Premier Brian Peckford joins a January 27th lawsuit by the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), challenging Canada’s unvaxxed flight ban as ultra vires under the Aeronautics Act, citing Charter violations—sections 2A, 6, 7, 8, and 15—while rejecting medical exemptions due to privacy and autonomy concerns. Cases like Ken Bajant’s forced 5,000-km winter drives highlight mandates’ undemocratic overreach, Peckford argues, comparing them to Nuremberg Code violations and noting global recognition of natural immunity, yet Canada’s dismissal of it. With legal filings led by Keith Wilson, Peckford warns legacy media bias may skew judicial outcomes, but hopes courts will uphold rights against systemic coercion. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, a special conversation with Premier Brian Petford, the last surviving premier who signed the Charter of Rights, will talk about his new lawsuit challenging the vaccine mandates for airplanes.
It's February 3rd, and this is the Escher Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Well, you might recall that we had a fascinating conversation with Premier Brian Peckford, who is the last surviving premier who signed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a generation ago.
He was the Premier of Newfoundland at the time, and now he is a freedom activist who is tackling lockdown extremism.
He's based in Vancouver Island.
What an enjoyable conversation we had with him.
But now he's joining us not as a pundit, but as a plaintiff.
He is one of a half dozen plaintiffs who are in a Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms lawsuit challenging the flight ban against Canadians who are not vaccinated.
I have read the lawsuit cover to cover, and I encourage you to do so.
It's only 20 pages long.
And although there is some legalese in it, it's pretty easy to understand.
It's very clearly written, which is something to be admired in a legal document.
We'll have a copy of it on the website below.
But what a pleasure it is now to be joined via Skype with Premier Peckford.
And I'm going to call him that, just the same when you call a retired president president.
We're joined now by Premier Peckford to walk through this lawsuit page by page.
And if you're as interested in it as I am, I hope you'll stay with us for the whole conversation.
Premier Peckford, what a pleasure to have you back.
Thank you.
Thank you for having me back.
I think it's all very important.
We're talking about the rights and freedoms of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
There's nothing more important than this as far as I'm concerned.
And I'm glad you see it the same way as I do.
Well, I've seen a lot of lawsuits over the last two years, and many of them were doomed, even some very well-crafted ones.
This is very concise.
There's not a wasted word, and I find it very compelling.
Obviously, I'm sympathetic.
Let's jump right into it.
I have it in front of me, and we're going to show sections of it on the screen as we go through it.
Premier, I'm sure you know this practically by heart.
The first thing to note is that this lawsuit is filed in the federal court.
There's different court systems.
The federal court, that's because that would be the court with jurisdiction over national projects like air regulations, right?
Exactly.
Exactly.
And very important.
And also, we chose the mobility situation in the charter, mobility clause, where people are not allowed to travel.
Also, because every Canadian is affected by it.
A lot of the provincial measures are different.
They all have measures, which we don't agree with, but they're different in different provinces.
But this particular federal action does affect every single Canadian because we all know we have friends, family, and work.
You should see the emails I've gotten so far from people who can't go from Vancouver to Toronto.
And they have an office in Vancouver.
They have an office in Toronto.
And so this is deliberate on the part of JCCF and myself and the others who are part of the litigation that this affects all Canadians.
And like you said, goes straight to the federal court.
Yeah.
Well, I'm literally going to go line by line here because there's meaning in every line.
The next line is the list of plaintiffs.
And you're the first one, the Honorable A. Brian Peckford.
And then there's five other names, Leisha Nikonen, Ken Bajant, Drew Bella Babba, Natalie.
Gritsch and Aide McDonald.
Forgive me for not pronouncing the names right.
Each one of these people is a Canadian citizen.
And further down in the lawsuit, their own story is told.
Why they need to fly, why they can't fly.
So these are six severely normal Canadians, other than the fact that you just happen to be a former premier.
Exactly.
And I think JCCF and their lawyers were very smart, as you seem to indicate as well, in doing this, because now you have a kalioscope view of different Canadians, all Canadian citizens, all with their particular story of how they're affected by this travel ban.
That's pretty powerful stuff.
And in my own case, forget that I'm a former premier and a crafter of the Constitution, one of the first ministers who helped craft it.
Here I am in Vancouver Island and I got family in Nova Scotia.
I got family in Ontario and I got family back in Newfoundland.
Well, you know, give me a break.
And the other thing is, of course, I'm restricted now from speaking because of the distance so far.
So most of the speaking I've been doing on the Constitution has been here on Vancouver Island because I'm prevented from moving quickly to another part of Canada.
And therefore, I'm unable to get my message out like I should be legitimately able to do like other Canadians.
Yeah.
And of course, these same regulations apply to rail.
And I understand they apply to ferries as well.
You know, we are the second largest country in the world.
And to ban, and you're on an island no less.
And to ban people from air travel is, you know, this is not like Vatican City where you can walk across.
It's not Monaco.
It's the second largest.
And very interesting to me, one of the plaintiffs is in the far north.
So, I mean, imagine how critical that is.
All right, let's keep moving.
I mean, we're only at the first two lines of the lawsuit, and I do want to get through it.
Again, one thing I want to salute the JCCF, and we're big fans, have been for a long time, is how lean this lawsuit is.
It doesn't go running off in all directions.
It just sues the Minister of Transport, and it names the Attorney General, which is appropriate whenever you're suing the government.
So this isn't going after every single possible person.
I've seen some lawsuits out there, 400 pages, that get sloppy and that are, this is focused like a laser.
I think that's important, isn't it?
Absolutely important.
And I'm glad you highlighted.
A lot of other people haven't highlighted it yet because many of them haven't read it.
They've just read a press report, which does nothing to the lawsuit at all.
And kudos to you for actually having the lawsuit in front of you and reading it because now you can factually indicate what it's all about.
And yeah, it is laser focused upon the Ministry of Transport who issued those travel bans under the Aeronautics Act, which we, through the lawyers, indicate is completely wrong too.
It doesn't apply there.
But in any case, yeah, we're zeroing right in on this travel ban and how it violates the provisions of the charter as well as the Aeronautics Act itself.
So yeah, no question.
There's no question that a lot of people have not learned that when you go to court, you have to be very specific.
And this lawsuit does that.
Yeah.
Yeah, you're right.
And by the way, it also means that the government can't get an escape hatch through your, like if you don't have five arguments, they choose the weakest one as maybe a way out.
This is lean and focused.
Now, the name of this kind of lawsuit is a judicial review, because technically it's you're not suing something has been done, an administrative regulatory act has been done, and you're seeking for that to be reviewed.
So it's just called a judicial review.
It's just the name of the kind of lawsuit.
And you're not seeking any money, if I'm not mistaken.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're seeking a recession of these rules and a declaration.
This is really, you're looking for a moral, legal, and constitutional statement from the court that what is being done is wrong.
Am I right?
Yeah, dead on.
And that is, I think, so, so important.
Yeah, exactly.
We're just seeking for redress where what we've looked at through the Ministry of Transport and the Aeronautics Act and the repercussions of the action and how it violates the various provisions of the charter.
And what we're asking for is a judicial review and that that review be able to, based upon the evidence and the legal arguments presented, declare that these measures are not consistent with the Constitution nor with the law.
Yeah.
I'm on page two now and we're going through because there's something interesting on every page.
It's only 20 pages long.
I truly do invite our viewers just to click the link underneath this video.
It's only 20 pages and it's pretty plain language.
I think it's worth a read.
Now, I see that you filed this on January 27th, not even a week ago, or perhaps exactly a week ago.
I have a question for you.
I think this is news.
It's news because this airplane lockdown is abusive.
As you say, it affects all 38 million of us.
It's news because you are who you are.
You're the former premier and you know a little bit about the charter.
It's news because the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms is a credible public interest law firm.
This isn't some long-shot, vexatious, this is a real deal.
I got a question for you, pretty blunt.
Have you been interviewed, and I hope the answer is yes, by any mainstream media?
Have you appeared on the CBC?
Have you appeared on CTV or global news?
I hope the answer is yes.
In all cases, no.
What?
You are a former premier.
I mean, you're part of Canadian constitutional history.
You weren't just a footnote premier.
You were one of the men around the table when the Charter of Rights, when the Constitution was repatriated, even if they disagree with your point of view, you were a walking repository of Canadian legal history.
Are you telling me that you have not appeared on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation whose mandate it is to talk about Canadian issues?
Absolutely.
Not one call, not one call from CBC, not one call.
Not even just, not even a hostile call.
You're saying they didn't even call.
Exactly.
Exactly.
The line has been silent.
There's been other, you know, smaller publications or podcasts and stuff like that that have called me.
And of course, yourself.
But no, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which gets over a billion dollars a year from the taxpayers of this country, have not seen fit to contact the former Premier of Newfoundland, who not only helped craft the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but whose proposal the night of November the 4th, 1981, was the basis for the Constitution and Act, which included the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Now, that's just where it is.
Well, Premier, I got to tell you, I would bet my life savings that if you had come out in favor of the lockdown, you would be the toast of the town of the CBC.
They would be battling over who gets to interview you over there.
That's my prediction.
Yeah, and I couldn't agree with you more.
They've been extremely hostile towards me.
And of course, I've actually written the National Post on several occasions, and they won't even carry my letters anymore.
So the Global Mail hasn't even contacted me.
So if these people keep declaring that they're national newspapers and yet they won't interview me on something that's crucial to the history and to the democracy of our nation, one has got to ask some pretty serious questions.
You know, even if they don't support you, it's news.
It just is objectively news that a serious credible lawsuit has been filed in the federal court by six plaintiffs, one of whom is the former premier, who is actually there, the drafting the charter, making charter arguments.
I don't care if you like it, hate it, or neutral.
That is objectively, factually news.
And all these newspapers of record that you've just listed, I'm truly shocked that the National Post is on your list there because I would have thought that there's a vestige of their old soul still within them.
But it sounds like I'm very surprised by that.
Let's keep going.
That was an important point, but let's get back to the document.
Last thing on page two, I see that this was issued by the registry officer of the court in Calgary.
Ottawa's Debate Over Limits00:08:10
Now, is it a fact that the federal court has one big national jurisdiction, so we don't know where the judge may come from?
You might get a judge from anywhere in the country.
Is that correct?
It's because it's a federal court?
Yes, but we've asked for it to be held in Ontario, in Ottawa.
In Ottawa.
Okay.
All right.
Well, let's dig in.
We're on page three now, so we're making good progress.
And I see here you're listing the various acts, the various laws that you're discussing, the Aeronautics Act, and you're referring in particular to an interim order respecting civil aviation.
Let's stop there for a minute.
Because, you know, if you were to ask a Canadian, how are laws made?
How are we governed?
They would say, okay, there's a parliament or a legislature, and someone introduces a bill, which is like a baby law, and then it's debated, and maybe there's some hearings and committee meetings, and people get to come and say, well, there's a problem here, or what about that?
And then the law, maybe people who are a little savvy would say, okay, the bill is read once, and then there's a second reading and a third reading.
That's a fancy way of saying it's amended and then voted, and it's voted in different stages.
And there's this whole process.
There's this whole process.
There's a record of it all.
There's official transcript called the Hancer.
Like, I'm using technical jargon, but I think everyone can say, okay, yeah, I know what you mean.
Like we've all watched that kid show, How Does a Bill Become a Law?
The American version, at least we have a similar version here.
Is it a fact, and I believe it is, that this ban on travel was actually not passed in a law in Parliament.
It was not a bill that was debated.
It didn't go to committee.
It was not subject to debate in Parliament.
It was simply issued like someone high on Mount Olympus issuing an order.
Is that correct, Premier?
Exactly.
This is one of the arguments I've had all along with all of the measures is that they've used existing legislation and under existing legislation issued interim orders rather than do what in this kind of circumstance you would have thought they would have done is to go to their parliaments and introduce a new bill to cover this particular unique circumstance.
Yeah.
I'm going to read paragraph two of the lawsuit verbatim because I think it's very clear language.
The decision, so we're talking about the decision that was made by some bureaucrat somewhere and just spoken into effect like it was some king.
The decision implements restrictions on Canadians that are not related to a quote significant risk, direct or indirect, to aviation safety or the safety of the public and are ultra-virus, which is outside the power the authority of the Aeronautics Act.
The decision, with limited exceptions, effectively bans Canadians who have chosen not to receive an experimental medical treatment from domestic and international travel by airplane.
The result is discrimination and a gross violation of the constitutionally protected rights of Canadians as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights.
I think that sums it all up in that one paragraph, doesn't it?
It really does.
And I was really happy when I first read it, when they sent it to me as, you know, asking me my opinion on it.
Yeah, it's extremely succinct and to the point.
And look at that part about the Aeronautics Act being ultraviolet.
I mean, that's very important.
We're alleging that the Aeronautics Act doesn't apply here.
And they're using something that doesn't apply.
So even from square one, right, the Aeronautics Act that they use and then using it and the way the travel ban is being implemented, it violates all of these provisions of the charter.
So yeah, I think we've successfully put together a succinct way to Canadians.
Like I said, anybody could read this.
Anybody could read this.
And so it's very simple, but it's very poignant and to the point.
Yeah.
I'm going to skip ahead to page four.
And this is a section called relief sought.
That's a legal way of saying what do you want?
What do you want the court to do?
So you've got a few things here.
I'm not going to read them all.
You want a declaration that this order is of no force and effect.
That's sort of obvious.
A declaration that it's got errors in it.
I'm going to skip on down here.
This is one of the most interesting things.
I like this.
Disclosure from the governor and council, that means from the cabinet, of all information relied upon by the Minister of Transport informing the decision that the freedom of mobility of Canadians should be restricted based on vaccination status.
So you're not just asking for the law to be struck down.
You want to put eyes on what they were looking at.
Who said what?
What facts?
Were there even any facts?
Or was it, as I suspect, not based on health, but based on political compliance and punish people?
So I love section 5D, which is you want to see what they're hiding.
Do you know something that's really important?
Since we signed off on that, and that's in there, yesterday I found out that the Constitutional Court in Austria is asking for the same thing that we are asking for in our litigation and in our lawsuit.
And I think this is extremely important because I suspect you may be right that this was just a recommendation from a number of departments without the data and the evidence to demonstrate that what they were doing had legitimacy.
Yeah.
And we'll get to it later, but we talked about this in our last discussion.
Section one of the Constitution, which you helped draft, says you can violate someone's rights, but only on strict conditions.
It has to be rationally connected to your public policy objective.
It has to be the least infringement possible.
It has to be a pressing and substantial problem you're solving.
It has to be bona fide.
It can't be some trick or some political move.
It has to have a real reason.
Exactly.
And that's why the Oaks test in a court decision back in 1986, the Supreme Court of Canada itself was very careful in talking about Section 1.
Of course, my argument is Section 1 doesn't even apply because I remember clearly that by putting it in the Constitution, where we're talking about permanent values, and only if the state was in deep peril could you use it, and the state is not in deep peril.
But even for argument's sake, if you say it does apply, those four tests you have to demonstrably justify.
You have to do it by law.
It has to be with reasonable limits.
And we all know these limits have changed with each new eating.
And it has to be done consistent with a free and democratic society.
All of these tests have not been met by what the government has done, both in this particular lawsuit and then the larger measures that other governments have taken.
Yeah.
You know what?
I'm too excited about this lawsuit.
I'm talking too much.
Let me get back to the document.
I just mentioned D, so you're looking on the information that the minister relied on.
But E, I think, could be even more interesting because you're asking for all relevant materials relied on forming informing the decision and obtained during the course of consultations with any person or organization.
So the government itself had its documents, but who did they consult with?
Who did they talk to?
Did they talk to Pfizer just picking a name out of the hat?
Who did they talk to?
And what did those other, did they meet with any lobbyists?
What did they show?
And normally, in a normal, healthy legislative process, this is all transparent.
Did They Talk to Drs. Bridel and Payne?00:05:49
You see, you know, this is chewed over in the light of day.
This was done in a dark room.
Absolutely no question.
And that's why that demand or that request is so, so important.
Where did they get the information?
Who did they talk to?
Did they talk to?
Did they talk to Dr. Brian Bridel?
Did they talk to Dr. Eric Payne?
Two Canadians who've done a lot of research on this.
Did they talk to Dr. Jessica Rose?
Did they talk to Dr. Julie Panessi?
Did they talk to any of these people?
Did they talk to Dr. Roger Hodginson?
You know, did they go outside their circle?
Or was this just a one-trick pony that whatever their own internal department gave them, they relied on, which would show that they were completely uninformed about the totality of the science if they did it that way.
And therefore, would bring complete disrepute on their decision to the courts.
Right.
Now, your next section, you talk about the different sections of the charter that are violated.
I'm going to skip over that because we come back to it later.
I want to get to point I, five I, I believe it is, because this is a this is such a huge point that suddenly, like, I mean, if you've taken high school biology, you don't have to be a professor to know about immunity.
I mean, you just have to be a kid who gets chickenpox or whatever, and you know what it means.
You know, you get a disease, you get it better.
I mean, I'm old enough that when kids had chickenpox, the other moms would bring their kids over, so you'd get it early instead of later in life when it could actually be a serious health problem.
And that's natural immunity.
Everyone knows what that means, your immune system, strengthen your immune system.
Everyone knows that that's a thing.
You don't have to be a scholar to know that.
And yet, let me quote your lawsuit.
You are seeking a declaration that natural immunity to COVID-19, as evidenced by a serology test, be recognized as equivalent to being fully vaccinated as defined in a decision.
So, many countries around the world, from Israel to the United Kingdom, have acknowledged natural immunity as a thing.
Canada, bizarrely, just doesn't.
I mean, that is kooky, unscientific misinformation to pretend it doesn't exist.
It does exist, and you're asking a court to acknowledge that, aren't you?
Absolutely.
And it's medically and scientifically without question that natural immunity is a thing, is real, and does do the same protection as do as does, or more so, than the vaccinated.
So, this is an extremely important point.
And, you know, why the governments haven't already acknowledged that this is exactly, like you said, we know from our own history that I had the measles, I had the mumps, I had the chickenpox, we stayed home, right?
Our mothers and fathers looked after us, and they kept telling us after five or six days, this will gradually go away.
And we were crying, and we weren't, right?
But it did, and then we were immune, and we had immunity.
And so, and we've had everybody's had a cold or the flu and so on.
So, I think this is extremely important.
And, of course, there's a real weakness that the federal government and the governments of the provinces have now.
And we're zeroing in on that weakness because this is a medical fact that they have not acknowledged.
And we must get the court to acknowledge it on their behalf now.
Yeah.
I like section J: that you're seeking a declaration prohibiting the government from issuing subsequent orders of a substantially similar nature.
So, basically, if this gets struck down, you don't want them to immediately put in something very similar.
Exactly.
Now, I'm going to skip ahead a little bit.
I'm on page six, but I'm not going to go through every page.
Here, this is this, you know what?
Some of the finest lawyers in America, American lawyers do this a lot more than Canadian lawyers, I think.
They make their lawsuit tell a story in plain, accessible language.
It's almost literature, it's not just legalistic.
And here, each of the plaintiffs is described a little bit about their life, a little bit about who they are.
And, you know, we know you, we had a good conversation last time.
I won't go through all the names, but what's, you know, people are in different geographies.
Someone's in the UK and has to come back.
They're allowed to get on the plane in the UK to Canada, but they can't go from Canada to the UK.
Apparently, the science makes sense.
Or come to Canada and land in Toronto and they live in St. John's or they live in Calgary, and then they can't get about another plane to go to inside Canada, but they can come to Canada.
So they're now stranded in Toronto in their own country from getting home.
Yeah.
I mean, is that ridiculous or what?
That makes no sense.
On page eight of your lawsuit, section 16, I think this is a good point.
It shows, I mean, there's a phrase, what are the framers' intent or what are the legislatures' intention?
Because sometimes courts say, okay, we're arguing over the law, but what did the people who wrote the law in the legislature actually mean?
And let me read section 16 of your lawsuit.
In the months leading up to the issuance of the decision, the Prime Minister of Canada made pejorative and discriminatory statements towards Canadians who have made the decision not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, including by calling them racists, misogynists, and asking, do we tolerate these people?
Prime Minister's Discriminatory Vaccine Remarks00:04:34
That is, I mean, could you possibly have starker evidence of bad faith and malice?
Absolutely.
And it colors completely all of what the government has done.
Because if the leader of the government is acting in this manner and has this kind of view and attitude towards one group of Canadians, then this must color all of the decisions that come down, which therefore were prejudicial right from the start.
Yeah.
Section 19, you refer to the four different vaccines in Canada, and you say all COVID-19 vaccines are still undergoing clinical trials, which are scheduled for completion in 2023 or later.
None of these vaccines prevent the infection or transmission of COVID-19, including the Omicron variant.
Yeah, I mean, we've learned a lot since the advent of these vaccines about a year ago when we were told by everyone in authority that they are a real vaccine.
I don't even know if they were introduced with what we know now, if we would even be calling them vaccines.
And I don't say this as a conspiracy theorist.
It's just a vaccine in plain English is something you take that you will not get sick from.
Justin Trudeau himself has had three shots, allegedly, and he claims to have COVID.
So it's not much of a vaccine.
Exactly.
And what everybody has ignored, and I don't understand why, and even some of the great scientists who are, you know, have questions about the vaccine and even calling it that, have not highlighted the fact that, I mean, through the VAR system in the United States, so the EU division in Europe, we do know that upwards to 50,000 people have died after taking the vaccine and over 1 million have been injured.
Well, matter of fact, there's over 2 million now have been injured.
And these are actual reports that have been submitted voluntarily by people in these jurisdictions.
And they also admit that that number is only 1 to 10% of the total.
So it's highly likely that there's over 150,000 to 200,000 people in the United States and Europe that have actually died from these vaccines and 3 to 4 million that have been some seriously injured or injured generally by taking these vaccines.
That part of the equation has been ignored.
And I don't know, I don't understand why, because the data is out there and I have it here on my computer.
I can go in and check theirs every day of the week and I can do the same thing for your religion.
And here come up the numbers, which nobody has really disputed.
Yeah.
In section 20 of your lawsuit, you list some of these side effects, Bell's palsy, thrombosis.
I don't even know some of these words.
I know myocarditis and pericarditis.
It's a fact.
And again, these things are published, but they're certainly published by the government, but they're underreported by the media.
Section 21 of your lawsuit: vaccinated and unvaccinated Canadians can be infected with and transmit COVID-19.
However, individuals under 60 years old without comorbidities have an approximately 99.997% chance of recovery from COVID-19.
And the thing is, I mean, I don't want anyone to die from the disease, but if you know if you're 80 years old plus, if you're very fat, if you've got heart disease and liver disease and kidney disease, okay, that's high risk.
But you're a 20-year-old young man, fit, healthy, athletic, active.
The idea of having a one-size-fits-all rule is absurd.
And again, I don't think anyone would dispute that had we had those facts more clearly a year ago.
But we're so locked into this, we're in a rut, and they can't lose face.
They're so obsessed with the vaccines, they don't dare acknowledge these obvious facts now.
And Lieutenant Colonel David Redmond, you know, a year and a half ago, described all of this and showed just what you're saying now.
And because what he showed was, because he was involved with emergency measures Alberta years ago after he got out of the armed forces, is that all of the provinces have an emergency measures organization, which is set up just to handle these kinds of circumstances so that it wouldn't be just a one-size-fits-all, a single unidimensional approach.
Impact Of The Decision00:08:14
It had to be a multi-dimensional approach, bringing in all the departments, the private sector, and then developing a mitigation plan, which a lot of these emergency measures already have on their desks that the governments have never used.
Yeah.
I want to read this.
Then this is one of my favorite parts of the lawsuit.
It's a subsection called the impact of the decision on the applicants.
And this is what I mean about literature.
It humanizes the lawsuit.
It tells the personal story of everyone.
I'll just read a little bit from yours.
I thought this was interesting.
So this is referring to you.
When I say he, it's referring to you, Premier Peckford.
He believes that there is too much uncertainty and risk with this medical intervention for him to give informed consent to receiving it.
Mr. Peckford did not apply for a medical or religious exemption as he objects to the use of such products in exercise of his conscience, bodily autonomy, life, liberty, and security of the person, and believes that having to disclose his vaccination status to the respondents as a condition of boarding an airplane is a violation of his privacy.
Mr. Peckford also has been segregated from other vaccinated Canadian air travelers, which renders him a second-class citizen.
So you haven't even tried to say, well, it's against my religion or I have a medical reason.
You're just saying my deep beliefs, my personal beliefs, my brain, my own assessment of my own life, and the fact that it's none of your bloody business, those are your results.
I think that's a very principled line to take, as opposed to participating in the rules.
You're saying, I don't even want to participate in this system.
I don't want an exemption in this system.
This whole system's rotten.
I was pointedly asked by the lawyers about that.
I'm glad you raised that particular point because I was pointedly asked by the lawyers when they were developing the case, why didn't you do this?
Why didn't you get a medical exemption?
And my answer was, as you just detailed there in the suit, I didn't want to participate in something which violated my rights as an individual over bodily autonomy, security of the person, as in the charter itself.
And so that therefore I wasn't willing to engage in something where my privacy was being infringed and my right to my own body was being infringed.
Yeah.
I'm not going to read through all the stories of the individual plaintiffs.
They're very interesting.
And I say again, you can read the 20-page lawsuit on my website.
But Mr. Bajant, if I'm saying that right, forgive me if I'm not saying his name.
This caught my eye.
He lives in, he goes back and forth between Ontario and Yellowknife.
I've been at Yellowknife.
It is a very far away place.
Let me read from the lawsuit.
Mr. Bajant had to drive 5,000 kilometers of dangerous highways in extreme winter weather conditions to reunite with his family in Ontario.
He will have to make the return trip in February under the same extreme winter weather conditions.
He will have to complete this journey four more times in 2022.
Mr. Bajant does not have the financial means to travel to and from work in a private chartered aircraft.
And by the way, private chartered aircrafts are not exempt from the vaccine rules if you're taking off from a certain airport.
That's an incredible story of someone who's basically being told, you can't live, you can't work, you can't travel unless you get this jab, no matter what your conscience says, no matter if you're natural.
Like, that's an incredible story.
I think that is a really compelling story.
Absolutely no question about it.
And I've had, like I say, since this lawsuit has been filed, it's unbelievable number of emails I've had and phone calls I've had from people to say, if your lawyer wants to add another story, here's my story, which is like absolutely, some of these stories are so touching.
I have one from a lady, an unmarried mother with a couple of children, and she's a professional, and how it's affected her life.
It's just unbelievable.
And so there's stories out there all over the place, including this man.
And I've been to Yellowknife as well.
And to go from Yellowknife to Ontario, this is unbelievable.
What they're putting this man through in a democracy called Canada is just not right, undemocratic, and has to be struck down.
Now, I'm going to skip over the other plaintiffs.
They're all interesting stories, and they each have a slightly different argument there that makes for compelling reading.
But what's notable to me over the last two years is the legal trickery by which things have been done.
So much power invested in health officers who none of us ever heard of before, none of us voted for, none of us can vote out, who in many cases seem to have power trumping those of elected officials.
Sometimes elected officials hide behind the skirts of these public health officers when it suits them.
But this is not any democracy we've ever been taught about.
And if this is the new permanent emergency, I don't think you can call it an emergency anymore.
I think you start to use other words like an undemocratic system.
Let me read section 37 of your lawsuit on page 13.
So it talks about how this was done.
This was not a health order.
This was not done in a parliamentary debate.
Here's how it was done.
The decision for the vaccines is outside the power ultravirus, the authority delegated to the Minister of Transport under the section of the Aeronautics Act, which restricts the minister's order-making power to matters related to aviation safety consistent with the scope and objects of the Act, the Aeronautics Act.
The decision is ultravirus, outside of his power, as it was made for an improper purpose and in bad faith in furtherance of an ulterior motive, and here's the key part, to pressure Canadians into taking the COVID-19 vaccines.
So pretending to be about aeronautic safety, pretending to be about, like, this is where you go to about engine failure or maybe the Boeing 737 MAX or, you know, maintenance of an aircraft.
This is where you're supposed to take care of airplanes, and you're using the Airplanes Act, literally, it's called the Aeronautics Act, as an ulterior way to force people to get jabbed because you know people like to fly and they have to fly.
But so what?
Sneak it in the Aeronautics Act for that purpose to force them to.
And I don't think anyone would pretend it's anything else other than pressuring force.
I mean, leaders around the world have said as much.
The president of France has said he wants to make life very difficult for the unvexed.
We've heard half a dozen Canadian politicians say the same thing.
I think that that is a microcosm of everything that's happened over the last two years.
People doing things improperly with laws that weren't meant to do so.
And so far, no judge has stood up to it.
No, I couldn't agree more.
And I think that's a very important section of the lawsuit.
There's no question that the Aeronautics Act was for safety, was for the safety of the airplane, that people getting aboard could be assured that this was a safe plane, had the proper maintenance, there was everything that was working, that kind of thing.
And then to try to get that to fit into a situation as it relates to a medical experiment, you know, completely.
I think myself that the federal government today, after seeing this lawsuit, understand and are scared that what they did in this particular case,
because I think they would have thought they had better legs to stand on if they stayed within the public health services legislation, to move it into aeronautics in this way to inhibit travel ban really stretch and expose the federal government for what they were doing, even in the Public Health Act.
Constitutional Infringements00:06:59
But what they were doing now, they were just trying to get people to get the jab.
And they were using illegal matters, means to do it.
Yeah.
I'm hoping that the combination of a very well-crafted lawsuit and your personal moral authority as one of the signers, authors of the charter, will perhaps give the federal court cause to carefully consider because there have been no meaningful court victories to put the brakes on this lockdown extremism we've seen.
Now, the most important part of the lawsuit is now.
Section 39 onwards, the charter violations.
This is the base.
This is your home turf.
You were there.
You were.
You say the legislators' intent.
Well, you're the guy.
You were there.
You know.
You were in the room.
You know what the debates were.
Now, I'm not going to read all of this, but I'm going to list the charter rights that you say were violent.
I'm just going to list them, and then I'd like you to speak to them.
So the numbers I'm going to give are the sections of the charter, which you know by heart.
Section 2A, freedom of religions and conscience.
Section 6, right to leave the country and travel within the country.
Section 7, life, liberty, and security of the person, your own body.
Section 8, right to privacy.
Section 15, equality rights.
So, I mean, there's a lot here, but instead of reading the lawsuit, well, why don't we just hear about the guy who wrote the charter with the other premiers?
So that's those are any one of those should be fatal to this.
But you've got, what, five different sections of the charter there?
Yeah, absolutely no question.
And in my public meetings, I go through those five.
And yeah, to me, you know, this is so over the top what's happening.
And remember, we put this in the Constitution.
If we wanted this to be easy for change and to use in all kinds of weird circumstances that the governments, in their wisdom or lack thereof, and in this case, lack there want to declare an emergency, then they could easily use the Section 1 and override and do whatever they want.
But by putting all of this in the Constitution, which everybody knows is supposed to be away from the everyday political machinations that go on, it's for permanent values that only could be overridden in the most extreme circumstances like war or insurrection.
That's why it was put in the, in the Constitution in the beginning.
And Section 2, I mean, you know, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, right?
Freedom of expression, even freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, right?
And then you go to six, mobility itself, the right to move or to travel anywhere in Canada or leave Canada.
And in that section, too, of course, is the right to pursue a living.
And here's this man in the Yukon having to travel back and forth to Ontario, right?
The right to pursue a living anywhere in Canada.
Well, this poor man, citizen, has been denied his freedom to pursue his job in the normal sense of the word.
This is unbelievable.
And then, of course, I love section seven.
I just love section seven, right?
Every Canadian has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
These things can't be taken away with a declared emergency with a 99% recovery rate and less than a 1% fatality rate.
You can't bargain rights and freedoms using that kind of a circumstance.
You just can't do it.
And then, of course, as you say, your privacy in Section 8 of the individual, the right to privacy, and Section 15, I love that one too, the right of equality before the law, right?
Everybody's equal before the law.
And here I am in Parksville, BC today.
I don't have the same rights as people across the street.
I don't have the same rights.
I can't go to the same places that they can go.
These are powerful concepts.
Look, it took 114 years to get a written Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
And you're telling me 40 years later that we're suddenly going to eviscerate this in a bargain between a 99% recovery rate and a less than 1% fatality rate and bargain my rights and freedoms away?
Oh, no, that ain't a valid equation.
Wow.
Well, we're almost at the end of the lawsuits.
I'm on page 16 now.
We're talking about how this infringement was done.
Again, it wasn't in a parliament.
It wasn't in a vote.
It wasn't in a debate.
It wasn't fully aired.
There was no transparency.
There was no transcript.
There was no public consultation.
There was no chance for people to weigh in on this.
It was done rationally and quickly and haphazardly.
And here's how you put that: Section 41, in Section 45.
The decision was not made by due process of law.
Among other things, the decision was not subject to legislative controls customarily applied to the introduction of a new law.
As a result, Canadians did not receive the benefit of multiple readings of parliamentary debate and scrutiny.
The Minister of Transport has made the decision in an overly broad manner.
There was no or insufficient stakeholder engagement or consultation.
So it would be bad enough if Parliament met and deliberated and everyone said, we agree.
But there wasn't even a vote.
There wasn't even a debate.
Was no bill right exactly.
And this is this, I think, this is the most egregious part of it all.
It goes right to the core of section one again, which says all of the tests that you need to do, even in a war and insurrection, and even if it applied in this circumstance, must be done within the context of a free and democratic society.
Well, what does a free and democratic society mean?
That means parliamentary democracy.
Whatever happened to the parliamentary committee to take a look at these actions and seek out alternate points of view, to seek out the view of stakeholders.
None of this was done, and therefore it is basically and inherently undemocratic in the Canadian sense of parliamentary democracy.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, we're done, the part of the lawsuit where you make the arguments.
Now we're where you list the laws and the regulations that you will cite and use as an authority.
Code and Democracy00:03:24
Obviously, the Charter of Rights is the first one.
You mentioned sections 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 15, and 24 of the Constitution.
We talked about most of those.
You mentioned the Constitution Act.
You mentioned Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights, which has similar language.
You mentioned the Nuremberg Code of 1947.
And I think some people don't know what that is.
That was part of the judgment in the Nazi doctors' trial, wasn't it?
That was these doctors, Joseph Mengele-type doctors, who did horrific experiments on people without their permission or consent.
They were put on trial, very famous trial.
And part of that was: here's how we do medicine going forward.
We had no idea doctors could do such horrific things.
Here are the rules.
And every doctor, yeah, and every doctor in Canada and in the Western world and beyond have used this code ever since.
It's an ethical code for the world to delienate the rights of individuals and how they must be informed consent, right?
And this business of experimental stuff, you know, this doesn't work.
And that's what they were doing in Nazi Germany at the time.
And that's why the Nuremberg Code was written.
How soon we forget that there's some basic human rights that are at issue here.
I mean, so therefore, I think we were very appropriate to use this Nuremberg Code as being an applicable ethics code that all medical practitioners are familiar with when they go to medical school and go to their various professional schools.
So I think it's very important for us to give a historical backdrop to this.
Yeah.
You know, whenever people mention Germany or Nuremberg Code, some people say, oh, you're equating with this the Holocaust.
No, no.
This is it.
This is the lessons of the Holocaust.
If these rules were in place in advance, the Holocaust could never have happened because it would have been stopped at in its tracks.
It's many of the lessons we learned about conformity and fascism and abuse and shutting down dissidents and segregating people and treating people as unclean and demonizing them.
There are many lessons from the 30s and 40s in Germany that can apply.
And thank God we're not as far down the road as they went.
But we are definitely out of the starting.
The demonization.
Go ahead.
Absolutely.
We're along that road.
There is absolutely no question.
And I am still amazed today, even this morning, in calls that I got and talks that I had with people who still don't recognize the sacredness of an individual freedom and right and how it supersedes all others.
I mean, in the Constitution Act 1982, it says the supreme law of Canada is the constitution of the land.
That stands over and above all else because it protects the individual rights and freedoms.
Everybody's still looking at it, or a lot of people still don't get it, that this is not a federal law.
This is not a provincial law or municipal.
This is the constitution of our country, which is a national law and is there to protect us and to guarantee us certain rights and freedoms.
Individual Rights Supremacy00:09:29
It is in a league all of its own.
If there's a national, if there's an American Hockey League and a Junior Hockey League and then a National Hockey League, this Constitution goes even above the National Hockey League.
So that's why I'm out there preaching every day, both on my blog and in interviews like this and publicly.
I got a public meeting coming up this weekend in the Comox Valley area in Campbell River area, Vancouver Island.
And this is what I'll be saying.
This is so important that it stands alone.
And we've got to understand that this is sacred and can only be violated in the most extreme circumstances.
Yeah.
Well, we're almost on the lawsuit.
On page 18, you list a request for documents from the government.
And I'm just going to read this paragraph that describes what you want because you don't have these.
I don't have these.
The public doesn't have these because, like I say, this was not done in a transparent way.
So here's what you ask for that only the government has and you do not.
All records, including but in no way limited to research, analysis, policy papers, briefing reports, studies, proposals, presentations, reports, memos, opinions, advice, letters, emails, and any other communications that were prepared, commissioned, considered, or received by the government in Canada in relation to these matters.
And that's the thing.
We don't know.
We didn't see it.
And then you list the different government agencies, Prime Minister's Office, the Justice Department, Global Affairs, all the different, you know, all the different arms of the government that might have them.
And then I'm just going to skip to the very last page, which is the names of the lawyers.
Keith Wilson of Wilson Law Office, I know him from my Alberta days, very principled man, great lawyer, very freedom-oriented.
And a couple of lawyers for the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
Allison Kindle Payovich.
I don't know her, but I know Eva Chipiak a little bit.
I've spoken with her.
Very bright lawyers.
This is a tightly written, easy to understand, clear, focused presentation of the case against airline vaccine management.
Could obviously be applied to railways and ferry boats as well.
It's well drafted.
It's clean.
It's done by very legitimate, reputable folks, our friends of the JCCF.
This is the most hopeful legal document in Canada today.
Yeah, I think you're right.
I think we've managed to really clean this up and provide something which, like I say, is easily understandable.
Mr. Wilson, the JCCF were, I think, smart to also go outside their own auspices and look for lawyers who are very well versed in taking issues like this to the federal court of appeal, federal court.
And they've even sought consultation beyond those ones that you named.
So this is a highly well-crafted document that went through many, many eyes before it was submitted to the court.
By the way, it got registered on January 31st.
Okay.
It was submitted on the 27th and it got registered on January 31st.
So it is a legal document now accepted or legalized, now accepted by the court.
Got it.
Well, you know, we took a lot of time, but we literally went through every single page.
I enjoyed the conversation.
I found every page to be informative.
I would encourage our readers, our viewers who are not lawyers to read it anyways.
I don't think there's anything in there that will be baffling.
There's not a lot of legal gobbledygook in there.
We'll post a copy on the website.
We'll obviously keep our eyes peeled for the government's response.
Obviously, time is of the essence.
And I see in there, I skipped over the part where they're asking the court to sort of move along quickly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
We're asking for a decision.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, this is very hopeful.
I enjoyed going through this.
And of course, it's a pleasure to talk with you because you're the actual one of the framers of the charter.
But actually, in the past hour, the most dramatic thing that was said was you telling me, and I'm just turning this over in my head again, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not asked you, and you mentioned the Globe and Mail and you mentioned the National Post, that what I call the media party, the legacy media, the corporate media,
the established media, they simply have ignored this.
There is no journalistic excuse for that.
There's no editorial excuse for that.
There's no political excuse for that.
I find that deeply depressing, but I'm glad this is going in a court where the judges will look at it and hopefully they'll be moved by it because God knows we need some check and balance.
If it won't be the media, maybe it'll be the courts.
I wish you so much luck.
Premier Brian Peckford.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
No, I've always said that we're in the second period.
It might be getting near the end of the second period.
We have to exhaust all of our means that are available to us on our existing system before we throw it all out.
And so this is very important.
And so I thought it was important for me to come forward.
I've talked a lot about it for a year and a half.
Now, I think I'm going to not only talk to talk, I want to walk the walk.
Well, you certainly are.
You always have.
It's a pleasure talking with you.
I hope we'll keep in touch.
If there's movement on this lawsuit, I hope you'll come back and talk to us again.
And even though you're welcome, and even though it's against my interests as a competitor, as a Canadian, I would hope that other networks and other media outlets speak to you.
Even we've spent an hour together, but even if it's a more brief interview, even just mentioning it, even just showing it, I would hope that other journalists get behind it too.
You're a Canadian treasurer.
You're an important part of our political, legal, and constitutional past, but you're very, very relevant to the constitutional and legal present.
And this lawsuit, if successful, will bring more freedom to more people than anything else I can think of in the political legal world today.
So I wish you so much luck, and thank you again for being with us.
Thank you very much, Ezra, for having me, and thank you for going through it.
I don't think I'll ever get an opportunity again on any media to be able to go through the lawsuit like you did.
So thank you for giving me all this time and going through the actual words that are in the lawsuit.
Have a wonderful day and thanks again for taking the time to interview me in this manner.
Well, it's my great pleasure.
There you have it.
A great Canadian, Premier Brian Peford, who is fighting for freedom in the court with our friends at the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
Stay with us.
My final thoughts are next.
Well, my head is spinning so much in there.
You know, I've read a lot of lawsuits in my day, and I've even written one or two.
This is very well done, and I think it's got a chance.
Of course, I keep thinking of that remake of the movie, True Grit, by the Cohen brothers, and my favorite line in it when one of the bad guys says, I don't need a good lawyer, I need a good judge.
And I think having a good lawyer helps.
But the federal court and indeed every other Canadian court has so far completely sided with the government.
In fact, sometimes atrociously so.
Maybe it's the fact that most judges are elderly, and so they're afraid of the virus more than other people.
Maybe it's because judges at that level are in a very elite society where everyone's a rule maker, rule follower, and they're not out and about in gyms, in restaurants with young people, we're working class.
They're very stratisfied.
They're in an elite society.
I say that because, of course, the Alberta judge that issued such an atrocious sentence against Arthur Pavlovsky, Adam Germain is his name.
He's in the Alberta courts.
His ruling was full of factual misinformation.
He said things like, every Albertan knows at least one person who died from COVID.
No, no, that's not true.
In fact, such a small number have actually died.
But if you're saying that, you're probably a fearmonger who's been surrounded by terrible news.
So I'm worried that the nature of judges is to be old, so they're vulnerable, scared because they're not amongst happy people living their normal lives, and of course they defer to authority.
So I'm worried that we will not have judges speaking up for freedom as there have been in other countries, including, of course, the United States.
But if there is a lawsuit and a plaintiff that could actually possibly win, maybe it's this one.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.