I have read your editorial entitled  ‘Its Beyond Dispute —Vaccines Protect Us’

 

The content, evidence proving this assertion is unbelievably sparse: very selective use of data with no reference to research sources. Surely we should expect more from the fourth estate.  Are you not aware  that many results of so called covid deaths were wrongly reported, deaths of people with covid not from covid?

 

Obviously, you are unaware of the book ‘Turtles All The Way Down’ —Vaccine Science and Myth/ (It’s only a click away at Amazon). Here you will be faced with the science and data on the history of vaccines) I urge the authors of your editorial page to read it. It has 1200 references available to you on the science. Here you will find that almost all vaccines have not been properly tested before being made available for use by an innocent public. And the decrease in the incidence of many infectious diseases had occurred before vaccine introduction because of better sanitation and clean water. Ironically,  with the rise of vaccines so too the rise of chronic diseases and autism, reaching epidemic proportions. 

 

Secondly, you seem to be unaware of the Great Barrington Declaration authored by three of the world’s leading researchers. They are: 

 

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

 

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases

 

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.’

 

Their declaration of October, 2020 recommended a better way than was offered by Governments to combat the so-called covid virus. It has the written support of 875,985 concerned citizens, 16,121 Medical and Public Health Scientists and 47,705 Medical Practitioners. 

 

I urge your editors to read it.  

 

Thirdly, you seem unaware of the adverse effects of the covid vaccines. (In 3 years covid vaccine adverse events has surpassed the adverse events of all vaccines of the past 30 years. This has not been denied by the Governments. Previous vaccines showing just 25 deaths have been cancelled) Yet, thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries from the covid vaccines have happened and they are still sanctioned by Governments for public use – even ads using taxpayers’ money urging its use)  Are you unaware that masks do not work (Brownstone Institute – Dr. Paul Alexander, and Hart Group – hartgroup.org), and  the PCR tests as operated in Canada are unreliable?

 

Fourthly, closer to home you seem to be unaware of what has happened in our own Province. 

 

Are you not aware of the unbelievable harassment of Dr. Charles Hoffe of Lytton? And that it is still ongoing, all a result of him asking questions about having his patients health checked by other medical personnel as a result of complications soon after having taken a covid vaccine. 

 

Are you not aware of the work of Professor Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University who published  a paper in August, 2021 demonstrating that from all available literature at the time that it was most likely that the costs of the covid vaccines policy, lockdowns etc outweighed the benefits) The report is titled ‘Covid Lockdown Cost/Benefits: A Critical Assessment of the Literature.’ His conclusions have been validated) 

 

Are you unaware of the work of Dr. Stev Pelich, Professor at University of British Columbia and his questions about covid vaccines and their efficacy. 

 

Fifth, are you not aware that the safe and effective mantra, argument used by Government to persuade the public to take the vaccines has been shattered? The vaccines have proven to be unsafe and ineffective. The VAERS system in the US, a Government agency, reports that as of February 23, 2024 there have been 1,630,913 adverse covid vaccines events reported to that agency. And this a voluntary system. An earlier Harvard University study showed that this system captured less than 10% of cases. The European Medicines Agency reports similar findings.

 

Sixth, are you unaware of the work of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance? Their website is packed with studies and reports by professionals. In one study they showed that the covid vaccines were doing more harm than good. I urge your editors to read and study this site. Dr Pelich, by the way, is co-chair of CCCA’s Scientific, Medical Advisory Committee. 

 

Seventh, are you unaware of the great work of Canadians like  Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. Jessica Rose and Dr. Julie Ponesse, all giants in their fields of expertise, questioning  the science and ethics of the Governments, Federal and Provincial, covid vaccine policies? You would do well to study their work). 

 

Eighth, are you unaware that serious questions of Constitutional validity have been raised about Governments covid actions and we are seeing many cases brought against individuals being dropped by the authorities. The recent ruling of Judge Mosley should give those who rushed a covid policy doubts, that they were overstepping constitutional bounds. No Government in Canada passed the Charter of Rights test of ‘demonstrable justification’ as required by Section 1 in implementing their covid measures. Not one cost benefit analysis was done. Important parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been ignored by the authorities. 

 

Internationally, there are scores of eminent scientists who have produced research papers that seriously question Governments’ approach and who have been banned from being heard. I draw your attention to the website – totalityofevidence.com to review the work of more than 40 such experts. Additional groups include The Brownstone Institute, The Panda Group and The Hart Group, and the Children’s Health Defence. 

 

Such unbalanced reporting is contrary to the values of a free and democratic society. Science is never final – the scientific method is one of ongoing questioning. 

 

Respectively submitted, 
Honorable A. Brian Peckford PC

Last Surviving First Minister Who Signed The Constitution Act 1982 Which Includes The Charter of Right and Freedoms

 

 

March 8, 2024

24-00-07

Now that we can amend our Constitution we have no leadership to do so – Canada’s hamartia – a fatal flaw

 

One of the important arguments in the negotiations leading to the Patriation Agreement/ Constitution Act 1982 was we needed to be able to amend our Constitution. No more reference to Great Britain’s Parliament. We can set our own Constitutional course – to be a truly independent country severed from the ties of the old country.

 

This is one of the great achievements of the Constitution Act 1982.

 

But now that we can amend our Constitution we have shown none of the leadership that was shown in 1981/82 to achieve further Constitutional Reform. Once we achieved it, after more than ten attempts over many decades, we have lost our desire to continue to build a great country but rather have been beset by small, narrow thinking, repudiating the goals and aspirations of the early reformers in Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador in the mid nineteenth century.

 

The past over 40 years have been instructive in that regard. 

 

Almost from the time the Constitution Act 1982 was passed we set on a tragic course. First, there were many who questioned how this new Act came about. And for decades many constructed fantasies concerning all sort of scenarios. Books and columns by so-called leading  commentators were written on the matter propagating the myths. My book of 2012, ‘Some Day The Sun Will Shine And Have Not Will Be No More’ demonstrates the falsity of these claims.  One can still see these falsehoods today in many of the accounts of the Patriation Process of 1981. Documents proving these falsehoods of process have been ignored. So our history is distorted and scarred as a result.

 

Second, lawyers and judges saw this new Act, especially the Charter provisions, as a golden opportunity to further their own concepts and ideas of Constitution making and interpretation. Hence, early on Courts veered from the words and original meaning and intent of the Charter to new vistas of Constitution making, ignoring the fact that an amending formula was now in place in this very Constitution Act in which the Charter resides to provide for a legitimate mechanism to change our Constitution, Part V, Section 38. 

 

Courts were there (part of the three branches of democratic governance – legislative, executive and judiciary) to interpret the Constitution, not to make new laws. That is what the Amending Formula is all about and is the bedrock concept of  a democracy – the elected representatives of the people are the only ones to have the power to change the Constitution. And hence in our Amending Formula Seven Provincial Legislatures and the Parliament of Canada have to agree to general changes to our Constitution. 

 

This has all come into clearer focus in the last four years as a result of Governments’ and Courts’ actions relating to their responses to the so called covid pandemic – violating the Charter – the Constitution Act 1982, ignoring the opening words of the Charter (Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law), violating the conditions of Section 1 and many other violations of additional Charter provisions like Sections 2, 6 and 7.

 

Bluntly put, provisions of the Charter were and are being ignored, intent and context and plain meaning were and are being discarded and a free for all is happening by Governments and Courts attempting to replace an existing Constitutional provision, the Amending Formula,  with their own Constitution making.

 

Unless and until we respect our Constitution and faithfully follow its provisions as written and change it according to the rules provided, we will be governed less and less by the elected and more and more by the unelected.  

 

 

March 5, 2024

Sending any type of troops to Ukraine is madness


Ezra Levant rightly highlights the dangers of Canada sending troops to Ukraine — albeit involving so-called non-combat troops.


“After French President Emmanuel Macron suggested he wouldconsider sending soldiers to Ukraine, Liberal Defence Minister Bill Blair refused to rule out the possibility.


Speaking with theToronto Star, Blair said Canada was open to sending non-combat troops into the war-torn nation.Onlast night's episode of The Ezra Levant Show, Ezra looked at how this dangerous idea could put Canadians directly in front of potential Russian attacks.


“What would Russia do if it saw Canadian troops in Ukraine when it was attacking an area?” he asked rhetorically. “If our soldiers in uniforms were halfway around the world in a warzone, what do you think Putin would do? Do you think he would show mercy?”

In response, Putin, speaking to Russian parliament,warnedsuch a decision could escalate to nuclear war.


With Putin's comments and NATO troops being placed in harms way, this could lead to World War Three warned Ezra, who also wondered what benefit this brings Canada:


What happens if French troops, or Canadian troops, in Ukraine are attacked? Either on purpose or by accident, or not-knowingly by Russia — given that Russia is in a war there.


And not to be too conspiratorial, but wouldn't Ukraine to want that to happen in a kind of way? To commit Western ( countries)to do the job that Ukraine's military is having an increasingly difficult time doing?”


And this Federal Government committing to send more aid to a UN Palestinian Group that is under investigation for having its members involved in the massacre of Israelis on Oct 7?


Has this Government gone completely crazy——-?


The Conservative Opposition should propose anon confidence motion in the House of Commons because of such irrational actions by the Government and otherwise boycott whatever they can to show their opposition.



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.

24-02-29

24-02-24

The nanny state in full bloom – the B.C. budget


Wow! A house-flipping tax — ever hear of that before? Sell a house within two years of purchase and the profit will be taxed. How is that for freedom?


More than $26 billion of new deficits over the next four budgets including this one which is almost $8 billion – at $7.9 billion.


Spending on steroids! How is that for good financial management? Let our children and grand children and great grand children be saddled with paying it back.We are too spineless to be responsible and live within our means.


Sure, the finance minister even uses the term “affordable debt.”


And our young people are to use these leaders as role models?


The Minister says “our government has your back.”


No, it has forcedpeople unborn to pay for irresponsible behaviour, and to reduce freedom on those now living.

24-02-16

The world gets crazier every day


A city council on Vancouver Island wants a class action suite against fossil fuel companies while Canada’s cao exports boom right in that town’s back yard.


From the website of The Parksville Qualicum News:


“The Town of Qualicum Beach has committed to work with other municipal governments in the province to bring a class action lawsuit against selected global fossil fuel companies and recover the costs related to climate change.


The decision was reached by council at its regular meeting on Feb. 7 but it was not unanimous as Coun. Scott Harrison voted in opposition.”


And The Canadian Press reported Feb. 13 that Canada’s coal exports are booming going from 1 million tons in 2018 to more 8 million tons in 2022.


Where does most of Canada’s coal come from? British Columbia – just where The Town Of Qualicum is located.


Did some one say there is a new fossil fuel plant being built in Kitimat – British Columbia? It costs mor than $48 billion.


Are there are thousands of kilometres of fossil fuel pipelines all over B.C.?


24-02-07

We have a justice system in disarray


The Headlines Should Have Read: Crown drops over-the-top attempted murder charges against two of The Coutts Four in plea deal


Even the Epoch Times fell for the headline: Two of ‘Coutts Four’ plead guilty to lesser charges, to be released from custody.


Funny about that. It was the Crown who laid the charges. Conspiring to kill police officers, the Epoch Times says.


These exaggerated charges need to be exposed.


More than 720 days in jail. Mr. Morin in solitary confinement for some time. This all pre-trial detention. And denied bail.


This is not even the rule by law over the rule of law, but concocted ideas of a flawed justice system.


Obviously, the Crown realized that they did not have the evidence to prove attempted murder for we all know that if the did they would never had agreed to this plea deal .


From the Chief Justice who wrongly opined on the truckers convoy, to the many divisive words of the PM, to the unconstitutional Federal Government’s invoking of the Emergency Act, to the conflict of interest ridden Rouleau Inquiry, to all the unconstitutional mandates of the Provinces and the Federal Government we have a justice system in disarray.


24-01-29 

It seems that humankind has hit the wall

 

Where Are We? 

 

I have been writing this editorial column since 2015. I have been covering many of the major issues facing our country and the wider world.

 

I remember reading the thoughts of the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould about baseball and the 400 hitter – coming up against a sort of maxed out human achievement or some such description.

 

It sort of aptly describes now the larger human condition. And our ability to govern ourselves reasonably.

 

It’s even difficult now to find the words that won’t immediately evoke some automatic negative response. But we are having great difficultly finding modes of governance that are sensible and reasonable.

 

Many of us love history and look to the various civilizational circumstances of the past – the modes of development of the orient and the occident.

 

In the west we study intently the Greece and Roman periods for example and how the great thinkers of these civilizations have helped mold our thinking ­– in science and in political governance. 

 

Here we are with some great scientific achievements spurred on by the enlightenment and as Will and Ariel Durant put it – “The Age Of Reason.”

 

Yet, we find ourselves in a bit of a mess in many parts of the world. While there are many diagnostic analyses there are few viable treatments it seems. 

 

We seem to have lost our ability to appreciate what works and why. To see freedom as a cornerstone of any successful society.

 

This was brought home to me while watching and listening to the latest conference from Bath, England hosted by the World Council For Health and featuring many of today’s critical thinkers who also see the mess around us.

 

But I could not ascertain any real solutions, answers. 

 

From education, political governance, to climate, to vaccines, to Israel, to the UN, we have lost all perspective ­– our ability to use common sense, rather to become slaves to so called ‘experts’, bankers, internationalists, to doctors and lawyers; cluttered with words and phrases which the ordinary person cannot understand. Hence, the charge that this is deliberate by the ruling class. 

 

It seems we have hoisted ourselves on our own petard. Our own prosperity and ‘fairness’ has led us to do things which are superficially fair but end up being very unfair, authoritarian. 

 

Yet, we say we are smart?

 

Education

 

It has been hijacked by dogma that has been proven wrong historically – free speech is being attacked, evidence and the scientific method maligned and even in primary school without the people deciding, gender is ­– and parents matter hardly at all. Those who helped provide the prosperity and stability we have enjoyed are being condemned and their statues desecrated and demolished. 

 

Climate is another good example. 

 

Why does the world ignore Bjorn Lomborg’s example? Many in the ‘press’ carry his well researched thoughts but few follow his recommendations. The west cutting back on coal generation as China, India and Indonesia build more coal plants. The economics of wind and solar mean great expense and more desecration of the environment and more mining, not less. And they are not consistent stable sources of power. Environmental hypocrisy stalks the earth as taxpayer-subsidized electric cars and bikes and solar panels inundate our urban environment while concrete and steel wind turbines turn our rural environment into a wasteland.

 

The UN

 

Its human rights council is dominated by human rights abusers. Does this make sense? Their climate actions are anti science and anti common sense. Their employees in Gaza are under investigation for being involved in last October’s murderous attack on Israel. It needs to be drastically reformed or eliminated.

 

Gaza

 

Land for peace. The land given and 500 to 800 miles of terror tunnels constructed to kill the people who gave back the land for peace. And many world powers want to do it again. This is a colossal breakdown of world order and massive deceit.

 

Vaccines 

 

Medical science and its political, high tech and press partners have pushed vaccines that do not have proper study and clinical research on a trusting public. As infectious diseases incidence goes down through cleaner water and better sanitation chronic disease incidence goes up. How can that be in our ‘advanced’ economy? And why won’t medical science do a study on the difference between the rate of autism among the vaccinated vs the rate among the unvaccinated?

 

Why do they ignore the book “Turtles All The Way Down”, the Science and Myth Of Vaccines?

 

Political Governance 

 

Most successful societies have been ones where democracy is/was practised and based upon the Judaeo Christian tradition. As public intellectual Ayaan Hirst Ali said in her essay Why I Am Now A Christian:

 

“To me, this freedom of conscience and speech is perhaps the greatest benefit of Western civilization. It does not come naturally to man. It is the product of centuries of debate within Jewish and Christian communities. It was these debates that advanced science and reason, diminished cruelty, suppressed superstitions, and built institutions to order and protect life, while guaranteeing freedom to as many people as possible.”

 

In the last decades critical elements of this governance have deteriorated through out the western world. Executive government and unelected bureaucrats are now dominating the governance of these nations ­– elected Parliaments rather than continuing to play the dominant role have allowed their legitimate power to be lost: replaced by the Administrative State. Why have so many ignored Frederick Hayek’s ideas? Even our Judiciary have become infected. 

 

Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water perhaps we should be looking at reforming our present system, amending, eliminating those elements that have been allowed to be abused? I have proposed solutions through my Magna Carta but why is no one listening?

 

Globalism

 

A peaceful, successful world does not mean world government. It means democratic, successful sovereign nation states co-operating. History, culture, local language are important for cohesive, happy societies to exist. The WEF and the WHO are anti democratic and counter productive to a peaceful, prosperous world.

 

Our best hope is a revolution of reform to our democracies ­– and nation states.

 

We have not cared for our democratic garden, many weeds exists ­– better ongoing vigilance is required.  

 

And it must start with the people and continue to be the people in charge – this last idea of continuous people involvement and its absence in recent times is perhaps humankind ‘s biggest failure. 

Federal Court backs up long-standing argument

on interpretation of Canada's Constitution

EDITOR’S NOTE: Brian Peckford has had an ongoing battle with various judiciary about the interpretation of Canada’s Constitution and Charter of Rights. Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley has ruled that the federal government was not justified to use of the Emergencies Act to shut down the Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa two years ago.

 

This is amazing, starting. Justice Mosley’s further judgment commentary talks of reading legislation as written with context and intent and grammar as I have done on Constitutional interpretation of The Charter Of Rights and Freedoms.

 

The Judge on how proper interpretation must occur: 

 

[117]­ – I note that the Preamble of the Emergencies Act states that in taking the special temporary measures authorized by the Act, the Governor in Council must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In Quebec (AG) v Moses, 2010 SCC 17 at para 101 the Supreme Court of Canada said as follows:

 

“The wording of a statute’s preamble often provides insight into the statute’s purpose or goal that can be helpful to a court interpreting it. According to s. 13 of the federal Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, “[t]he preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.” [...]

 

Although a legislative preamble will never be determinative of the issue of legislative intent since the statute must always be interpreted holistically, it can nevertheless assist in the interpretation of the legislature’s intention [...]

 

[1. However, it is clear from the legislative history and language of the Act that the intent and purpose of the EA was to preserve and protect fundamental rights even in emergency situations where special temporary measures may be required. Thus, it is not necessary to refer to the ICCPR to interpret the provisions of the Act. The modern principle of interpretation set out in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd, [1998] 1 SCR 27 at para 21[Rizzo & Rizzo] governs. 

 

It requires that the words of the Act “are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.

 

Accordingly, the reference in the Preamble to the ICCPR may serve as an interpretative aid as to the legislative intent of the EA.”

 

Now more than two years ago and ever since, I have been making similar points as it relates to interpreting the Charter —— in my Personal Declaration statement that was carried on The Covid Care Alliance website and on my own blog and in many public speeches I have given live and others via the internet. 

 

I talked about the opening words of the Charter, some call the preamble, “the supremacy of God” and “the rule of law:” About the fact that a colon ended that section. In other words, these concepts were to be the framework concepts on interpreting the Charter provisions that followed. 

 

And I talked of intent — that as a First Minister who helped craft the Charter, with many others, the intent of Section 1 of the Charter was clear — it was to be used only in time of war. Insurrection, the state was in jeopardy. Section 4 of the Charter made that intent clear.

 

“Continuation in special circumstances:

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

End note

(83)”

 

No Court has been willing to hear what I have to say about intent! Or the opening words of the Charter. Many lawyers have bought into this. The same with almost all media and establishment think tanks. 

 

Now, finally a real judge is looking at what the Constitution actually says and court rulings about interpretation.

 

All the words and phrases of the Constitution Act mean something and must be brought to bear on any judgment involving the Constitution — in this case that part of the Constitution called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

This was not done in earlier Court decisions. One need not get into the tests in Section 1 that were violated. 

 

As Judge Mosley says:

 

“It requires that the words of the Act “are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.”

 

Wow!

 

 

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.


24-01-04

A personal declaration of opposition

to the abuse of our Charter of Rights

and Freedoms by the State.

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


24-01-01

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."

23-12-29

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.