see the VIDEO HERE Justin Trudeau CHALLENGED IN COURT! Lead Counsel James Manson LAYS OUT THE CASE! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lOPvjrhNOg
so um here's the loaded question one you'll probably not be able to answer do you think this will succeed let me be blunt um I'm not in the habit of bringing cases that I don't think have a chance [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] as the perfect dovetail to our video yesterday where we broke down prorogation as well as the UK 2019 decision were pleased to introduce James Manson who is one of the lead Council lawyers in the court challenge to Justin Trudeau's recent prorogation of parliament James is no stranger to high-profile cases and fighting for what is right as he is also counsel for the defense in the freedom Convoy class action lawsuit let's take a look James welcome to Northern perspective it's nice to have you here today thanks thanks for having me no problem um so James you are uh one of two uh councils I believe that uh is working on this case um maybe just give us a uh you know 30 second overview of uh who you are how you got involved in cases like this and uh and what brings you to this case specifically well I was a uh basically a General commercial litigator for a large part of my career I've been a lawyer now for about 16 or 17 years about 15 of those years I was I was you know based in downtown Toronto doing General work for law firms and private practice uh usually fighting with companies about money and insurance things and you know very boring things like that and um in the midst of the covid uh situation um I sort of woke up one morning and and realized that I was really quite unhappy with the way that our government was behaving and all of the restrictions that had been put on us in terms of um you know restrictions on civil liberties and and and all of that as I'm sure we all remember and um I basically said to myself look you know uh James you've you've got some skills here you've learned a lot about how to be a lawyer and and and and how to run a case it's time to do something else it's time to do something different and to maybe try to push back against some of this uh this uh this restrictive stuff that's going on so anyway long story short I reached out to uh to people in the uh constitutional space in the in the public interest civil liberty space I found the jccf one thing led to another and and and and here I am and now you are taking on probably what may fast become one of the most famous cases in Canadian history in in challenging prorogation so what uh how did that come about well I'm not sure it'll be the most important or the most famous case in history but I appreciate that but I I I I'm not sure about that but it is an important case I will grant that uh it came about simply by me reading a uh a decision from the United Kingdom from the UK uh and that decision was released five years ago um you the viewers may recall prime minister Boris Johnson about five years ago uh decided to progue Parliament in the UK and that was in the context of um the brexit negotiations as you guys recall um there was a eight-week window left for parliament in the UK to come up with an agreement with the European Union in order to figure out how England and the UK were going to leave uh the EU and if they couldn't there was going to be what they called A Hard exit with no agreement it would have been very very um probably catastrophic for the economy and the uh social issues in terms of of like what are the people supposed to do in the EU and and and in the UK so people wanted to avoid that but in any event Boris Johnson decided that he would shut down Parliament he would progue Parliament for five out of those eight weeks leading up to the brexit uh deadline ultimately what happened was there was a challenge in the UK in the same vein as the challenge that we're bringing you know here in Canada and a couple of citizens of the UK challenged the uh prime minister's decision to advise at that point it was the queen to uh prr Parliament uh and uh ultimately the UK Supreme Court decided 11 votes to zero 11 to nothing that the prime minister's advice was unlawful and here's why basically the the uh Supreme Court said that if a uh if a prime minister wants to Prue Parliament he or she needs to have what they call a reasonable justification to do that you have to have a good reason it can't just be because I want to there's got to be something else there's got to be some kind of reasonable explanation for doing so and in that case back in 2019 prime minister Johnson didn't give a reason the uh advice he gave the queen was private and nobody knows what it was and he never gave a public reason in terms of what of of of of of why people were speculating oh this is because of brexit and you want to avoid facing the opposition in the House of Commons and whatever but there wasn't actually AAS reason given and so it was easy for the UK Supreme Court to um you know find that there had been no reasonable explanation given because there wasn't any explanation given so it was easy in the UK's case what the UK was driving at or the UK Supreme Court was driving at was the notion of parliamentary accountability also the notion of parliamentary Supremacy these are two important principles that uh form part of the unwritten part of our constitution just so the viewers understand and this is going to get very I don't want this to get too academic right but but there are written parts of the Constitution written down in in the actual text of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and there's also some Unwritten Parts which are codified through common law and also you know understood as principles that people have to abide by um one of them is that Parliament is the Supreme body is The Sovereign body and what Parliament says goes it's not just the government the government is not the Supreme body in the country it's actually Parliament itself and as the viewers May understand when you've got a minority government like we do now it's more important it's even more important because the other opposition parties can get together and overrule what the government proposes the government might say we want to change this Law whatever way and if everybody else votes against them then that doesn't happen so parliamentary Supremacy is a big deal the UK Supreme Court you know reaffirmed that then they talk about parliamentary accountability and that's also very important what that means is is that the parliament has to be able to oversee and supervise the government it has to be able to exercise that obligation that's the whole point of parliamentary accountability it's the reason Parliament exists to be a check on the government right and so if you suspend Parliament if you prorogue Parliament you are interfering with parliament's ability ability to do that job right if you just adjourn Parliament the viewers may not understand Pro proroguing is not the same as adjourning adjourning is simply a quick break for Christmas vacation or holiday vacation or whatever you want but the Committees are still functioning and there's still the business of government is still going on all the bills that are before the house are still live when you come back and so nothing really changes it's just a bit of a break prorogation kills everything that's going on the Committees can't meet anymore all the bills that are currently in the process of becoming law they die and they have to be reintroduced uced later so everything grinds to a halt for as long as the prorogation takes effect so um anyway progre is a very important tool and it's often you know um commonplace it's not really a problem to have proration in many ways sometimes you have um the end of a natural legislative cycle right there's a speech from the throne and uh the uh governor general will give that speech as we know the government says I want to have this law that law the other law here's our program isn't it great then they get to the end of that program and there's nothing else to do while they're going to have to then re re uh retool everything go back to the Cabinet departments find new initiatives hey what other laws do we want to pass are there any laws we want to amend or repeal or whatever and there's a new Direction outline and that's a legislative resetting which is normal and that's what St Harper did a couple times uh in in in his reign as well um and uh and just to to kind of expand on uh parliamentary Supremacy that that you brought up it's such an important concept and just uh for everybody watching this is why Justin Trudeau and the Liberals could not break out of parliament being seized because of parliamentary Supremacy the house had ordered the production of documents from the government related to the sdtc file to the RCMP unredacted the government refused to do that so a question of privilege was raised and because of parliamentary Supremacy the government couldn't function because Parliament had ordered this production and they hadn't done that it was the same back during the Winnipeg lab prod uh document uh production where they were ordered to produce that the government refused and ended up taking the speaker to court just wanted to to touch on uh on on that absolutely to take it back to that UK case the UK said the UK Supreme Court said parliamentary accountability is super important and if you interfere with the uh ability of parliament to do that oversight and and supervisory role that's a problem without reasonable justification and so again bringing it back to this case now the viewers will want to know okay James you've told us about the UK how is that relevant here because it's not binding in the UK it's a different country yes of course we will be asking the Canadian Court the federal court here to adopt not because it's binding but because it makes good sense because it's persuasive to adopt the reasoning of the UK supreme court because our Constitutions are supposed to be similar in principle that's what our constitution says it says that our Constitution must be similar in principle to that of the UK because of course of our of our shared history together so anyway um we will be asking the court to adopt the the rule that was laid out in this UK case we will be suggesting that that in in this case the prime minister's power to progue or advise the governor general to progue uh must be limited by something it cannot be unlimited there's got to be some limit to that power and what is the limit well we will say there's got to be a reasonable justification now it's possible that the court will not accept uh our argument and they don't want to accept the UK's uh reasoning 100% they might go part partly there they may modify it somehow for Canada who knows what the court will do but I think the viewers should understand that regardless of whether or not we carry the day on the ultimate question in this case the legal question the Constitutional question is even perhaps more important and that question is you know what are the limits of a prime minister to suspend Parliament uh for however long they choose are there limits and if so what are those limits because you know this is an important issue if Prime Ministers are going to be using this power to progue to you know avoid messy political issues we need to know what those parameters are I think all Canadians ought to be ought to be very concerned about that and I'm not talking uh politically at the moment right I'm a lawyer and I'm speaking to everybody here from a legal point of view constitutional point of view it doesn't matter that it's a liberal prime minister at the moment versus a conservative prime minister back in 2008 the principle Remains the Same if if if if Pierre PV becomes prime minister in the next year and and does something like this we need to know also was that okay you know I understand that some some people may be less angry if it's a conservative than not that's not my my interest my interest is the proper functioning of the Constitution and the executive whoever they are so um um ultimately we're going to be asking the court to adopt that UK reasoning once we know what the uh parameters of that power are whatever they may be we will then ask the court to use those parameters and apply them to what the Prime Minister did in this case and it and and so now we're going to be talking about what are the justifications given to us by prime minister Trudeau on Monday as I'm sure the the viewers all know he gave us basically two reasons on Monday he gave us the reset reason and he gave us the leadership race reason right so so first of all let's deal with the leadership race I think my client's position our position will be that that is not really a real a reasonable argument you're talking about having a leadership race that's an internal party matter it's not a matter for the government remembering that the government is is a collection of people who are ministers of the crown they're not really yes they're part of a party but they really don't wear that hat in the cabinet room they wear ministerial hats in the cabinet and so they are ministers of the crown um the idea of a leadership race for a party has really no bearing in our argument anyway um on whether Parliament ought to be prorogued and if so for how long it's not Canadian's problem frankly that the liberal party has a leadership issue going on right now uh that shouldn't be something that the Canadians should have to wait around for so our argument will be that that reason in and out itself is not is not reasonable so then you've got the other reason which is a reset so we did not hear at least that's what we're that's what we're going to argue we did not hear on Monday that the Prime Minister wanted to have a new legislative agenda we didn't hear that he wanted to have a new cabinet uh have a new speech from the throne set out a new policy direction or anything like that we only heard that Parliament was dysfunctional and that there was a lot of acrimony going on and that there was uh you know paralysis going on things like that and the temperature had to come down in the prime minister's words so our view again is that that's really not a reasonable justification in our view the reasonable ification uh uh simply isn't there what would make more sense would be to have an election of course would be you know if you want to bring down the temperature of parliament call an election face a motion of non-confidence if that's what the opposition wants to do and if there's an election so be it but just because things are getting a bit bumpy in the House of Commons does not justify shutting down Parliament again taking away the ability of uh of of our representatives to do the work of the country and I'll say one more thing particularly so right in the face of president-elect Trump's recent announcements you know the 25% tariff uh threat we don't know if that's actually going to happen or not but we have to take it seriously there's also yesterday's comments I understand they were a bit in incendiary about about using economic power and almost economic Warfare to you know um uh get president Trump's policy goals met well that's also something that ought to be taken seriously whether or not those things actually come to pass is speculation who knows our point would be Parliament has to be ready Parliament has to be in session in order to deal with this stuff I mean what happens if president Trump wants to negotiate a different type of agreement with Canada in terms of border security or things like that somebody's going to have to be there to ratify an agreement if it's an international treaty Parliament will have to ratify them and if parliament's not there because they've been prorogued how can that happen the business of parliament will not be able to to to to happen to function so that's a real issue and so well bottom line it's an important case well and you know going on on the prime minister's words we um we covered the the press conference and then we went back over it with a fine- tooth comb and looked at what he said as well and then we also looked back um at some of the things that he had said on record back in 2020 when he was asked about proroguing at that point too and his argument at that point was well we're just doing a reset we're we're resetting the agenda um and he was actually trying to defend what he was doing in comparison to Steven Harper he's saying well we're proroguing Parliament but we're coming back on the exact same day that we were supposed to come back in the first place and this was in August of 20120 that he was saying this um yet all of a sudden on Monday he he refers to the J uh uh 2008 proration of Steven Harper and he says no no the the governor general was completely correct in saying that that was uh that that was um appropriate and that don't worry we're only going toor March okay well if you if your objective is just a reset then you shouldn't need to go to March you can you can reset the agenda everything falls away and you come back on the 27th anyway so that shouldn't even matter if if all they're looking for a reset there is no reason whatsoever and this is no doubt in the core of the argument that you guys are making to go to March 24th there's like it it it doesn't make sense and in the word of Judge Judy if it doesn't make sense it's not true so um is uh is indicting uh Trudeau's previous statements uh coming into play in this case do you think it's important to remember that other instances of proration in the past aren't the issue we're not here to relitigate those things I was giving an interview this morning uh on on a different uh uh show and and uh the interviewer asked me about the 2008 prorogation from Step Harper and um to be quite candid I wasn't happy about that either personally speaking legally I don't know whether it was legal or not um I remember I wasn't I don't think I was a lawyer at that point if I was I was very very new but anyway um I remember uh that there was a coalition government back in 2008 that was trying to become the government by you know over overriding the minority government of stepen Harper and they went to Mel Jean or Harper went to Mel Jean it was all very very confusing and very very strange as we all recall um but it was quite a tenuous Coalition you had the block Kea a separatist party involved with the NDP and the Liberals I think it was and um there was really no guarantee that that Coalition was going to hold together either uh and so also I think there had just been an election and that that had returned to minori so the will of par the will of the people had been at least spoken a little bit secondly my understanding and don't quote me on this but my understanding is that M uh governor general Jean at the time she required that that prime minister Harper come back from pration with a budget Bill and that was a money Bill a supply bill so that was an automatic confidence vote that was going to be involved in that bill so ultimately Harper was going to face a confidence vote right away when he came back from prorogation so in that case um she I think exercised a little bit of her Authority shall we say to make sure she's like well I'm probably not very happy about this probably that's kind of what happened but I'll let you do it grudgingly but you got to make sure that this is what happens when you come back now this is again a different situation I don't know frankly if that was even okay back in 2008 we did not have the benefit of the UK's ruling in 2008 it just happened in 2019 if that had been the case and if somebody had had the the the the you know creativity or the uh motivation to challenge prime minister Harper's decision back then who knows what might have happened we'll just never know so to answer your question I'm sorry I'm very long-winded um those other instances of prorogation uh may or may not be relevant I would probably argue they're not really relevant because they're always based on different things at different times and it's always going to come down to the reasons given by the Prime Minister and again in this case while we have those Reasons from Monday and again our our view is that those are not sufficient I think that well I'll leave it at that well and that's where it's going to be interesting and I and I I won't press you on this question because again this might may be in your toolkit it may not be um the the fact that Justin Trudeau um was defending his own prorogation back in 2020 by saying well we're not we're not altering when we're coming back we're coming back on the same day we're just resetting the agenda that's it yet you have four years later all of the opposition parties have declared that they will be voting non-confidence at their first opportunity now it's well we're resetting uh resetting Parliament but I need an extra two months for some reason with and and now we're not going to come back on the same day now that's not important to me so it'll be interesting to see if that comes back to haunt him um as uh he probably lost all of his speaking notes as they all flew away right before his uh his press conference that may or may not have had something to do with it but wanted to uh also Circle back to this um there is no precedent in Canada for this which is why you're having to use the UK decision um and this is this is an extremely important case I imagine Le legal and and constitutional Scholars are really interested to see how this works out because this is in fact going to create a brand new Preston in Canada isn't it I think it will I hope it I hope it will I think we'll be inviting the court to do that um it's true um some legal commentators or Scholars uh May may have their views about you know how the case is framed what we're asking the court to do whether we're just going to be um completely um shut out from the court whether they're going to even take our case or not in some quarters I've heard you know people talk about the governor General's decision to accept the prime minister's advice to progue and whether whether the governor general being of course the king's representative whether she has any residual power of her own to refuse the prime minister's you know advice to progue and I just want the viewers to understand because i' I've heard a lot of this particularly also during covid we all remember those dark days of Co when we were many many people were were asking the governor general to step in and do something and exercise her powers to stop this or whatever we have to understand that that's not really a good idea right I mean even though we may be unhappy with the prime minister of the day or whatever that is not a reason to give power to an unelected person who has no accountability to anybody that is giving power back to the king I don't want to be a servant or a a subject of the king in that way right so we need to have a democratic government as much as some of us may at some point be unhappy with that the way to go is not to ask the governor general to to step in and stop things that would be in my view a constitutional disaster because now who's actually in charge can the GG just say no at any point to anything and I suppose the Counterpoint to that argument would be well no James obviously there are going to be limits to what she can do okay but that now we're talking about well what are those limits and when can she say no and when does she have to say yes and whatever whatever no that's going to be a chaos the best thing to do is to be the way it is which is that the governor general does whatever she's told to do by the Prime Minister that is democratic government we don't want to go back to the dark days of the kings and queens of of England back in the day that's not where we want to be so whether we whether or not we're happy with what the Prime Minister does is a different matter of course which can be solved through elections and through cases like this because now we're talking about hey what are the limits of the prime minister's power to to in this case again shut down Parliament for three months almost three months this case is is is is is interesting because again the power to do this like the prime minister's power is a royal prerogative power that's where it comes from it comes from the the power of the Monarch to Simply do whatever they want and that's why it's such a uh I don't want to say dangerous power but it's a it's something that needs to be taken very seriously because again this power doesn't appear to have limits or does it we think it should and again we're going to ask what they are so this court case um is is going to court now how long is this going to take because the prorogation is set to be over on March the 24th do you guys expect that you'll have a ruling by then what can Canadians expect well um we uh have asked the federal court for an urgent hearing um I will give you guys actually a bit of a scoop right now I just found out a few moments ago uh before this interview started that um the federal court has asked uh us uh the applicants Council to um to uh either bring a motion in court to get a an expedited hearing date or consent from the crown so we're going to have to approach the the crown the the responding parties so the lawyers will probably be coming from the Department of Justice in in in the federal government once we know who they are because this is all happening very very very very fast of course we haven't even uh heard from uh our opponents yet we haven't heard from our our opposing Council yet so once they figure that out we're going to have to see if they will agree to an expedited hearing if they agree then uh it looks like the court will grant that request if not we'll have to go go to a formal motion in court where we'll have to argue before uh a Judicial officer whether it's a judge or an associate judge uh to uh ask for an urgent hearing and then at that point we will be explaining the reasons uh requiring an urgent hearing and I think they're pretty obvious so um we'll have to see what happens assuming we get an urgent hearing um well that would be as soon as the court can accommodate a hearing day I don't think this is going to take a very long time to argue I don't think we're talking about multiple days or anything maybe a day in court if ever this uh came to a to a hearing um and so hopefully we could get this done well before the March 24th date however there's always the possibility that for some reason the court declines to give us an urgent hearing um that decision at first instance could be appealed like every other decision that would be something we might have to contemplate I don't know uh but ultimately if uh the case let's say the case is ultimately heard in May right and parliament's already come back on March 24th well now there's the issue of mootness that would come up and I know the viewers are probably already aware of that because mootness was a big issue in the covid litigation that happened over the last few years so the case will be the issue pardon me will be whether the court should hear this issue even though the issue is now no longer a live issue because Parliament came back so there is a way as I'm sure you guys know to uh for for the court to go ahead and hear the case anyway even if it is moot if the issues are important and compelling and Canadians need the answer so we would say even if there is a mutinous issue on the table that the that the issues raised are important enough that they that it ought to be heard anyway we'll see what the court does with that of course yeah um even if it does take place I think all Canadians deserve an answer as to what what should those limits on proration Powers be for the Prime Minister for the exact point you raised before what happens if Pierre PV or a future Prime Minister chooses to make a questionable Act of proration again we need to have that answer so that if that does happen in the future then we can make that argument um we'll see a lot of people no doubt pointing back to the Steven Harper pration saying well you know nobody challenged that and and why are you only challenging this well nobody was there to challenge it they could have challenged it you can challenge any prorogation if you if you want it doesn't mean um that it's that it's going to it's going to go forward but now people know that you can challenge of proration and if they choose if they wish to do that they can approach organizations or legal counsil in the future and try to do that I agree so um in terms of um of the plaintiffs who are the plaintiffs uh James is it you know actual uh you know uh business people or is it just ordinary Canadians we have two plaintiffs and in in this case they are known as applicants because it's an application it's not a it's not a an action that's just legal it doesn't really really matter but it's uh they're two applicants and they're both they're both citizens of Nova Scotia so they live in Nova Scotia one lives in Amherst the other lives in uh near Halifax and one is a doctor he's actually a doctor and a lawyer together uh and so he uh he's obviously been to quite a lot of school and um the other is also a a a he's also trained as a lawyer so uh uh it's David McKinnon he's the lawyer and Iris levanos is the um doctor lawyer combination so they're both just citizens of of of of Canada they're entitled to vote they're very concerned about what's going on and uh in our view anyway that gives them standing it gives them the ability to come to court and ask the court to to to grant them this remedy so um here's the loaded question when you'll probably not be able to answer do you think this will succeed I guess let me be blunt um I'm not in the habit of bringing cases that I don't think have a chance um sometimes you might have cases come before the court that really shouldn't be before the court because they don't have a hope at all in in uh you know of success and those cases may be brought for ulterior motives and that's something that I personally as a lawyer I take that very seriously I would never do that I would never take a case for a client if I didn't think there was an arguable case or that there was some value in doing it and so there's going to be two parts to this right the first part is again what are the limits of a prime minister's power that question is open-ended we will we will ask the court to you know again adopt the UK uh decision um you know 100% but if they don't if the court doesn't want to go there and adopt that that that reasoning they will have to say something about the about the prime minister's power and then we will at least know more than we know now about what that power is and so either way win or lose will have an answer and I think in and of itself there's intrinsic value in that exercise that's the first thing the second thing of course is more I think what you're driving at which is did the Prime Minister overstep or not on Monday I think that if the court here in Canada is prepared to accept the reasoning of the UK Supreme Court and we have a good case we have a decent argument we don't have a zero chance I don't know what the percentage would be no lawyer would ever say there's a 100 % chance of winning it's impossible uh any lawyer who says that should turn in their lawyer card immediately because you can never guarantee what's going to happen in a in a in a in a lawsuit um but I can say that you know again if the issue is uh reasonable justification well I've laid out for you the arguments we're going to say that you know having a leadership race doesn't doesn't meet the cut and um 11 weeks of prorogation for a simple temperature lowering exercise doesn't make the cut either so we'll see what we'll see what happens now naturally of course there's always the possibility of an appeal from the lower court this will eventually get before a judge of the federal court that's the the the lowest level of the federal court and then from that there's the federal court of appeal and then there's the Supreme Court of Canada there there is a way very very rarely done I'm not sure if it's even ever been done but there is a way to Leap Frog over the federal court of appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada um everybody has to kind of agree to do that including the Supreme Court so it's not something that happens hardly ever if if ever but there is a way to do it uh given the timelines I don't know if that's something that might want to be entertained um we'd have to wait and see what the decision that comes looks like um and uh and and whether there's uh any reason to consider an appeal anyway these are all things that have to happen in the in the fullness of time of course well and it sounds like that's probably what happened in the UK case cuz uh I think they were able to deal with that very quickly and it ended up in the Supreme Court very quickly so yeah there was some similar mechanism there that allowed them to go to the Supreme Court right away that's right right so um hopefully um hopefully this the the assumption that everyone will give this its due diligence and its due attention um I think the only way that Um this can cause a lot of problems is if the courts just decide no the Prime Minister has absolute power to decide when to progue I think that would be a very dangerous precent and then you know there would be an appeal on that uh decision up to up up to the uh the next line of Court as well is that is that fair yeah so I mean we have to understand as well that um it would be possible for that to change even if that's the way that the court comes down if the court says no the Prime Minister has the unlimited power to progue Parliament for as long as she likes no matter when or where or whatever and there's only one escape hatch which is that the constitution says that Parliament has to sit at least once a year that's that's in the Constitution um and so as long as that happens once the Prime Minister can progue Parliament for the other 364 days if she wants well I would argue that that's not that can't be right but if if that's the way the court comes down hypothetically um it would be open to Parliament to change that yeah Parliament could pass a law to say that that that like the pro ation act you know and the par and and Parliament could say that here here are the rules that the Prime Minister must follow when proroguing and that would supersede the common law uh decision set down by this court um another way that might need to happen would be they might need to change the Constitution or add a provision to the Constitution which would involve amending the Constitution that's not an easy thing to do but you know something as serious as this you might actually get Buy in from from the provinces to actually amend the Constitution to circumscribe the powers of the Prime Minister if the court comes down and says no no no no it's unlimited there's no limit to what the Prime Minister can do I don't think Danielle Smith for example would really go for that uh for for example so there may be Buy in from the premieres at that point to uh amend the Constitution to change that so and if that's the case then of course the decision coming from the courts hypothetically would uh be overturned well um this has been very enlightening thank you so much for the detail uh James on behalf of Canadians I think on both sides of the AL thank you for taking on this case because whether or not you support what Justin TR did or Trudeau did or not I think it's important for all of us in Canada to understand what the limits of the prime minister's power when it comes to proration is um because it's going to apply to governments for generations to come and we need an answer to that so thank you for taking this on and we will be watching with great interest and uh and keeping Canadians informed and on behalf of everybody uh everybody here good luck with the case well thank you so much thanks for having me [Music]
,
0:06
0:13
0:19
0:27
0:34
0:41
0:48
0:55
1:01
1:08
1:14
1:20
1:26
1:32
1:38
1:43
1:50
1:57
2:04
2:11
2:16
2:21
2:27
2:34
2:42
2:48
2:54
3:00
3:05
3:12
3:19
3:26
3:33
3:39
3:47
3:54
3:59
4:05
4:10
4:17
4:23
4:32
4:38
4:45
4:51
4:58
5:03
5:10
5:16
5:22
5:27
5:33
5:39
5:45
5:52
5:58
6:04
6:11
6:17
6:24
6:29
6:35
6:42
6:48
6:55
7:00
7:06
7:12
7:18
7:25
7:32
7:38
7:44
7:49
7:57
8:03
8:08
8:14
8:22
8:27
8:34
8:41
8:46
8:51
8:58
9:06
9:13
9:19
9:26
9:32
9:37
9:43
9:50
9:56
10:01
10:08
10:14
10:20
10:27
10:33
10:40
10:46
10:52
10:59
11:06
11:11
11:16
11:23
11:30
11:37
11:44
11:50
11:56
12:03
12:09
12:16
12:22
12:27
12:34
12:39
12:45
12:50
12:56
13:02
13:09
13:14
13:22
13:29
13:36
13:42
13:47
13:52
14:00
14:06
14:14
14:20
14:27
14:35
14:40
14:46
14:52
14:58
15:03
15:10
15:17
15:23
15:30
15:36
15:42
15:48
15:53
16:00
16:05
16:13
16:21
16:26
16:31
16:37
16:45
16:51
16:57
17:03
17:11
17:17
17:24
17:30
17:39
17:47
17:53
17:59
18:05
18:12
18:18
18:23
18:28
18:34
18:40
18:46
18:53
18:58
19:04
19:10
19:18
19:23
19:28
19:34
19:41
19:48
19:56
20:04
20:10
20:16
20:22
20:29
20:35
20:41
20:49
20:55
21:01
21:07
21:13
21:18
21:25
21:32
21:38
21:44
21:50
21:58
22:05
22:11
22:18
22:23
22:29
22:36
22:46
22:52
22:57
23:02
23:08
23:14
23:20
23:26
23:33
23:39
23:46
23:52
23:58
24:05
24:11
24:17
24:24
24:30
24:36
24:41
24:47
24:54
25:00
25:06
25:12
25:17
25:25
25:31
25:38
25:44
25:50
25:56
26:02
26:07
26:16
26:21
26:26
26:33
26:41
26:46
26:51
26:57
27:02
27:08
27:13
27:18
27:24
27:30
27:37
27:42
27:49
27:55
28:02
28:09
28:15
28:23
28:29
28:35
28:40
28:47
28:53
28:58
29:05
29:12
29:18
29:26
29:33
29:39
29:44
29:49
29:56
30:02
30:07
30:12
30:18
30:26
30:32
30:39
30:47
30:53
30:59
31:05
31:12
31:20
31:26
31:31
31:37
31:43
31:48
31:53
32:01
32:08
32:14
32:20
32:28
32:34
32:40
32:45
32:50
32:56
33:02
33:07
33:14
33:21
33:28
33:35
33:42
33:48
33:54
34:01
34:08
34:16
34:24
34:30
34:38
34:46
34:53
35:01
35:08
35:13
35:21
35:29
35:34
35:42
35:47
35:54
36:00
36:08
36:14
36:21
36:29
36:36
36:44
36:50
36:57
37:02
37:08
37:14
37:20
37:26
37:31
37:39
37:44
37:50
37:55
38:04
38:09
38:16
38:21
38:26
38:33
38:42
38:48
38:55
39:00
39:05
39:10
39:16
39:23
39:29
39:36
39:43
39:49
39:55
40:02
40:10
40:15
40:23
40:31
40:36
40:42
40:47
40:53
41:01
41:10
41:18
41:24
41:30
41:35
41:42
No comments:
Post a Comment