Brian Peckford, former premier who helped draft Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), discusses his legal battles against COVID-19 vaccine mandates, arguing they remain relevant despite dismissal. He criticizes Justice Minister LeMetti for suggesting changes to the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, calling it unconstitutional, and warns Trudeau’s policies risk repeating past regional tensions like the National Energy Program. Peckford opposes the federal push for UNDRIP as undemocratic, advocating reforms like a BC Magna Carta to curb foreign treaties. Disappointed in Pierre Poilievre, he endorses Maxime Bernier’s PPC for long-term sovereignty and fiscal principles, noting its appeal among young voters. His fight underscores Canada’s unresolved Charter conflicts amid shifting political priorities. [Automatically generated summary]
Home, my friends, a special feature interview today with Brian Peford.
What a good egg.
What a smart cookie.
We're going to talk about his lawsuit against the federal government and how he's appealing a setback.
We're going to talk about Trudeau government's threat to tear up provincial rights and natural resources.
And we're going to talk about foreign treaties in Canada law.
You know, this guy has so many interesting things to say.
He really is living history.
As you know, he was the last living premier.
who actually was there in 1980s to negotiate and sign our Charter of Rights.
A very interesting man.
Let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus so you can see it in video.
We'll have a few video clips in the interview.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com and click subscribe.
It's a great show.
Here, take a listen.
Tonight, a feature interview with our friend, Premier Brian Peckford.
It's April 26th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you sensorious bug.
Sometimes there's an exercise in imagination.
People say, what historical figure would you like to have dinner with if you could go back in time?
And I love hearing the answers to that.
Joe Rogan went through the thought experiment of his, if there was any time and place in history, where could you go?
And I loved his answer.
He wanted to see how they made the pyramids.
And I think with Canada's history, it's a shorter history.
In fact, we only repatriated our Charter of Rights and Freedoms some 40 odd years ago.
So we don't have to engage in a speculative act of imagination to wonder what the framers of the most modern version of our Constitution would say, because we are lucky enough to have one of the premiers who actually negotiated and signed the Charter of Rights.
Thank God he's still with us.
And he is very much engaged in matters of public policy.
So we don't have to daydream, well, what would this premier or that prime minister have said?
We can actually get on the Zoom call with him via Skype from Victoria, B.C.
And indeed, right now, it is my pleasure to call on Premier Brian Peford of Newfoundland, who helped negotiate the Charter of Rights, to talk about that Charter of Rights.
It's the thought experiment come true.
Premier, great to see you again.
Justice Minister's Appeal Argument00:16:04
I say all that because you are a historical resource.
You're not just a pundit.
You are a man who was part of Canadian history.
And we're very glad to be able to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
It's great to be on with you again, Ezra.
Well, thank you.
And I want to take our time because our viewers love not just the education they get from you, but the passion you are a true believer in this country.
And you're in British Columbia now.
You, of course, are a Newfoundlander at heart.
And I think people can tell your love for this country and they're moved by it.
I'd like to talk about a couple of things.
Like I say, you're not just an observer or a pundit.
You're a man of history.
You're part of history.
And you were the plaintiff in a constitutional challenge to the federal government's rule that banned unvaccinated people from flying or taking the train.
Now, unfortunately, the court saw fit to throw that out saying it was moot.
I understand that you and your fellow plaintiffs, including Maxime Bernier, have filed an appeal.
Can you tell us a little bit about the legal status of your lawsuit?
I think it's important that it get its day in court.
Tell me a little bit about your thoughts.
Yes, well, when we lost in the federal court on the idea of mootness that the judge ruled on, we and the lawyers took a hard look at this to see whether there were grounds for appeal.
And the lawyers came back and said, in their view, and in my view too, there is a strong argument to appeal.
And so we have filed the appeal now, and we're waiting for the federal government for the Crown to respond to our appeal application.
And so that's where we are right now.
Hopefully, we'll get a federal government response to our appeal.
And then the judge, a judge, will be appointed, the federal court of appeal, to hear our appeal and then give us a date.
So that's where it is.
Very interesting, Esra.
Your viewers might like to know that a court in British Columbia, since this COVID business started, ruled against moot being used in this constitutional pandemic environment because the judge said that we don't know when this is all going to be over, when they're going to perhaps reinstitute it again.
Of course, that was one of our arguments before the federal court that this is not a moot at all because the Minister of Transportation and other members of the federal government had indicated that they would rebris this back in again at a moment's notice if they felt in their wisdom, in my view, in their unwisdom, that it was needed.
So it is not a moot dead situation.
It's a very alive situation.
The other argument we're making now in our appeal is one that's very, very important, and that is this is in the public interest.
There were millions of Canadians who were unvaccinated who were denied their constitutional charter rights to travel to see their parents, to see their family, to visit their business, whatever, or even travel outside the country to friends or family.
And so our constitutional rights and freedoms under the charter were violating millions of Canadians, and that this is in the public interest for the highest courts in the land to adjudicate on the federal government's action and whether it's constitutional or not.
So those are our two main arguments.
The third one, which is sort of secondary, but when you hear it, it makes people really mad.
And that is that the judge talked about not being able to afford the time.
This really wasn't, you know, a case now because this moot to take up the time of the court and the cost of the court.
This from a judiciary, which is involved with a government that has spent like drunken sailors over the billions of dollars in the last three years.
So this is a pretty silly argument.
And hopefully the lawyers will get a chance to argue that in court as well.
So those are the three main things.
And so we're waiting now to see when the federal government responds to our application of appeal and a date for when it will be heard.
Right.
Well, that's, I'm very glad you are doing that appeal.
And I presume it's with the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
Well, they're excellent, and we know them.
And they really do set the standard.
And I'm a supporter of theirs as well as the Democracy Fund, two great civil liberties groups.
You know, There's a circular argument to saying, well, we ought not to take up the court's time with this travel ban because it's gone.
Well, the thing is, I don't know if the phrase is a circular argument, but if it's in place for a number of months or let's say even a year, if the court moves slowly, which is the court's way, and then the government removes the flight ban, if you could not possibly have been in court any faster if they move so slowly, we'll never know if it was legal or not.
And they could bring it back and then take it out and bring it back.
And I suppose theoretically, technically, they could every year they could suspend it and say, oh, you can't take us to court because it's moot.
I mean, just because the courts are slow doesn't mean it's not an important matter.
And the government has not repudiated it or renounced this.
As you say, they would do it again in a flash.
They thought it was very good.
And I can't think of something that's more in the public interest to more people than this.
Absolutely, Ezra.
You make an excellent point because guess what?
We applied for this to be an expedited case, and the courts accepted it.
And the federal government accepted it as an expedited case.
Then they turn around after agreeing to speed it up and slow it down by going back to the court and asking for changes as to how many people they would have arguing the case two or three times.
And so they are the people who have contributed to us not having the case heard before the federal government took away the mandates.
Yeah, I think their very slowness, it's on them.
And then for them to say, oh, too late, you're out of time.
Well, listen, I wish you good luck with that.
And it sounds like there are many steps yet to go.
But do you think there's a chance that the appeal could be heard in 2023?
Or do you think this is something that won't be heard until next year?
I mean, boy, these courts move slowly, don't they?
Oh, man, it's just unbelievable.
When you look at some of the appeal courts in the United States and compare it to here, it really makes you sad.
But no, our best judgment and talking to the lawyers and so on is that it will be heard this year.
I'm glad to hear it.
You're right to point to the United States.
I mean, the Supreme Court itself in the United States weighed in on various lockdown rules in, I think, as soon as 2020.
I mean, there were some great cases written, and the Supreme Court of the United States has some brilliant writing.
I mean, their judgments really come alive, and they're often quite brief, which is the best.
Like there was a famous case, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, locked down churches, but gave exemptions to some Hollywood productions.
And I forget which judge it was who said, if you can sing at America's Got Talent, you can sing in a church.
He wasn't saying you can't lock down a church.
He was saying you can't lock it down any harder than the governor.
And that was one of the things the governor said.
You can't go to church because there's all this singing.
And the court said, well, if you can allow, it was just a beautiful short ruling that said, if you can sing on America's Got Talent or American Idol, you can sing in a church.
And they quickly swatted down these unconstitutional moves.
And in Canada, our Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on any lockdown or pandemic matters.
Our Supreme Court has literally not ruled on a single case.
Am I right on that, Premier?
Yes, exactly.
You're absolutely right on that.
It's an embarrassment to Canadians to think that these courts in Canada can move so slowly.
And here, our neighbor to the south can move so much quicker.
I mean, what can you say anymore about where the court?
And the other thing about this case now, as I said in my introduction, is that there was a court in BC, in the Supreme Court of BC, which actually said that the Mootness argument was not valid.
So you have one court, the high court in one province, saying moot is not valid in this pandemic era.
You need decisions.
You need answers.
And then another court at the federal level saying that you can use mootness.
So the judiciary has a problem in being consistent.
Well, listen, I wish you good luck in that appeal.
And I don't want to say that I'm optimistic because I am not optimistic.
I don't think a single substantial, substantive matter has been adjudicated in the freedom direction by any court in Canada.
There were a few very minor cases that had a flicker of freedom, but they were appealed.
There was a family law case in Ontario that it was appealed.
And the federal court is being atrocious.
So listen, I'm rooting for you, but I don't want to, I have just had the optimism beaten out of me on this pandemic stuff.
I want to switch gears, though, if I may, Premier.
Okay.
Because I want to talk about other constitutional matters.
It's not just about civil rights.
It's also about, you know, part of our constitution is which level of government gets to do what.
And in fact, that has probably been behind many of the constitutional disagreements in Canada, even more than the civil liberties stuff.
And what can the feds do?
What can the provinces fight back with?
That's been really an animating feature of the Quebec separatism.
I want to draw your attention to a statement made by the Justice Minister LeMetti when he was at an Aboriginal gathering.
I think it was the Association, Assembly of First Nations.
And he was asked a question about Indigenous sovereignty over resources.
And he mused, he was asked, would he consider turning over a constitutional agreement that's almost 100 years old, about 100 years old between provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan and the feds that gave those provinces the rights to resources, which all the other provinces have.
Without further ado, let me play the clip of Justice Minister Lehmeti not agreeing, but saying he would review it.
He would take a look at it.
Here, listen to the Justice Minister in his own words.
From Chief Bryan, also from Chief Don Merrickle, the point about the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement.
Chief Merkle did it indirectly.
Chief Bryan did it directly.
And you're on the record for that.
I obviously can't pronounce on that right now, but I do commit to looking at that.
It won't be uncontroversial is the only thing I would say with a bit of a smile.
Well, I'm sure he did that to please the audience right in front of him.
But the thing about the 21st century is what you say to one group of people is often caught on tape and is shown to other groups of people.
So you better keep your story straight.
That led to outrage and panic by the two provinces I mentioned before, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Basically, here's the Justice Minister saying he will review the entire constitutional order.
And those two provinces put up press releases.
I don't know if it was serious, but the premier, but the justice minister then put out a statement denying he said it.
We saw the tape.
Premier, is this much ado about nothing?
Is this just a justice minister sucking up and trying to pander to a group of people in front of him?
Or do you think that Justin Trudeau and his justice minister would seriously consider taking natural resource rights away from Alberta and Saskatchewan and giving it to the feds or the indigenous people?
I don't, I think he was pandering, but I suspect there was also an element in there of testing just how this would fly within the body politic.
And I think he got his answer.
The other thing one could say is that if it's neither of those, then the man is incompetent and should be fired from his job.
The prime minister should fire the man because if he's just not pandering or testing it with the prime minister's blessing, then this is absolutely ridiculous.
The section, as you know, section 92A of the BNA Act clearly gives jurisdiction for natural resources, non-renewable natural resources, to the provinces.
And this transfer to the two provinces when it was done was consistent with that provision of the Constitution.
And furthermore, to even make it more difficult for the Prime Minister and the Justice Minister to make good on this silly notion, myself, you're surely here, negotiated, my administration negotiated with the federal government the Atlantic Accord.
Only the few months before we negotiated, the government of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that offshore oil and gas resources belonged to the federal government.
They had jurisdiction over it.
And yet, a few months later, we were able to negotiate an Atlantic Accord, which transferred the enactment of royalties and the collection of royalties as if the oil and gas was on land and that we would have significant management rights as well.
So a very current situation exists whereby a province which has no jurisdiction over oil and gas over non-renewable resources offshore has de facto provincial jurisdiction.
So for the federal government now to turn around and to try to violate section 92A of the BNA Act and violate the spirit and words of the Atlantic Accord is something that will not fly.
And the Minister of Justice might as well go and crawl away into a corner and get out of politics altogether because that is ridiculous.
You know, I'm so glad you reminded me about that Atlantic Accord.
And you're right, because if you can take those natural resource rights away from Alberta and Saskatchewan, why couldn't you take it away from the Atlantic provinces too?
And although that may suit Justin Trudeau, who's always looking for more sources of revenue, that's just not how Canada is built.
Lessons from Pierre00:03:49
And, you know, it's just so different.
When Stephen Harper was elected prime minister, you know, his critics, oh, he's a cowboy, he's from Calgary, he's a wild man, he's going to torch the place.
He pacified separatist movements.
When he left office, Quebec separatism was at a once-in-a-generation low because he did not inflame things.
In fact, the one comment he made a decade earlier about Atlantic Canada having maybe a welfare mentality, he said that once and he never lived it down.
Other than that comment, which he made long before he was prime minister, he was meticulous at not antagonizing the regions.
In fact, you could say he gave too much away to the regions.
He gave away billions to Quebec.
It's so ironic that Stephen Harper, the outsider, the Calgary Conservative, was more respectful of regional differences than the Quebec, the son of Quebec, Justin Trudeau.
And you see that again here, the cavalier way in which the Trudeau government pokes the bear.
It makes no sense to me, but he's doing it.
Yeah, absolutely no sense whatsoever.
And I really think that the prime minister is seen to be very weak here because this minister had no business musing like that at any form in Canada, where it's unmistakable.
And we all know from the national energy program that his father brought in and how that was, you know, that's still causing Alberta and Saskatchewan to vote conservative today, many decades after that attempt by his father to do it.
That they would have learned their lesson, but they don't seem to have learned their lesson and they're still trying to, they're the ones who use the word balkanize the country again when they attack the provinces.
That's really the federal government that's balkanizing the country.
Yeah.
You know, when you say, did he learn his lesson?
Well, I think the lesson he learned was that his father, Pierre Trudeau, could win election after election by antagonizing Alberta because it's a small place that always votes conservative anyway.
So I think, unfortunately, I mean, remember, I think he was born in December 1971.
So he was just a boy of around 8, 9, 10, 11 when that real national energy program was in effect.
So he would have been, he wouldn't have had a deep knowledge, but he would have known something was going on.
He would remember some names and faces.
And apparently he was around the supper table when Pierre Trudeau had Mark Lalan, the Minister of Energy, Natural Resources, others around.
I think that Justin Trudeau has a child's memory, which is a simplified memory.
But if anything, he would have the last years of his father's tenure as prime minister were amongst the most antagonistic.
So if he has any memory of lessons learned from his dad, it would be smash Alberta to hell with that oil province.
Screw the West.
We'll take the rest.
Like if he learned anything, it was what he could get away with.
And I think you see that.
I think there's echoes in Justin Trudeau of what a child heard his father say 25 years ago.
40 years ago.
It could very well be.
But he's got very poor advisors and very poor people from the West advising him.
I mean, no doubt the Trudeau of today visiting Saskatchewan and Alberta has heard when he's shaking hands with people how they would obviously bring up the national energy program.
UN vs. Sovereignty00:04:17
And his people are reading the newspapers every day.
And so there's no excuse for this man and for this minister getting on like that when there's so many other issues that are important to the country that they should be putting their minds to, as opposed to Steve trying to steal away jurisdiction legitimately given to the provinces.
You know, I want to ask you about one more thing.
And I suppose it's a quasi-constitutional matter.
In the United States, foreign treaties have to be ratified by the U.S. Senate.
President can negotiate them, but they don't become American law until they're approved by the Senate.
And I think there's some wisdom there.
In response to LeMetti's statement and then his half-backtracking, Justin Trudeau and Lehmedi put out comments saying they were actually, they tried to flip it around and go on the offensive, saying that Pierre Polyev of the Conservatives doesn't respect Indigenous people and that in fact it's LeMedi's goal to bring Canada into compliance with this UN treaty called UNDRIP, United Nations DRIP,
which is a declaration on rights of Indigenous persons.
Here's Trudeau trying to flip it around.
Instead of being apologetic or saying, oh, it was nothing, he actually doubled down in a way saying, we're going to do more for Indigenous people than those conservatives.
Hi, I'm Lack from the Free Press.
I wanted to ask about the Natural Resources Transfer Act.
Is it appropriate, in your opinion, to review the agreements?
And how do you address the concerns raised by the Prairie Premiers?
Let me be very clear.
The Minister of Justice said no such thing.
If you actually look at his remarks, it is very clear that we're talking about the importance of the federal government living up to our responsibilities under UNDRIP, something that unfortunately the Prairie Premiers have not taken seriously.
And they are instead trying to elevate fears that have absolutely no grounding in truth.
We know we need to move forward in true reconciliation and partnership with Indigenous peoples.
And that's something that we certainly hope we're going to be able to work on with the premiers and with Indigenous peoples to be able to grow the economy and create those great jobs, including in natural resources, that are going to be there for decades to come as we move towards a net zero world.
That's Trudeau in question period.
And here's LeMedi, again, not really denying the essence of it, saying that he intends to make Canada's laws harmonize to the UN.
Premier, the UN is not in our Constitution.
The UN was not voted for by Canadian people.
You can't fire the UN.
You can't elect a different party of the UN.
I find it undemocratic that synchronizing and harmonizing our country with the whims of foreign diplomats, bureaucrats is a goal at all.
I mean, I'm worried about that.
And again, I wish we had the American checks and balances where their Senate has to approve it.
The situation is that I have come to the conclusion, and last year I issued my own Magna Carta on the steps of the legislature of the BC legislature in Victoria.
And one of the provisions of what I was proposing for reformed Canada is that this business of signing deals, either with the UN or trade deals, which in any way affect our sovereignty, must be opposed.
We must go back to first principles as it relates to our Constitution and our sovereignty.
Yes, we are a trading nation, but we trade and it must be fair trade without any semblance of somebody else deciding upon that trade and what can be traded and what can be.
The same way as it relates to our rights under the Constitution.
We must reform our policies so that we're not signing on to things as members of the United Nations, which would come back to violate the constitutional principles which established the country in the beginning.
I'd say there's a lot of things broken.
Start Somewhere00:09:15
I want to ask you a partisan question, and I don't want to put you on the spot because I think your advice is more nonpartisan.
I mean, people of every political stripe can respect the Constitution, respect the Charter of Rights, respect national sovereignty.
And I think, by the way, the lockdowns during the pandemic, there were people in all parts of the spectrum who had reasons to oppose it.
So I like to think of you as nonpartisan.
But in many ways, the solution to the current crisis would involve in our system replacing the current prime minister with the leader of the opposition.
And I'd like to ask you, first of all, for your assessment of Pierre Polyev as a prospective prime minister.
And second of all, your prediction: do you think he's got a shot?
I think there's a chance we'll have an election this year.
Polls show that the Conservatives are actually leading, not by a lot, but leading.
What are your thoughts on Polyev?
Would he be a good PM?
And do you think he's got a chance?
I had hoped that he would, somebody coming after Mr. O'Toole, would pick up the mantle, but I have been very disappointed.
He called me when he was running for the leadership and asked for my support, and I refused to provide it to him because I was at that point disappointed in how he did not participate in the Truckers Convoy, where I flew down to there and spoke and had meetings with Terameralish and the board and so on.
I was very strongly supportive of what they were doing, especially after I got there and realized that this was a very peaceful civil disobedience, constitutionally ratified protest.
And so I was very, very disappointed.
And I found out from some of the people from Saskatchewan and Alberta who were part of trying to get a meeting with the government as a delegation, a trucker's delegation, to talk about their grievances.
But at the same time, they were trying to get meetings with the Conservatives and the NDP.
And they were refused.
And so I could not support his leadership or get involved with the Conservative Party again, Conservative Party of Canada, because of that.
Since he became leader, I have made the comment that it's really, you know, blue suits with a very reddish taint.
When the lady from the European Parliament came over here, Christine Annie, when she came over here and met with a number of the Conservative MPs and then was lambasted, almost using Trudeau's words, Mr. Polyev did, to do that, it showed a sign of poor leadership.
This is where he really could have shone brightly amongst those who want to support him and who want him to be prime minister.
And he failed that test badly, very badly.
And then thirdly, I was really disappointed in how we approached the CBC by writing Twitter, which only lasted a few days and Twitter took off the designation of being a government-appointed institution.
This was a diversion.
What the leader should do, leader of the opposition should do, Mr. Polyev, is go into the House of Commons tomorrow and put a bill, put a resolution on the floor of the House of Commons saying that we should get rid of public broadcasting in this country and allow a vote to occur so that then the people who are conservative-minded and want to support him can see that he's really serious.
The bill or resolution will fail because the NDP and liberals will vote against it, but we'll clearly see where they are now and we'll clearly see where the conservatives are.
So people will have a lot more confidence in voting for the Conservative Party if he acted in those ways.
The other thing he could do tomorrow, as I said in my Magna Carta, is he could go into the House of Commons and propose a change to the Conflict of Interest Act, whereby no MP who has been found guilty of violating the conflict of interest legislation by either the Conflict of Interest Commissioner or Court of Law cannot sit in the House.
So those are two things he could do tomorrow to really demonstrate to Canadians that he's on their side.
Right.
And he has not done it.
Now, your co-plaintiff in the airline mandate case is Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People's Party.
And we have quite a strong relationship with Maxime Bernier.
We interview him a lot.
We find him very interesting.
We found him quite principled on a lot of matters, including during the lockdown.
And I think we interview him every month or two.
And I admire, there's a lot to like about Maxime Bernier.
But if I have to be completely, pragmatically, coldly candid, he cannot form the next government.
And even when he had a seat, when he had the one seat for his party, he didn't break through.
And there were a lot of reasons for that, including they, in my view, illegally kept him out of the leaders' debate.
There were a lot of other reasons.
But, and let me tell you this as someone who admires Maxime Bernier and generally supports him.
I wish it were otherwise, but I do not think that Maxime Bernier can mathematically be the next government.
So to me, there's really only two mathematical choices, Justin Trudeau or Pierre Polyev.
And those are the two pragmatic choices.
And therefore, I will, between those choices, choose Pierre Polyev.
Would you do differently?
Yes, I will vote for Maxim Bernier in a flash because I'm looking long term.
We have to change the whole structure of this country.
We can do a lot within the existing constitution, like I just proposed, as it relates to CBC, as it relates to tightening up the conflict of interest legislation, as it relates to the political parties publishing their audited financial statements of their party every year, as it relates to sovereignty and signing trade agreements and so on.
We can do a lot inside the existing constitution, but we need to do more.
And therefore, we have to start somewhere to begin that reform.
And so I'm looking long term.
And long term, the policies that are on the PPC website today, on Mr. Bernier's website, most align with my views now as a Canadian and as a former First Minister.
They align most with me.
I see what has happened to bilingualism, biculturalism.
I see what's happening to being very, very flexible in trade agreements.
I see what's happened to our immigration policy where it hasn't matched our economic policy and which has gotten out of hand.
And so we have to start somewhere.
And so in however many years I got left, as long as Mr. Bernier sticks with those principles that he has actually put in writing, and by the way, his expenses are right there on his website as well, his financial statements, which I'm asking the other parties to do.
I will begin anew to assist him in getting, look, if he could get three or four seats, to have to be interviewed by the press to start the ball rolling, I think that would be a really good start.
And having him part of the national conversation and his views could really assist.
So you start small, you get a couple of seats or whatever, you get a chance to get your ideas out there.
And that could lead to over the next two elections to them being a very big political force.
So you got to start somewhere.
Canada is broken.
Our democracy has been lost.
Our charter has been broken, and therefore, this is a long-term project.
And we must start now with honesty and real system to begin rebuilding our nation.
And I can't think of any better way to do it practically than through the PPC.
Well, that's a very passionate case for Maxine Bernie.
I should point out that every single poll I see shows the PPC with dramatic strength among young people.
It's, you know, typically conservative voters skew older, but the strongest demographics for the PPC are the under 30s, the 18 to 29s, which I just thought I'd mention.
It was on my mind.
And on that note, Mr. Levant, look at the U.S. coming out of the U.S. just yesterday was a situation where a lot of young people are returning to traditional religion, traditional values.
And I think that's why you see the young people in Canada starting to move towards the People's Party of Canada.
Young Voters Swing Elections00:01:21
Well, listen, it's great to catch up with you.
And you're a wealth of wisdom about the law, but also historical details like the Atlantic Accord.
I'm so glad you mentioned that earlier.
I had forgotten about that.
I think it's because I'm a Westerner, so it wasn't top of mind for me.
It's always a pleasure to catch up with you, a very principled man who's lived our history, and I look forward to talking to you many more times.
Thank you very, very much.
And if I go back into history, I would love to go back and be a part of the jury that listened to Socrates.
Wow, the jury that listened to Socrates.
That's, you know, for me, I'll tell you the moment in my mind, I would have loved to have been in London in the time of Shakespeare, when the New World and India were being discovered.
London was a global hub.
They were writing the King James Version.
I would love to have seen what that city was like 400 years ago.
I just don't want the plague part of it.
Yes, exactly.
And I taught Shakespeare in high school, and that's one of the things that I read almost every day is something that Shakespeare wrote or one of his plays.
So that would be my second choice.
Right on.
Great to talk with you, my friend.
Nice to see you.
And we'll look forward to talking to you again soon.