Premier Brian Peckford joins Ezra Levant to condemn CBC’s selective scrutiny of Ontario school board candidates opposing inclusive sex education, framing their concerns as "cancel culture" while ignoring alleged controversies like a 35-pound prosthetic-wearing teacher. Peckford, a plaintiff in a dismissed no-fly list lawsuit, calls the ruling a judicial betrayal, comparing it to ignored Charter protections during pandemic lockdowns—measures he argues were imposed without democratic justification or public debate. He vows to appeal through Canada’s highest courts, exposing what he sees as systemic failures in upholding rights like mobility and religious principles. Meanwhile, Rebel News investigates Chinese police stations in Markham and Scarborough, pressuring Liberals to address Trudeau’s "basic dictatorship" remark and potential Emergencies Act overreach, with Conservative MP Dane Lloyd pushing for government action while Liberals evade accountability. The episode reveals deep distrust in institutions, from media to courts, as defenders of freedom clash with perceived authoritarianism. [Automatically generated summary]
Parents Worried About Transgenderism In Schools00:05:45
Tonight, the CBC investigates parents worried about their kids being taught transgenderism in school.
It's October 21st, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Well, hello again.
I'm in frosty Edmonton.
You can feel the winters around the corner.
As I told you yesterday, I'm here for the United Conservative Party's annual general meeting that starts tonight.
Very interesting times.
A new premier, Danielle Smith.
And can she hold on to her party and can she resist the attacks on her from the usual suspects?
And by that, I mean the media party.
But I saw something, speaking of the media party, in the CBC that caught my eye.
I mean, let me just stop and ask you, if you had nearly 10,000 staff working at your news agency and a budget of over a billion and a half dollars, what would you shine a light of scrutiny on?
I mean, that's really the job of the media is to shine the light into dark places and see what's going on.
Well, this is this headline I saw on the CBC.
CBC investigates.
It's even above the headline.
So this is their crack investigative squad.
Now, they're not speaking truth to power.
They're not investigating Justin Trudeau or, for example, who got all that Arrive Can app money.
They're not doing that.
They're not speaking truth to power.
They're speaking power to truth.
Look at that headline.
Scores of anti-trans candidates running in Ontario school board elections.
And then under that, they say, with support from several conservative groups, oh, they're the worst.
Some candidates are vowing to end inclusive sex education.
Now, we're not even into this story yet.
And do you see the spin and even the lies?
Are they really anti-trans candidates?
Are they really, are these people who say, I hate trans people, I don't like, or are they people who say, you know what?
My child is in grade one.
My child is six.
We don't need to teach my child the six genders, which, by the way, is the law right now in Ontario.
Are you anti-trans if you say, hey, how about lay off the kids?
How about don't talk about sexuality, heterosexuality, or homosexuality or any kind of sexuality?
They are children.
Are you an anti-trans person?
And that line, inclusive sex ed.
Why are you talking about those subjects to children of tender years?
Anyways, I just got to read for you one more.
We're not even in the story yet.
Look at the caption on that photo.
An investigation by CBC News found that at least 20 candidates for trustee positions in Ontario had either used discriminatory terms in interviews, aligned themselves with transphobic lobby groups, or used their social media accounts to amplify transphobic content.
What on earth does any of that even mean?
But I love that they call this an investigation.
They stake things out.
They had wiretaps or something.
They had hidden cameras.
No, they just Googled and went to Facebook pages and anything that they thought was mean, they called it an investigation.
This is what your tax dollars are working on.
And by the way, this took more than one reporter to write.
It's quite something.
You know, we could use some investigation into sex ed in schools.
There really isn't any investigation done on that in Canada until this shocking, and I don't even know if it's a joke, I don't think it's a joke, this case of a shop teacher in Ontario wearing enormous prosthetic breasts.
I think the CBC could do some investigation into who is this person?
How is this allowed?
Were complaints covered up?
I'm talking about the real scandal in Ontario schools.
This isn't even in sex ed.
This is in shop class.
Look at this.
David Menzies for Rebel News here in Oakville, Ontario.
And folks, I'm here at Oakville Trafalgar High School.
And you know, in most schools, when it's drag queen story time, that's typically a one-day event for a few hours.
But here at Oakville Trafalgar High School, drag queen story time is anytime Mr. Lemieux, aka Miss Kayla Lemieux, is teaching shop class.
You see, Mr. Lemieux is allegedly transitioning into a female, but that's not really news these days.
What is news is the fact that his fake prosthetic breasts are so humongous, literally twice the size of a man's head and weighing about 35 pounds as well.
His nipples are always protruding and he wears see-through blouses.
So really, what is going on here?
Is this really someone who is transitioning into a female?
Or perhaps is Mr. Lemieux playing some kind of prank for whatever reason?
Is he maybe deliberately trying to get fired so we can file a wrongful dismissal claim?
Or dare I say it, is Mr. Lemieux suffering from mental illness?
And if he is, he should be treated immediately.
Yeah, we could use some actual investigations of what's going on in the schools, not parents who are concerned about him.
You know, in the United States, a lot of these transgender-oriented teachers go on TikTok or Twitter and brag about what they are doing in schools.
So here's my tip to the CBC.
Why They're Trying to Control the Narrative00:14:57
You don't need 10,000 staff and a billion and a half dollars.
You don't even need two staff like we're working on this story.
You can just follow the Twitter account called Libs of TikTok.
And that's just one lady in New York City who searches what these teachers post themselves and puts them on TV and puts them on the internet.
Here, take a look at some of these statements by teachers in the U.S. Do you doubt for a second that the same thing is happening here in Canada?
I think the CBC should investigate.
Here, take a look at Libs of TikTok.
Last week, I brought Pride Flags to school to pass out to students.
And we got the whole gang here.
And I know they're from Amazon, but we're balling on a budget.
And it's so funny the way students walk into the room because if they know me, they'll walk in and just be like, hey, miss, can I get a flag?
But then there's students who don't know me or are in a different school because there's two different schools in our building and will like walk in the classroom and be like, is this where I get the flags?
And it's so precious, but now every day it looks like a pride parade in our hallways and it's just the best.
If you walk into the library and you see a display that's so beautiful and so enticing with books that you want to take home and read, we have them on display because we want you to borrow them.
This is not a museum, people!
Borrow a book!
A lot of the teachers and staff in my school district wear these badges so that students who are questioning whether or not they're accepted will know that they are.
A student from last year and I would coordinate our pronoun shirt.
Same student came up to me on Friday to say hi.
Noticed that one of my new students had a pronoun shirt too.
We decided to coordinate today.
Former student insisted that they send me an email to remind me to wear my pronoun shirt.
We're up to three.
The goal for by the end of the year.
All right, finally I'll get into the story, but I think you know where this is going.
Let me read.
In school board elections across Ontario this Monday, dozens of candidates are running on promises to roll back protections for transgender students, part of a concerted effort by conservative lobby groups to undo policies aimed at addressing systemic discrimination.
Is that really what they're saying?
Do they want to undo protections for anybody?
You know, I actually read this entire enormous article.
It felt like it never ended.
And never once did they actually show transphobic anti-trans activism.
Like there was never any hate.
There was never any attacks.
There was noone saying we're going to end protections for people.
That is all the projection of the fevered mind of the CBC.
This is called CBC Investigates.
It's more like CBC emotes.
These are their own emotions.
Do you actually think in this story you will find a single candidate who is quoted who has the CBC investigated and found that they want to end protections for anyone?
I'll save the time and tell you the answer is no.
Let me read some more.
The normally sleepy contests for trustee positions have been highly charged this year with faith-based groups, political parties, and self-styled anti-woke organizations involved to an unprecedented degree, including providing endorsements.
Oh, those are the worst.
Mobilizing volunteers.
Oh, they're the worst.
And providing candidates training from U.S. political operatives.
Hey, have you ever seen the CBC investigate U.S. or foreign political operatives when they're assisting Justin Trudeau, when they're organizing and funding anti-pipeline or anti-oil movements?
I have not seen that.
The CBC is suddenly interested in it.
You know, I should tell you, the CBC demonizes Christian groups, and indeed there are some Christian candidates.
But I should tell you that Christian candidates may be easy pickings for the CBC, but a lot of the opponents of extreme transgenderism, sex ed in schools, they're not Christian.
They're not white.
They're newcomers to Canada.
Many of them are Muslim, in fact.
Let me show you a recent meeting in Dearborn, Michigan, which is a very Muslim community.
They are appalled by the extreme sex ed there.
It's a little bit tough to call a room full of Muslim parents Christian, bigot, right-wing white people.
Here, just take a look at this from Dearborn just the other day.
I just want to thank everybody for coming out.
My name is Hasa Shami.
I'm nothing but a concerned parent in Dearborn, Michigan.
Guys, I want to make something clear, okay?
We want to leave the politics out of this.
If you're on Facebook, all you see is fear-mongering political rhetoric that this is book banning, censorship, homophobic.
All it is is protecting our children.
We as concerned parents, we as concerned parents in Dearborn are not tied to the left, to the right when it comes to this issue.
And we're not going to be used as pawns for any organization for their own agenda.
We're here to protect our children.
Do not fall for the political rhetoric on Facebook, on Instagram.
Do not fall for the trap because that's what they want.
They're trying to smear us.
They're trying to control the narrative.
They're trying to say this is homophobic.
Listen, there's a book.
There's a book that was banned.
It was called This Book is Gay.
And I tell you, if the book was called This Book is Straight, we're still going to go after it because it's teaching kids.
It's teaching kids how to go online and have sexual intercourse with others on the internet.
This is wrong.
You deny school kids and sexually explicit material.
There's a poster right here to my right.
There's a poster right here to my right that I had them cover up.
I, as an adult and 33-year-old adult, told them, cover it up because I'm embarrassed to look at this.
You think I want a 13-year-old to look at it?
This is ridiculous.
Any semi-decent human being, homosexual or heterosexual, knows when they look in the mirror that kids should not be exposed to this.
Stop trying to control the rhetoric.
Stop trying to make it edge of the victims because this has nothing to do with it.
We as parents who are raising our children are responsible for our children.
Our schools will not indoctrinate our children.
The progressive dogma from the top down that has public schools in a trogo will not indoctrine our children.
People tell me, people tell me, huh?
Don't go up and speak.
They're going to ban your business.
They're going to protest your businesses.
You're going to get fired from your job.
I got three children.
My purpose in this world is to protect my kids.
And that's all I want to do.
Vote them out.
Vote up.
Vote them out.
Yeah, the CBC never mentions Muslims here.
They're not allowed to.
So they pick on Christians.
I should tell you that it's actually the Muslim parents who are the most attentive to their kids.
Let me read some more.
For weeks, some candidates in Ottawa, Waterloo, Hamilton, among other places in Ontario, have been using transphobic rhetoric in public, portraying gender-inclusive sex education as an attempt to indoctrinate their children.
Again, they don't quote any of these insults that allegedly happen, but they actually don't refute the claims by these parents because the sex ed curriculum is extreme.
By the way, I mean, you and me are grown-ups and we've been around a little bit.
Can you name the six genders that Ontario officially teaches to?
By the way, gay is not a gender.
Can you name the six genders?
Well, if you can't, then you're not as smart as a grade sixer, or sorry, a six-year-old kid in Ontario who's taught it.
Let me quote a little bit from the story.
For example, Mark Paralovos, a trustee candidate in Guelph, Ontario, has repeatedly taken to social media to deny the existence of trans and non-binary genders.
There are men, there are women, that's it.
He tweeted earlier this month.
Oh my God, I am so glad the CBC put their crack investigative unit on this man.
We have found the trouble, someone who says there's men and women.
I think we should probably censor all books that say the opposite, and that would be starting with the Bible.
I'm guessing the Koran would probably be next.
Another candidate, Shannon Boshi, said Ontario's sex ed curriculum was partly to blame for the rise in transgender and non-binary identifying students.
Well, that's obviously true.
And don't take it from me, a right-winger.
Here's Bill Maher, the essential American Hollywood liberal, pointing out the obvious.
Remember this?
And this is a phenomenon we need to take into account when we look at this issue.
Yes, part of the rise in LGBT numbers is from people feeling free enough to tell it to a pollster, and that's all to the good.
But some of it is it's trendy.
Penis equals man.
Okay, boomer.
Remember, the prime directive of every teen is anything to shock and challenge the squares who brought you up.
It's why nobody gets a nose ring at 56.
And if you haven't noticed that with kids, doing something for the likes is more important than their own genitals, you haven't been paying attention.
Dr. Erica Anderson is a prominent 71-year-old clinical psychologist who is herself transgender and who now says, I think it's gone too far.
The LA Times summarizes, she's come to believe that some children identifying as trans are falling under the influence of their peers and social media.
If you attend a small dinner party of typically very liberal, upper-income Angelenos, it is not uncommon to hear parents who each have a trans kid having a conversation about that.
What are the odds of that happening in Youngstown, Ohio?
If this spike in trans children is all natural, why is it regional?
Either Ohio is shaming them, or California is creating them.
It's like that day we suddenly all needed bottled water all the time.
If we can't admit that in certain enclaves there is some level of trendiness to the idea of being anything other than straight, then this is not a serious science-based discussion.
It's a blow being struck in the culture wars using children as cannon fodder.
The CBC is really engaging not in journalism, but in cancel culture.
They're trying to name and shame these candidates.
I think it's going to have the opposite effect, actually.
I think a lot of people are going to read this and say, oh, now I know who to vote for.
Now I know who the sane people are.
I think this is actually going to backfire on the CBC.
They quote one candidate who says, who, they say, compared non-binary genders to a disorder.
Well, you know, I'm old enough to know that it was just a few years ago that the psychiatric community, they have this, it's called the DSM.
It's a book of actual maladies.
It lists every syndrome and disease out there.
And gender dysphoria was what they called transgenderism until about five minutes ago.
And like these candidates, I'm not proposing that anyone be mean to anyone, but to try to cancel and name and shame parents for saying what was universally accepted as medical science a decade ago shows how extreme the CBC itself is.
This is what they call an investigation, the speaking power to truth.
This is my favorite line in the whole thing.
CBC News contacted nearly a dozen candidates in the rest of the province to better understand what policies they intended to implement or repeal.
None agreed to be interviewed for broadcast, nor were they willing to elaborate via email.
You know what?
I'm so proud of those candidates for treating the CBC like they are.
A bunch of wackadoodles, as my friend Sheila Gundried would say.
These are people who are so extreme, and they're not journalists at all.
They're activists.
And you can never treat a CBC reporter as having good faith.
You have to assume they're operating in bad faith on an agenda for their boss.
I'm not saying there are no good people at the CBC.
I've actually met a few.
I mean, when you have nearly 10,000 people on your staff, you're going to have some good apples.
But this was not journalism.
This was a hit piece, an attempt at cancel culture.
And kudos to those candidates for not taking the bait and talking to these hacks.
One candidate, Jeanette Lee, who was running on an anti-woke platform in Hanover, Ontario, said when reached by phone, she didn't feel, quote, confident talking about her platform.
Now, is that really what she said?
Because that's the only word they have in quotes, confident.
Do you think there's just a teeny tiny chance that that's not what Jeanette said?
And that that was just an attempt to embarrass her.
Look, this is not a huge or important story.
I don't think a lot of people are going to act on this story.
I mean, if I lived in one of these communities, I would try and remember who these anti-woke candidates are.
The CBC tries to make anti-woke into a bad thing.
I don't think it's working.
But I think it's a glance behind the scenes into the mind of the CBC.
You know, sometimes you walk by a picket fence and every single picket is there, every single plank is there, but then one plank is missing.
And just for a second, you glance in and you see what's behind that fence.
You see what's in the yard or what's in the park.
Just with one plank of wood missing, you just saw into a world that you didn't know before.
I think this story. is like a picket fence.
It's like a fence with one plank missing.
And we can see into the mind of the CBC.
What do we learn about in the story?
We didn't actually learn that much about these candidates.
I don't know if there's a lot of them.
I don't know if this is just the first time the CBC paid attention to them.
We didn't learn about the Muslim or other newcomer candidates or parents.
We didn't learn anything about that.
I don't think we learned a lot about the world from this story, but we learned a lot about the CBC.
They're not journalists.
They're attack dogs for the woke left.
They quote the so-called anti-hate network that got a quarter of a million dollars from Trudeau to attack his political enemies.
Technicalities Trivialize Trials00:08:09
Anyone who quotes them is in league with Trudeau.
This is the state broadcaster and it's acting like him.
We now know what the CBC is going to do in the next federal election when it's Trudeau versus Pierre Polyev.
They're not going to do journalism.
They're not going to investigate power.
They didn't break the news about the ArriveCan app being $54 million and payments to people who say, I didn't get that money.
Did you see that story in the Globe and Mail?
One company that was listed as having received more than a million dollars for the app, their CEO said, what are you talking about?
We have no business here.
We've taken no money for the app.
It's made up.
That would be something I would investigate if I had 10,000 staff and a billion and a half dollars.
But the CBC is busy investigating parents who don't like transgenderism talk to grade schoolers.
What we have learned is what is going on with the CBC, and that is why it is so essential that if Pierre Polyev wins and becomes prime minister, he must absolutely pull the weed out by its roots.
Stephen Harper did many good things as prime minister, but I say it is one of his greatest failures that he did not defund, privatize, or frankly tear down brick by brick the propaganda machine, the Ministry of Truth that is the CBC.
Stay with us.
Well, one of the most important lawsuits that has come out during the pandemic and the lockdowns, it was important.
It was carefully crafted.
It had outstanding facts and arguments.
It was a core use of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It was the challenge to the no-fly list, the unvaccinated punishments that Justin Trudeau, Omar Al Gabra, and others inflicted upon millions of Canadians.
The reason why it was such an important lawsuit is because I think it genuinely had the greatest likelihood of success, given how egregious the violations on personal mobility were, how unscientific it was, and frankly, the quality of the lawyers, the legal drafting, and indeed the plaintiffs themselves.
No one less than Brian Peford, the former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the last surviving premier who negotiated and signed the Charter of Rights itself, was one of the plaintiffs and others like Maxime Bernier and people of different walks of life.
The lawsuit, which you can find on our website underneath this video, is compelling reading, not just for lawyers, but it's a work of history and politics and law.
And it was so important that this case go to court.
And yet, yesterday it was thrown out, not on substantive reasons, but because the court says, no, we don't need to talk about it.
It's not relevant anymore.
At least that's my one-line summary of it.
Joining us now via Skype from beautiful British Columbia is the aforementioned Premier Brian Peckford.
Yes, I think you did actually sum it up.
It's very puzzling to my lawyers and I that this would be considered moot given that the travel bans in question were suspended, not canceled, and that the public interest is so high in this case because it affected five to six million Canadians.
And we don't know when and if it will affect these Canadians again.
So we thought that the public interest here would far outweigh any technical legal issue like mootness.
We really don't have to talk about this now.
Meanwhile, a whole bunch of people were violated.
Their rights were violated.
They weren't allowed to travel.
They weren't allowed to visit loved ones who were dying in a hospital in another part of the country.
They weren't allowed to travel for their business and so on.
So it's a, you know, it's a brutal violation of the rights and freedoms described in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Well, not just that, but so much work had been done already.
This statement of claim, the statement of defense, examinations of expert witnesses, more than a dozen government experts, government officials, bureaucrats, very senior people testified under oath about how this law was crafted.
And some of the revelations that we learned from lawyer Keith Wilson were stunning.
The fact that that was all stopped from having a hearing, I mean, hundreds, probably a thousand hours worth of work has gone into this lawsuit, anyways.
It was the government that delayed it.
And now for the government to say, oh, too bad, so sad.
I know you were ready for trial, and we really, really wanted to have a trial on it.
But sorry, guys, it's no longer relevant.
After devastating millions of lives for a year, it seems to me that the court simply was shirking its duty.
It did not want to get its hands into it because it didn't want to be offside from the government.
So far, I can't think of a single court in this country, Premier, that has rolled back any substantive provision of the lockdowns.
Two years of brutal lockdowns, and the Charter of Rights has protected us from precisely nothing.
I couldn't agree more.
And the outpouring of negativity towards the decision in my own case since last night, just, you know, whenever it came down last night, when my lawyer called me and when I posted on my blog that the judge had ruled against us, within a few hours, over 7,000 Canadians have taken it upon themselves to write me about this already.
And before the day is out, there'll be well over 10,000 Canadians.
Very angry, very angry because they see this as a legal technicality denying justice.
And I think they're absolutely right here.
What the judges and what the courts are doing is finding legal technicalities.
And you being a lawyer, you know, as a lawyer, would understand this.
You know, there's legal technicalities and then there's justice.
And I thought at the end of the day that at least the superior courts of this land would understand the justice part more than trying to find legal avenues by which to deny this going ahead.
The other thing is, Ezra, which is really important, that my lawyers and I thought for sure under the process which we established with the court, an expedited process, the government of Canada, Department of Justice, had the opportunity, and we thought they'd really take advantage of this because they were so sure of their case in the court to cross-examine me if the case went ahead.
And before the mootness argument came up, our lawyers said the Department of Justice lawyers, of course, you're going to cross-examine Mr. Peckford and put him on the stand.
No, no, we're going to waive that opportunity.
So at every point where they could delay, where they could not interview one of the people like myself to cross-examine them, demonstrates that this government was going to use whatever means through the Department of Justice to ensure that this case was not heard in the normal course of events.
A lawyer wrote me this morning, he'll be interested in this, and said, I wonder what would have happened if the judge ruled that the residential schools issue is not a live issue anymore because there are no more residential schools and therefore we don't have to decide on this.
The Case Deserves Its Day00:09:29
There would be revolutions in the, you know, there would be protests in the streets.
But in like manner, here we have five or six million Canadians who are denied for several months their rights and freedoms under a constitution, under our charter.
And yet they can do this and get away with it.
That's such a great analogy about mootness.
And Justin Trudeau never hesitates to dig up old problems from decades or centuries ago to apologize for.
He's just not as good at taking accountability for his own rash decisions.
One of the most interesting things we've learned even in recent weeks is that the vaccines were never tested to block transmission.
So the whole concept of banning an unvaccinated person from an airplane is that was moot, so to speak, because if the vaccine only protected yourself and we can debate whether or not that was true, and if Pfizer is now admitting, no, no, we never said that it stopped transmission.
In fact, they did absolutely say that.
There was no rationale for keeping people off a plane other than political vengeance.
And that is why none of the establishment wants to have a full hearing of this.
Exactly.
And their whole case crumbles on that scientific basis.
And also the chief epidemiologist for the public health agency under oath said they did not recommend to the government that they bring in these travel mandates.
The top people in the Department of Transport through which the court case was started in the beginning testified on their oath that they did not recommend to bring in this travel mandate.
So their whole case has crumbled.
And I guess you're right that because it had crumbled on its scientific merit and because there was very little to argue on the constitutional side of things, because it's clear in section seven of the act, section six of the act of the charter, that they had to therefore devise means and ways to ensure that this didn't go forward because they would lose.
You know, a lot of institutions failed us in the last two years.
Our democracy depends on checks and balances.
I mean, I'll list a few of them.
The official opposition did not oppose.
None of the official oppositions in any province or territory opposed in any meaningful way.
The media turned into propagandists, not skeptics asking curious questions.
The colleges of physicians and surgeons prosecuted doctors who dared to have a second opinion.
Police departments became bully enforcers of bizarre rules.
But the courts, Premier, the courts, I think fell down hardest of all.
When I went to law school, the Charter of Rights was held up as a sacred document second only to the Bible for its holiness and its centrality to our Canadian character.
And yet here is, it was the Associate Chief Judge of the Federal Court, is that right?
Who said, no, no, not important.
There's no public interest here.
No, that's moot.
It ended a few weeks ago, so no need to have a hearing on it.
And I note that our Supreme Court of Canada has not ruled on a single lockdown matter.
I guess they're on vacation.
They had other things to do these past two years.
I think the courts have given themselves a black eye.
And let me say one more thing.
I'd love your reaction to this.
One of the concepts of our courts is that you get your day in court.
Even if you have a goofy claim, a wacky claim, a hopeless claim, unless it is purely a vexatious lawsuit designed purely to abuse the system, which is extremely rare, by the way.
Everyone gets their day in court, even people with hopeless causes.
And you know, it's important because let them have their day in court and let the judge rule against them and let the judge explain why.
And they can at least say, well, I played the game and I lost under the rules, but at least I was allowed to play the game.
And this judge, this associate chief judge yesterday said, no, we're not even going to give you your day in court.
We're too busy.
This is moot.
And two years of lockdowns and pandemics, oh, it's suddenly not relevant.
And I think millions of people are saying, well, what's the bloody point of a court then?
What is the point of a court?
It has more important files to work on, does it?
It has more grave civil liberties violations to work on, does it?
And so it's not just these other institutions I mentioned that have a black eye, the opposition parties, the media, the police, the colleges of physicians and surgeons.
It is the courts and the judges themselves who have lost, who have lost the support and the love of Canadians.
And I put myself in the category of someone who's deeply disappointed in the law.
And I say this is someone who used to be a lawyer.
Ezra, you make such a wonderful point.
I've done over 300 interviews in the last 300 and so days, live rallies, freedom rallies, and so on.
And one of the things I used to defend, and I have another one tomorrow on Vancouver Island.
And one of the things I used to defend in the question and answer period, which was like an hour and a half to two hours, I would speak for 40 minutes.
And I said to everybody in the audience, hold your questions, hold your comments.
I'll stay here if it's all night until everybody asks question, everybody gives a comment.
And one of the things I defended, at the end of the day, I would say to everybody, I have to play the system out because not to do so, I could always be criticized, but you didn't go through the judiciary.
You didn't go through the final process where everybody is guaranteed a hearing on a serious matter.
And I cannot now, tomorrow, when I go before people in a live rally, be able to defend all of those arguments that I made.
The court has invalidated my argument that I was using that they would be legitimate and hear the case.
They won't even hear the case.
And, as I said in my blog entry last night, announcing that the court had ruled against the case, I thought that when, as a when I joined, when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, we were joining a country that respected the magna carta, which was really the principle of being able to get redress before an independent judiciary.
And now we find these many six seven eight, nine hundred years later, a thousand years later that no longer does the magna carta and the foundations of our democracy hold in 2022.
And that is perhaps the most fundamentally disturbing thing to me, because I get goosebumps, my I get goosebumps to think that I was part of a system 51 years ago this month.
I got involved in organized politics 51 years ago this almost to this day and I I got involved in politics because I thought I was going to be engaged in a process of democracy, and now I had to put my name on the line, 51 years later and and argue my point and have it dismissed without even being argued before what I thought was a legitimate superior court.
And so, by the way, I also take issue with the um, and you listed them all except the think tanks, the so-called think tanks in Canada.
You know which sort of stand apart from academia, stand apart from the press, stand apart from everybody and are supposed to be there as the great oracles right, your program and you as a person, and Rebel NEWS and several other groups that have arisen as a result of this in the last two years, have been the only bulwarks to defend freedom in our nation.
And, and you know, I applaud you and I applaud your organization for standing up and having to go to court yourself to even get to a press conference.
But this is what it's come to and Ezra, we cannot stop now.
We must take this.
We're going to appeal this, if we can, to the Federal Appeal Court and then to the Supreme Court OF Canada, if necessary.
We're taking this all the way so that we hopefully, by doing this, embarrass some of these last judges to take a second look at this and understand that justice is not being served right now.
Well, that was going to be.
My next question is because, of course, the Federal Court is subject to the oversight of the Federal Court OF Appeal and that itself answers to the Supreme Court OF Canada.
And maybe they can come back from their summer vacation and hear a case regarding this little thing called the lockdown um I i'm not too optimistic because, Of course, appeal courts generally do not overturn lower courts.
Challenging Executive Overreach00:05:26
Just, you know, mathematically, it's improbable.
But I remember going through this lawsuit, and we're going to put the lawsuit underneath this video, a link to it.
We've done that before.
Not only have I gone through it with you, but I went through it with one of your lawyers, Keith Wilson.
It was an excellent lawsuit.
And I say that as someone who has reviewed many, many lawsuits during the pandemic.
It really did deserve its day in court.
Let me throw one more thing at you because you were talking about how you believed in the judiciary.
Well, I remember there's three big branches of government.
There's the legislature.
Those are the people who vote on laws.
There's the judiciary.
Those are the judges that review the laws.
And then there's the executive.
So there's three branches of government.
The legislature was not involved with this at all.
This was not debated.
This was not, this is no fly list.
This was not debated.
There were not hearings about it.
And the courts refused to hear it.
This was an executive decision, not even by the prime minister.
These were by some bureaucrats.
That is not how a democracy works.
We have these three branches that theoretically hold each other to account.
There was no legislator debate.
There was no vote on this.
And there was no transcripts.
There was no hearings.
They didn't ask people.
They didn't show their work.
This was true.
Autocracy.
No question.
Parliamentary committee.
One would have thought that all of the provincial legislatures and the federal parliament, given that mandates came from both jurisdictions, would have had a parliamentary committee overseeing this very important, unusual circumstance.
That's what it demanded.
Section one of the charter said you can override these rights and freedoms if you can demonstrably justify.
Those are the key words and demonstrably justify within a free and democratic society.
Neither one of those conditions have been met by anything any government in Canada has done.
And I argue this every day, in every meeting, in every interview, in every rally I do.
And I will to the day I die.
They have not even met the fundamentals of section one of the charter.
And by the way, while speaking of that, the charter, the main first words of the charter are this country is founded upon the principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
So we have the supremacy of God being ignored.
We have the rule of law being ignored.
We have demonstrably justified being ignored.
And we have rule of law being the free democratic society, which gets the parliament party in.
And so does demonstrably.
Demonstrably means you can demonstrate it to people.
If they're going to infringe your rights, they have to demonstrate it to you.
And not giving you a day in court, not having a debate in the legislature, not having any scrutiny.
You had to coax coax this information out of them through a legal process, the Charter of Rights failed.
And it's terrifying to have this conversation with the last living signatory of the thing and to see your.
Yeah, and by the way, I remember when you mentioned demands to be justified early on, 17 months, early on in the talks about the charter, one of the things when we came to section one that we already had sort of agreed to was justify.
And if Peter Lahid was alive today, if Bill Bennett was alive today, if Alan Blakeney was alive today, if Serling Lyon was alive today, if Premier McLean of PEI was alive today, all of those first ministers were part of the cabal of first ministers who put in, including me, demonstrably justify.
We wanted to strengthen it.
You cannot only just justify, you've got to go out of your way to justify this in order to override.
And then we put in free and democratic society because we thought that would coprofasten it now.
There's just no way unless it was a real insurrection or a war or something.
And remember, in section four of the charter, it talks about war and insurrection for extending the parliament right in the charter itself.
So the concept was alive and well in our minds at that time because we have it in there in section four.
So there's no basis in logic or in the charter to do to justify what they're doing.
Yeah.
Well, Premier Peckford, you're a national treasurer.
You're a great patriot.
You're a great Canadian.
And it's a, even though this is a dark moment, it's a pleasure to talk with you.
I sincerely hope that you and your lawyers come to the decision to appeal this.
I certainly hope you do.
And we will be watching it every step of the way.
And we'll be supporting you morally and journalistically.
And I know that the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, great guys, one of the few folks who were fighting for freedom during these dark days.
I salute them.
And I mentioned your lawyer, Keith Wilson.
I admire John Carpe, the president over there.
You guys have done more for freedom than all these other institutions that we were talking about.
Keep up the good fight, my friend, and keep your energy and keep your spirits high.
Why China's Communist Party Operates Police Stations in Canada00:10:37
We're not done with this fight yet.
No, you'll say that again.
And I look forward to seeing your people in Calgary to an event that you and your organization are sponsoring at the end of November.
And thank you for all your work.
Well, thanks for watching today's show.
I will be back in our world headquarters on Monday.
So thanks for putting up with me, being in unusual places without my usual studio.
But I think we did a great job.
And thanks to Celine Glass for helping me on the ground.
I think about what we, I talked to you earlier about the so-called investigations by the CBC.
You know, we have less than 1% of the budget of the CBC.
And what have we been investigating in recent days?
Well, the Trucker Commission, like a lot of people, we sent reporters to Berlin, Germany to investigate what the World Health Organization is saying.
Right now, we have reporters in Buenos Aires studying what Canadian mayors are doing, sneaking away to a globalist conference to come up with plans for Canada that they never consulted Canadians about.
That's what we do on a shoestring budget when we investigate.
The CBC investigates parents who are concerned that their kids of tender years are being taught extreme sex ed.
Well, that's the rebel for you.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel News, including in Edmonton, to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.
Hey, everyone, William Diaz here with Rebel News.
Chinese Communist Party.
Not the best party, right?
Well, we recently learned that the Chinese Communist Party has installed three police stations that are operating here in Canada, in the Grand Toronto area.
Unbelievable, that's really not good for Canadian sovereignty.
So I went to Parliament Hill yesterday and I asked Liberal MPs why are they allowing China to operate police stations here in our country in Canada?
Could it be because Justin Trudeau has stated his admiration for China's basic dictatorship?
Take a look at what he said.
There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime.
In addition to that, I wanted to know whether or not liberal MPs would push for Justin Trudeau's resignation if it is found in the Emergencies Act inquiry that he invoked the Never-Seen-Before Emergencies Act unjustifiably and unnecessarily.
Thank you.
So let's go see how all of them respond.
Mr. Al Jabra, how are you doing?
Can you explain to Canadians why the Chinese Communist Party is operating police stations here in Canada?
You're a little bit less pricey than last time.
Can you explain why the Chinese Communist Party is operating police stations in Canada?
Could it be because Justin Trudeau has an admiration for the Chinese Communist Party?
Do you think that's it?
Why is the Chinese Communist Party operating police stations in Canada, Mr Al-Shaba?
All right, last thing.
If it's found by the Emergency Act inquiry that Justin Trudeau invoked the emergencies act, unjustified him in an unjustified manner and unnecessarily, will you push for his resignation?
Will you?
Have a nice day.
Mr. Mendechino, why is the Chinese Communist Party operating police stations in Canada?
Why is the Chinese Communist Party operating police stations in Canada?
Alright, have a good day, sir.
Ms. Miss Anan, why is the Chinese Communist Party of Canada operating police stations in Canada?
The Chinese Communist Party of China operating police stations in Canada.
What steps will you take to make sure the police stations in Canada will go back to China?
Or do you agree with the fact that they're here because your leader has a deep admiration for the communism in China?
Can you answer?
I'm on my way to an event.
Do you agree, yes or no, that China is operating communist police stations in our sovereign country of Canada?
Do you agree?
Have a good day.
Oh, you're screwing here.
Do you agree, yes or no?
Will you push for Justin Trudeau's resignation if it is found that he used the emergencies act unnecessarily?
All you push for is the resignation.
All right, have a good day, man.
Garrett Sin, there are three police stations from China and Canada.
Do you care about Canadian sovereignty?
I'm with Rebel News.
Of course, I care about Canadian sovereignty, and I'm unaware of any information that suggests what you're talking about.
There are multiple reports of mainstream media here in Canada saying that we have three police stations operating in Canada.
David Mezziz did a little investigation himself.
Take a look.
It has made the news in several media outlets that there are actually Chinese police stations operating on Canadian soil.
Two in Markham and one in Scarborough that we know of.
And one of the overseas Chinese police stations is based here at the Canada-Toronto Fuking Business Association.
Why don't we just go and make another house call and see if anyone's home?
As you can see, the door is locked.
I see a monitor on, but so far, nothing.
Mr. Lloyd, why are your thoughts on the Chinese Communist Party operating police stations in Canada?
Oh, it's absolutely unacceptable.
What actions can the Conservative Party take to remedy the situation?
Well, I think we're doing everything we can to call on the government to use its governmental authority to take action on this issue and protect Canadian sovereignty.
Sir, why is the Chinese Communist Party operating police stations in Canada?
Does the Liberal Party agree about the fact and think it's okay that the Communist Party in China is operating police stations, three of them, here in Canada?
Do you think he's good?
Do you care about the Kenyan sovereignty?
You were more talkative last time that I saw you, but I guess because you already had an answer.
So I'll ask you again: do you agree?
And are you proud of having the Chinese Communist Party operating police stations here in Canada?
I'll take that as a yes.
So is the reason why you are okay with that because your boss has a deep admiration for the basic dictatorship in China?
Is that why the Liberal Party is fine with it?
Is that why?
All right, have a good day, sir.
Take care.
Only question answered.
Ms. Thompson, why is the Chinese Communist Party operating police stations in Canada?
Can you answer?
Why is the Communist Party in China putting Canadian sovereignty at risk and operating police stations in Canada?
Do you agree with what they're doing?
Would you support the fact that China is operating communist police stations in Canada?
I'll take that as a yes.
So is there a reason because your boss, Justin Trudeau, has a deep admiration for China's basic dictatorship?
Is that a way?
Alright, have a good day man!
Sir, why is the Chinese Communist Party operating police stations in Canada?
Mr. Garritson, why do you spend more time on Twitter than working for your constituents?
So there you have it, folks.
Here's what Liberal MPs had to say about the situation.
But as we saw, as we expected, they're not the most talkative.
Dane Lloyd also spoke to us about what the Conservative Party is trying to do to make sure that this situation is resolved as soon as possible.