09. Panel -Lawyer Shawn Buckley, Fearless Canada’s Richard Girgis, and CAERS’ Max Daigle.mp4: Video automatically transcribed by Sonix

09. Panel -Lawyer Shawn Buckley, Fearless Canada’s Richard Girgis, and CAERS’ Max Daigle.mp4: this mp4 video file was automatically transcribed by Sonix with the best speech-to-text algorithms. This transcript may contain errors.

Preston Manning:
This is really bringing these this hearing to an end. And we don't have a lot to say on this because we want to go over the transcripts of this hearing in some detail, because there's been a lot of suggestions, observations on what has happened and suggestions as to what's the next step. But I'd like to just read off about three possible things that we can do and we can discuss these, or there may be other suggestions come. But first of all, I want to say that the intent is to follow up on these hearings. Not not this is not just a one shot deal. Hopefully it's the start of something. So the first item here would be to share the videos and the testimony generated by the hearings from June 22 to 24, and to try to use that to raise awareness, to stimulate dialogue among Canadians about the need for this. And note that for many, if not the majority, the harms that arose were independent of the vaccine. Mandates of the all the harms we're looking at are much more broader than that. So first follow up step is shared the video and testimony generated by this hearing. The second one is to explore ways and means of continuing the citizens hearings in some way or form as to what were the adverse effects of the health protection measures on on these major categories, on health, other aspects of health, on rights and freedoms, on jobs and incomes, the economic impacts and on the supply chain impacts.

Preston Manning:
And one of the ways that that can be done is to maintain and expand this current hearing website. And a second way is to consider whether we can sponsor this depends partly on resources, maybe monthly one day virtual hearings to collect and communicate more testimonies and more narratives. So if there are people out there and we know that there are that have been watching this and say, look, I've got a story to tell, and I know lots of people have got stories to tell. We'd encourage you to go to this website and say that you want to do that, because we'll try and set up some kind of mechanism where this hearing process can go on from month to month. The third thing is to as as a next step, as a follow up to this, is continue in whatever way we can and encourage viewers and other participants to do this to promote the need for an independent national non governmental investigation into the government's management of the COVID crisis.

Preston Manning:
This citizens hearing's been set up partly as a demonstration. This is the kind of thing that could happen. But for this to be effective at a national level, we need a full blown national, independent, non governmental investigation into these issues. And the more that's promoted, the more that idea is expressed to others. And we heard, the more that the public hear that from others, the better. And then lastly, as as I mentioned at the beginning, a next step for us is to compile the review, to evaluate and address the various observations and next steps that have been suggested by participants in this hearing itself. So those are four suggested next steps and invite other members of the committee to share the videos and testimony, explore ways and means of continuing the hearing process, continue to promote the need for this independent national inquiry, and dig into all the data that we have collected over the last two days to see what we can get in terms of observations and other suggested next steps. So, gang, take it away. Don't all speak at once.

Shawn Buckley:
Well, I don't mind speaking about something that has been on my mind for the last couple of days. One thing that's really troubled me is just how institutions, like let's take the College of Physicians and Surgeons for each province, have managed to, by and large, successfully dictate to the physicians and surgeons behavior that that contradicts even their own bylaws and codes of ethics and and the whole deal. And there's been almost total compliance. It's like there's this culture of fear. And yesterday, some of the people and some of the discussion I mean, the word courage came up that we need courage. And I'm wondering if part of the problem is actually cultural, because we've moved into this kind of woke culture where more than in the past, we basically enforce total conformity with whatever the dominant narrative at the time is. And I think one of the things that has facilitated the capture of the people on the front lines on this and basically having every institution institution fail us may be part of a cultural problem. And I don't know how you address that in a hearing, and I don't know how that could go in the term of reference. But I'm just being haunted that there's something philosophical going on that is enabling this. I, I remember reading a book on the Holocaust and the author was making the point that the countries in Eastern Europe were much more willing to participate in the Holocaust than countries in Central and Western Europe. And the Netherlands is an example. And his point was as well, the Eastern countries had already had their institutions destroyed with occupation before the Germans then reoccupied them. And so having a culture of institutions that have, you know, have established principles with fundamental and limiting cooperation, but it's almost like our cultural move to total conformity has undermined our institutions in a way that is only now being revealed.

Richard Girgis:
I think, Shawn, you're on to something. I think there's probably there's even a little bit more nuance to it than that, because the culture seemed to have changed almost overnight and it was under the guise of a public health emergency. So, I mean, there's a big part of it. Fear played, a big part of the actions. So lack of courage. Is tantamount to fear. But the fact is, before the COVID crisis, of all the cultures we could consider worldwide ours and to the same extent or even more so in the States, our culture was prone to dissent and to questioning authority and to questioning governmental abuse, questioning institutional overreach, conflicts of interest. And we used to hold to account corporations, multinational corporations, including the ones that were being discussed up until just today. And they've paid hefty fines. But since COVID, it seems like there's been a silencing. And I don't know if it's primarily out of fear or if it's something that exacerbated an underlying cultural weakness as well.

Max Daigle (CAERS):
Well, what what I'm thinking is that we've got to try to get fear out of the conversation. It's been the last couple of years. Fear has been driving a lot of this. And we need to find a way to have a heart to heart conversation. But the whole situation on the effects it had on everyone.

Preston Manning:
And well, that's a good item. I mean, it's a big item. How do you change a culture of fear as a next step? But one of the ways you address this politically in a small circumstance, as you say to the voter, when you feel your fear button being pushed, be aware that somebody is doing it for a particular reason. Be explicit about that. And certainly you can do that in a public audience. You can stop the audience and say, Look, if you feel your fear button being pushed, do you realize who is doing that, why they are doing it and being able to do that kind of inoculation on the broad scale might be part of an answer to what you're talking about. That's a very good point. Other things, we're just looking for items. We can't have too many because we we're just looking at what are the first sort of next steps. Richard.

Richard Girgis:
I think that institutionally there has to be a return to the original role. So when it comes to regulatory agencies, they have to return to the role. And when it comes to the judiciary as well, they have to return to their role. And the fact of the matter is that right now what we're seeing, including with the cases that we discussed earlier in Quebec, but not just in Quebec, we have we have courts and judges who are taking judicial notice of public health recommendations. And this is a major issue because it basically stifles all possibility of conversation or debate right off the bat, right from the get go. And at the same time, we also have the judiciary saying that it cannot substitute itself for executive power. Yet the judiciary is supposed to stand opposed in a sense, or at least independent of executive or legislative power. And we don't seem to be having that in Canada right now. Right now in Canada, there's this uniformity in response. There's this this uniformity in thought. And nobody wants to step out of bounds, in a sense. And I understand to a certain extent, because if I had to put myself in the position of a single judge, for example, in a superior court or to a lesser extent in an appeals court, but let's just say in a court of first instance, I have to put myself in the shoes of of a judge who single handedly has to decide and put this pressure on their shoulders if a public health policy or a vaccination policy is legitimate.

Richard Girgis:
And that judge has to be the one to evaluate expert testimony on both ends of the conversation. This judge is not necessarily trained to do so and has to rely on expert witness testimony, but it's so much easier and less controversial to take judicial notice of public health recommendations and forget about the greater debate. And the media and government have been in, in many senses, complicit in this, in the sense that they've created this atmosphere where there can really only be one way to look at things, and therefore, there's no reason to to have a public debate. So how can we, going forward, get institutions and the judiciary to return to their role, to return to the role and take it upon themselves to to execute the role the way that they always have before and the way that they're meant to in the first place.

Preston Manning:
Okay. We can add that to our list. The restoration of judicial independence. One tiny step in that direction would be to flood the Judicial Council. Shawn, you can explain that that judicial council is the one body to which complaints concerning the performance of the judiciary. I'm writing that, aren't I?

Shawn Buckley:
Yes. Yes, you are.

Preston Manning:
So one thing it would be to flood that council with with complaints about the lack of independence of the judiciary, or maybe they're being coerced like everybody else. But that would be one. Now, the only one little problem with that is the chair of that council is the chief justice, who I would suggest has been compromised on this issue itself. But that's another another question. That's a good very good point, Richard Preston.

Shawn Buckley:
Another issue that seems to be a problem here is, is the issue of institutional capture. And if you remember, Deanna McCloud yesterday was doing a presentation on kind of how this comes about. And I remember before his death, I was a friend with of Dr. Shiv Chopra, who was a Health Canada drug approval scientist for roughly 30 years. And he became a whistleblower and had forced the Senate to call him and some other drug approval scientists to basically testify about how Health Canada is influenced by bribes and pharmaceutical pressure. And I think one of the real problems is, is this cost recovery that the Mulroney government brought in. Where the idea sounds really good is, well, let's charge fees to the regulatory industry or regulated industry to basically cover a large part of the cost of the regulatory body. But when we're dealing with the issue of health and safety, I don't think that's a very good idea. So I don't know what the figures are, but I think it's roughly two thirds of Health Canada's budget comes from fees charged. By Health Canada to the pharmaceutical industry, and it creates a real classic conflict of interest when the regulators depend on those, the pharmaceutical companies, to be basically filing drug submissions and charging for that. I could go on and on and on about the problems. But but definitely we have a problem of institutional capture and likely not just with Health Canada. And I think that's an issue that likely should be specifically addressed in the terms of reference.

Max Daigle (CAERS):
Well, to reinforce Preston's point earlier, I think we need to really, really focus on on on sharing a lot of stories that people have that have suffered across Canada. Just keep. You know. Having that out there, get them in through the website or whatever it may be, and get them to to share to the public the greater public of Canada that, you know, there has been a lot of suffering that was not necessary at all. And that's I think we'll have a greater chance to reach people's hearts and and then reach to people's minds. Right.

Preston Manning:
Yeah. Actually, you've made this point before that whichever of these other issues we go after, whether it is this culture of fear, whether it's the lack of judicial independence, whether it's Shawn's point about institutional capture through a perverse cost recovery process, the door in is is some story by somebody that's been hurt by one of these. Like, you don't start with these communication wise. You start with the story of the harm that's been done and then attribute that. Maybe that's because of the culture of fear. Maybe that's because of judicial lack of judicial independence. I think that's really what you're saying. This is a communication strategy and this has been emphasized here before. Okay. I don't want our list to get too long because.

Shawn Buckley:
Because I do have some other points if you want to go there. But if you don't, that's okay.

Preston Manning:
Yeah, I think I think I think from our standpoint, the more we can kind of keep this to a short list and get a short list done as distinct from having 15 items and not being able to get them done, but other, other any other items that we should add to this. Recognizing our first ones is to mine the data and the stories that we've already got.

David Ross:
Well, I just you know, I think it's a great it's a great start. And really, that's that's the theme of of this whole exercise is that it's a start. I think that we've we've heard from a lot of people who've given us, I think, a fairly consistent perspective. And so I think that we need to work with that. Just an administrative comment. We've had people make make submissions online to us for all three days and we just haven't been able to get to them. So this is a little bit of an administrative comment. We will get to them. Please be patient with us. We are a 100% volunteer organisation, but we will appoint a team to to respond to that. So I do want to thank everyone for their comments online. And, and also, you know, again, to reiterate that that we really do appreciate those who have had the courage to to share their story. And we encourage others, not just individuals, but we encourage other organizations as well, you know, to to to work towards this effort so that so that we can get the dialogue going and maintain the dialogue in this country that we need to have in order to in order to restore our nation to what we all want it to be. So those are my comments.

Preston Manning:
Susan, any last words from you or.

Dr. Susan Natsheh:
I think part of the collecting, the stories will also, if we can use them, to start making politicians feel accountable as well. That was certainly a common theme throughout the three days was people didn't feel like their elected officials were listening to them. We had a small group who actually did respond, and there was also this felt like sometimes this passing the buck. Right. I'm I'm not making the decisions that somebody else I'm just following recommendations from so-and-so. So one way, once I think politicians hopefully begin to understand the impact that following these recommendations has had has had on their constituents, the harm that's been done, hopefully we'll be able to create a path towards accountability from our elected officials.

Richard Girgis:
If I may, just really quickly on that exact point, which was the point I would have brought up. The issue of passing the buck is so evidence of you've had a crisis that was managed from a purely executive level. The executive is delegating its own authority to public health. Public health doesn't want to respond in any other way than based on their own recommendations, which are, again, like Shawn had mentioned, based on compromised kind of data. Right. And then the legislature is not involved because we're operating by emergency order. So at every level, it's almost expected that you're not getting a response from government officials because they're already delegating their authority elsewhere. And so they don't feel the need to respond. And something has to come into place to limit the powers of the executive, in my view, or to limit the powers of any one branch of government in terms of the decision making process, especially in an emergency.

Shawn Buckley:
If I can build on what what Richard's saying, because law is just based on philosophical principles, that then we reflect specifically in writing and. And I think we're having a real philosophical problem. I mean, if you remember after the First World War. You know, we have these these war crimes and we had to deal with. Well, what if you're following orders? Are you responsible or not? Because sociopaths understand that if they take responsibility and give orders, that that people will do terrible things that they wouldn't do if they themselves are responsible for them. I forget. Was it Himmler, who was head of the SS, whoever it was some of his speeches early on when he was motivating the troops, he'd literally say things like, It's not you pulling the trigger, it's me pulling the trigger. Like he understood if he took responsibility for what he was asking them to do, they would do this. And and we are going to have so many people hiding behind. I was following the policy. I was following the policy. And it's almost like we have a new philosophical problem to address. Are you liable when you're following a policy for public interest purposes? Should you be? I mean, it there's just some really interesting philosophical questions that I think an inquiry is going to have to address, because as I say, I mean, the the law is just a reflection of our philosophical beliefs that that we choose to manage ourselves with. And so I think we do have to look at things deeply.

Preston Manning:
I know these are good points. And this gets into the question of when you get into an emergency, do you hand the management over to a bureaucracy where this mentality of following the orders, just following the orders and just doing what they told me is the is the prevailing ethic or do you try to hand it off, as some of the respondents have said, to at least these emergency measures organizations, which are less susceptible to that? But these are very good questions. I can just see our inquiry getting longer and luck, but maybe we'll end on the point that Susan, the telling of the story, getting into all these issues through the story, the story that tells the harm that was done, I think is just an excellent way to go. And speaking from the politician's standpoint, often, if you can give the politician a story to tell that makes your point that that is a great asset to him. When I was in the political business, used to have these public meetings all over the place, but I would hang around after and I'm not just hanging around to shake hands with people. I'm hanging around to listen because sometimes someone in the audience will say, back to you what you thought you were saying to them. But they will say it in words. They will say it in language, they will tell it with an illustration or a story. And that picking up that story, then in the next speech, you tell that story. That's a very effective way to help a politician communicate on the very subject you're trying to get. So I will thank the members of the next step committee. Our work is only begun, I think, and we'll turn things back to who do we turn things back to? Do we turn things back to our moderator? And maybe on behalf of us all to Trish, we'd like to express our thanks to you for managing this exercise over the last three days.

Dr. Susan Natsheh:
Thanks so much. Thanks for asking me. Thank you. Thank you. So that brings us to the close. I guess what I would ask of people is to make everybody know about this thing, you know, push it out, tell your friends, tell your family, send it out, use your social media. And just for my $0.02 worth, Shawn's point about the cultural shift, about the obedience and the conformity that for me is the scariest piece. I don't recognize my country, neighbors snitching on neighbors and people following orders. I don't understand what's happened here. Something's happened and I don't know if there's an answer that is easily found. But in my DNA, I feel something is shifted here that we need to get to the bottom of. So isn't it great? We've got this wonderful conference. I think it's appropriate for me to step aside, though, and for Sonya Anderson, who put this together and brought us all together to say a final goodbye. Thank you.

Sonya Anderson:
Thank you, Trish. I wanted to extend a most gracious thank you to everyone that participated in this from the citizens across Canada that zoomed in or attended in person to our expert witnesses that gave testimony, whether it be scientific, legal, medical. To our panelists here that came in from coast to coast. We've had people that actually attended here in person from each part of the country, from each coast. Trish, a big thank you to yourself. Really appreciate it. Someone who is taking notes and was at the front table here, Liam, who flew in from Vancouver to do that for us so that we've got great, great notes that we'll be sharing with you.

Sonya Anderson:
And I want to say a huge thank you to vantage venues for allowing us to invade their space. Over the last three days they have been top notch. Fantastic from all of the AV people that are here in the room with us and have had to put up with an awful lot of us switching. We've had I don't know if you know, if you've been here for all three days. We had almost 60 speakers and a lot of the switching in and out has been a real challenge, I'm sure, for them, and they've been most gracious about it to the booking and the food. So if you need to book a venue, you've got to book it here through vintage venues. But thank you especially to you, the audience that have either sat through the entire three days or have joined us in and out over the course of that. And I do hope that you share what we have given you this information. Take it to your neighbors, share it with your family, share it with your politicians, share it with the media, because we need to get the narrative shifting and that's going to come from you. So thank you so much for joining us and continue to follow us at citizenshearing.ca. Thank you.

Sonix is the world’s most advanced automated transcription, translation, and subtitling platform. Fast, accurate, and affordable.

Automatically convert your mp4 files to text (txt file), Microsoft Word (docx file), and SubRip Subtitle (srt file) in minutes.

Sonix has many features that you’d love including world-class support, collaboration tools, share transcripts, automated subtitles, and easily transcribe your Zoom meetings. Try Sonix for free today.