The Pardy School of Law
How the law works, and how it doesn’t.
Professor Bruce Pardy calls for the elimination of federal research funding for universities in his presentation to the Standing Committee on Science and Research studies (SRSR)—tasked with evaluating whether the criteria used for awarding federal funding on research excellence are still appropriate or whether modifications should be made. Prof. Pardy’s [video] presentation is available via the link below at the 17:08:48 mark.
Summary: In Canada, the primary focus of universities isn't just about making money; it's about securing government funding. Canadian universities are largely dedicated to obtaining as much government money as possible, becoming chronic welfare recipients akin to the CBC, reliant on government support with no prospect of self-sufficiency. “These institutions are like deep black holes where vast amounts of money disappear,” argues Prof. Pardy, as he continues: “If you are a young professor today, your university probably doesn't care so much about your work, it cares more about whether you get federal grants.” Universities take a significant cut from each grant, he notes, and to secure grants, the research must align with the preferences of granting councils. Universities have entire departments of administrators focused on coaching academics to present their research in a way that pleases those holding the purse strings. The result: federal research funding corrupts the intellectual mission of universities.
He concludes:
A large portion of academia are among the numerous Canadians feeding at the public trough. The public sector constitutes 40% of the Canadian economy, which is unsustainable and contributes to the nation's growing poverty. As the saying goes, "he who pays the piper calls the tune." Government money always comes with strings—ideological and political ones.
The way to ensure politically neutral research is to eliminate government granting agencies.
You are studying whether to reform federal research funding; don't reform it. Abolish it. Get rid of it. Universities fall under provincial jurisdiction. Please stop interfering, please stop taking money from truck drivers and cashiers and giving it to elite institutions. Please stop corrupting the intellectual enterprise. Please stop requiring and funding discrimation against white people, Asian people, and men. Please stop dictating how research is done and by whom. Please get federal money out of the business of Canadian universities.
VIEW THE PROCEEDINGS IN FULL HERE [See 17:08:48 for Prof. Pardy, followed by the Q&A]
Danielle’s Legacy: A powerhouse panel unpacks the new wording in Bill 24, the Alberta Bill of Rights Amendment Act. By incorporating phrases such as "demonstrably and proportionally justified based on evidence," the panel looks at the ways in which the legislation diminishes protections for Albertans and grants unprecedented authority to courts and future governments. If this amendment doesn't provide Albertans with reassurance in the wake of Covid, what amendment would have been stronger? Should an entirely different move have been made? What gains are there for litigators in certain areas?
Joining host Jason Lavigne are guests law professor Bruce Pardy, lawyers Leighton Grey and Marty Moore, and political commentator Marty Belanger. Prof. Pardy and Leighton Grey describe the bill as a missed opportunity, with the former arguing that as the bill is only a statute, changes without constitutional backing may permit future legislatures to ignore essential rights protections. Marty Belanger believes the government is advancing too quickly, and Marty Moore finds concern with the bill's wording, which mirrors Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There is no such thing as centralization of power for good.
We Approach State Singularity: This presentation, based on an earlier piece by Professor Bruce Pardy for The Brownstone Institute, warns of an approaching "State Singularity," where the state and society become indistinguishable, and legal norms lose relevance. At this point, the government justifies its actions under various social causes, expanding its control without necessarily solving underlying problems. This gradual erosion of individual freedoms and voluntary community structures is likened to historical authoritarian regimes, although it develops more insidiously. As governments leverage advanced technologies for surveillance and compliance, citizens, rather than calling for reduced government interference, often seek more services and better policies. True liberation requires a fundamental shift away from the current trajectory, an escape velocity from an impending "Event Horizon" that signifies a point of no return in the loss of freedoms.
The Reason We Learn: Former classroom teacher turned homeschooling consultant, Deb Fillman, explores the state of education in the U.S., including education trends, reform efforts, and the need to research first before reacting to or supporting any of them. In this episode of "The Reason We Learn," she invites Prof. Pardy to discuss the different philosophical perspectives of "freedom people" and "virtue people," two groups often in the same room in the fight against authoritarian woke globalism. This "rebel alliance," however, is complicated by conflicting worldviews. How this tension plays out within the private and public spheres when two groups share a cause in common but, ultimately, different ideas about how to accomplish societal flourishing is the topic of discussion. For background reading (or further reading), see: Freedom and Virtue: Friends or Enemies? and The Virtue In Liberty.
Canada: A User’s Guide and Owner's Manual: The law is intended to prevent injustice, serving as a shield to protect our freedoms. At the forefront of these laws is the Constitution, designed to limit government power and safeguard those freedoms. In the past four years, we have collectively experienced all levels of government using so-called legal protections as instruments of control, a shift supported by political decisions rather than established rules. Prof. Bruce Pardy, a prominent figure in the “No More Lockdowns” movement, joins host Randy Hillier, former Ontario MPP and noted activist, to examine constitutional law [the rule of law, division of powers, common vs. statute law] and the complex hierarchy of laws that make it difficult for individuals (and even lawyers) to navigate the legal system. How can citizens drive change, curb government overreach, demand accountability, confront existing power dynamics, and participate in open political dialogue? Unlike law, the answer is a direct one! Joining the discussion are fellow guests, citizen journalist Leigh Stewy, and farmer Shawn McRae of McRae Farms Ltd. This episode was originally livestreamed on November 18.
The Lavigne Show: Professor Bruce Pardy and Leighton Grey, an Alberta lawyer and King's Counsel, examine the recent proposed amendments to the Alberta Bill of Rights (BoR). On the surface, Bill 24 is good news but will Alberta seize the opportunity to establish a robust framework that sets the pace for other provinces to follow? The discussion looked at key concerns, including how to return an effective system of checks and balances to ensure separation of powers between the executive branch, the legislature, and the judiciary. Leighton Grey highlights a need to restore the supremacy of the legislature with a statement of rights based on natural law and the Christian principles our society was founded on. Professor Pardy argues for a rethink of our expectations of government and a means of restraint. If Bill 24 can't rise to the call for change, what actions can Albertans (and all Canadians) take as individuals to safeguard our rights and freedoms and strengthen the communities we live in?
Professor Pardy drafted his own version of a proposal for an amended Alberta Bill of Rights to address concerns about the potential for rights violations under the guise of reasonable limits, the collusion between the three branches of government, and the need for term limits for all state employees to prevent a permanent professional ruling class from becoming embedded, as is the case now. To hear Professor Pardy explain his proposal in more detail, see here.
The Ezra Levant Show: Equality and the status of Canada’s legal system. Professor Bruce Pardy describes calls for reparations in Canada “political nonsense”. Punishing people for things they did not do, and rewarding people for damages they did not suffer runs contrary to the premise of how liability claims are (or were) handled in Canada, he says. In regards to Section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which seeks to address historically marginalized groups through equality affirmative action programs, Prof. Pardy notes that, in the reality of now, “there is nothing that a white man is entitled to do that other people are not entitled to do." The discrimination equity is left to address, he likens to “chasing ghosts” and “the attempt to make into villains the descendants of those groups that might have originally had a leg up.” By comparison to south of the border, Americans still have a constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law, which in Canada is not the case. In Canada, our constitutional right is the right to substantive equality, and that means equity.
The Ezra Levant Show: Professor Bruce Pardy discusses his recent Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy paper on equality before the law in Canada. Offering seats on post-secondary campuses or employment on the basis of skin colour is an indication of the extent to which Canadian courts have redefined the equality clause in the Constitution to prioritize "equity" over individual equality. One case in point, notes Prof. Pardy, is Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson), which has reserved 75% of seat eligibility at its new medical school for “people of particular identities.” How much of a minority do you have to be to qualify? Can Canada's Constitution even protect equality rights, or is it all liberal mumbo jumbo? Tune in for the full conversation. [Rebel News subscribers: video is available here. A podcast version is available via the link below without a subscription].
Leaders on the Frontier: Who's really controlling our society? Bruce Pardy looks at why the legal system is not working the way it should, as well as the impact of the deep state, and how governments are being compromised. He also unpacks the gender debate, parental rights, and the threat to free speech. Host David Leis.
Speak Free: Bruce Pardy explores the shift in Western societies from the rule of law to rule by law, and the use of laws by governments as tools to achieve specific goals. Speak Free is hosted by Simon O’Connor, a former member of New Zealand Parliament.
Jordan Peterson Online Training: Counterpoint host Tanya Granic Allen and her panel discuss why the College of Psychologists ordered Jordan Peterson to take social media training. Guests include Bruce Pardy, Scott Masson, and Lisa Bildy.
September 17: Guests Bruce Pardy and Viva Frei joined Grey Matter host Leighton Grey for a roundtable on Canada’s freedoms and what the future holds for our civil liberties. Why are rights and freedoms under attack in the West? Can we do something to improve the forecast? Yes! Recommended background reading: Anatomy of the Administrative State.
The "Liberty" People v. The "Virtue" People: Bruce Pardy (liberty) and Liberty Dispatch co-host Andrew DeBartolo (virtue) discuss at length the alignment of two very different worldviews in the fight against pervasive and destructive ideologies (scientism, the managerial state, wokeism, etc.) and where they depart. As Andrew notes: “Those who reject God's ultimate authority will not be able to work with those who embrace God's ultimate authority when it comes time to rebuild culture and re-establish laws.” These two cobelligerents, beyond the immediate struggle, are committed to very different political goals and the means to achieve them in terms of an “ultimate” authority, laws of the state, the way in which the state should govern, and much more. Sharing and analyzing these viewpoints in heated but mindful conversation makes for compelling listening on the meaning of freedom, how that meaning is defined, and the outcomes for freedom according to these divergent worldviews through examples ranging from property rights to morality.
Canada’s Cold War
A media presentation by Bruce Pardy, Kate Wand, and William Gervais.
The 1972 eight-game Summit Series between Canada and what was then the USSR has been described as a game for the ages and "the most transformative hockey series ever played," according to Canadian goalie legend Ken Dryden.
The series began seemingly as a friendly exhibition contest (albeit during the Cold War). However, after the first game and Team Canada's unexpected loss to the Soviets, the play became more than the stake of national pride: Team Canada was fighting for our way of life against an adversary who sought to tear it down.
When winger Paul Henderson's winning goal in the final game lifted Canada to victory, his puck seemed to set in motion a domino momentum that would ultimately lead to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. At the time, it really did feel like the western desire for freedom had triumphed over the Soviet-era desire for control.
In 2024, we can see that clash between adversaries — freedom and collectivism — remains far from played out. The puck is on the ice and so are we.
This time the struggle has moved from without to within and is turning our team against us: that is, our leaders and fellow citizens who appear to believe that Canada should be a socialist country. But something prevents us from grasping the gravity of this capture.
Law professor and executive director of Rights Probe, Bruce Pardy, points to our disbelief as "one of socialism's most potent weapons."
"In its Canadian campaign," he says, "we are apt to rationalize that the trends in this country do not portend actual socialism, but instead constitute merely a gloss on our unshakeable foundations of free market liberalism. Unfortunately, that is not what the evidence suggests."
"Canada's Cold War" takes us inside the struggle of Canada 52 years on from Henderson's victorious puck to reveal the new shape of an old foe as the clock strikes down towards the prospect of our defeat and the loss of our freedom, our flourishing, and our possibilities for greatness.
Hush Little Citizen, Don’t Say a Word: Guest host Dr. Julie Ponesse invites Bruce Pardy to explore the topic of rights and why more of them won't lead to greater freedom. The conversation leads into telling others how to live, why we need to stop, and how to break out of our culture of silence.
Bruce Pardy joins host Brett Hawes to unpack Bill C-63 (the Online Harms Act), its potential impact, where it aligns to global trends in digital governance, and how it will land in terms of individual freedoms. This episode is available as a podcast and in video form. For key points, view the discussion map here. A full transcript is also provided.
The Andrew Lawton Show | True North
Big business and capitalism are not synonymous, explains Bruce Pardy, who looks at the trend of company officers and directors to prioritize stakeholder capitalism and ESG, thus exposing shareholders to interests or ideas that they never signed on to invest in. This discussion is based on the latest National Post article by Bruce Pardy, available here, on the betrayal of capitalism by corporate Canada. With the passage of Bill C-59, corporate Canada is fast discovering the folly of having endorsed climate hysteria and managerial government. The conversation also includes another piece by Bruce on the biomedical state: governing society through the lens of public health.
Grey Matter: Canada's Legal System Dysfunctional? | Bruce Pardy
Part One: Law professor and executive director of Rights Probe, Bruce Pardy, reveals why a Canadian court wants access to your health records. What does this mean for your privacy? Are we still protected by the law or is the opposite happening? Bruce and host of Grey Matter, Leighton Grey, unpack what's happening with the legal system in Canada and why courts are refusing to hear or side with cases involving the pandemic.
Grey Matter: Liberal VS Conservative Way of Thinking
Part Two: Bruce Pardy (a classical liberal) and Grey Matter host, Leighton Grey (a conservative), discuss the rights of the individual through the lens of their respective viewpoints. A very civil and insightful conversation ensues.
Bruce Pardy's opening remarks to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development [Meeting No. 110 ENVI, May 30, 2024]: "If your objective was to prevent Canadian businesses from succeeding in the global economy, how would you do it? Here are some ideas." Auto-generated transcript available via YouTube.
Bruce Pardy discusses his latest essay for C2C Journal on the usurpment of rule of law by the managerial state, in Canada as well as other liberal democracies. What does this mean for liberty? Listen in (Bruce's segment begins at 27:01).
Read the C2C Journal essay here: Canada’s Constitutional Mistake
Bruce Pardy's speech at Rebel News LIVE! Toronto 2024 illuminated several fundamental principles of governance and law, particularly the concept of the rule of law versus rule by law, and the importance of individual freedom. His critique of the government's handling of civil liberties during the COVID-19 pandemic serves as a backdrop to his broader argument about the erosion of the rule of law and the encroachment on individual freedoms. The rule of law is a principle under which all members of a society, including those in government, are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes. It is a cornerstone of liberal democracies, ensuring that laws are clear, fair, and applied equally to all citizens. Bruce argues that during the pandemic, governments, including Canada's, deviated from this principle by implementing measures that were not clearly defined, were subject to change without notice, and were applied in ways that seemed to prioritize the government's objectives over individual rights. Separation of powers is another key element of democratic governance. This principle divides government into distinct branches (typically legislative, executive, and judicial) to prevent abuse of power. Each branch checks the powers of the others, ensuring a balance that protects individual rights and freedoms. Bruce suggests that during the pandemic, these branches were not effectively checking each other, leading to an environment where the government could exercise power with less accountability. Bruce's discussion of freedom emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy, particularly in actions that do not harm others. This is a foundational liberal principle, arguing that as long as an individual's actions do not infringe upon the rights of others, they should be free to act as they choose. This principle is often tested when the actions in question are unpopular or controversial, highlighting the tension between personal freedom and societal norms or expectations. In posing the question about the limits of legal restrictions on private, consensual actions that do not harm others, Bruce challenges us to consider the extent to which government should be able to regulate personal behaviour.
Bruce’s speech is available at the Rebel News website here [subscription only]
The Dr. Jordan B. Peterson Podcast: A flavorful and expansive conversation on freedom of speech hosted by Jordan Peterson with guests Bruce Pardy of Rights Probe and Konstantin Kisin, a Russian-British satirist/author/podcaster. Through the lens of the Online Harms Act (C-63), the discussion travels back in time to revisit Bill C-16, to the shifting ground of today the rule of law flounders on. We may think we believe in Voltaire's dictum, "I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," but we can see that this is not true in practice for many of us. How do we avoid tyranny when our desire for safety necessitates a managerial state and our loss of autonomy? Are we willing and able to accept that freedom isn't a safe ride and that some harm is a consequence of freedom and a price worth paying? To what extent should we be free? Join Jordan, Bruce and Konstantin as they explore the concept of freedom itself within the landscape of meaning we navigate as a society.
WATCH THE DEBATE!
VIRTUE vs. FREEDOM
Livestream Recording of the 2024 Rand Debate now available
The 2024 Rand Debate, co-hosted by Augustine College and First Freedoms Foundation, saw Queen's Law Professor Bruce Pardy debate Wilfred Laurier’s Professor David Haskell on the topic of virtue vs. freedom, inspired by an article Bruce wrote published by the Brownstone Institute: Freedom and Virtue: Friends or Enemies?
According to Bruce (a freedom person), "virtue people" believe societal flourishing necessitates governments whose first responsibility is the promotion of virtue. David argues the evidence supports the prosperity created by virtue that reflects Judeo-Christian values and tradition. Bruce, however, points to individual autonomy as the primary accomplishment of the West, an accomplishment unique to western civilization. Freedom, he says, is the absence of coercion and individuals must determine the meaning of virtue for themselves. David argues that if the public sphere is an ideological vacuum, an ideology of some sort will move in to fill it. Governments, to that end, serve as virtue signallers.
No winner that night was declared. There was no vote to decide.
The greater takeaway is: which type of person are you? What sets the stage for a life of meaning and discovery? What do we need to evolve as individuals and as a community? Is there an objective good? If there was, would choice matter more? Discover for yourselves, what matters to you. Our society depends on it.
Reality Check Radio: New Zealand journalist and film-maker Alistair Harding [director of ‘We Came Here for Freedom’ – a two-part film about the 2022 Wellington parliament occupation protest] compares notes with legal mind Bruce Pardy on the pandemic experiences of New Zealand and Canada. Alistair recalls instances in which the New Zealand government was found to be breaking the law and was able to “simply change” the law “overnight” to serve its agenda (in this example, misusing emergency use authorization laws for New Zealand’s vaccine rollout). He also talks of the loss of “faith” in the country’s legal and legislation systems as a result. Sound familiar? Alistair and Bruce unpack the challenges of confronting the premises on which our countries are now governed (based on authority rather than evidence). Is there a silver lining? Bruce claims a bitter victory for clarity. More people, he says, now see the erosion of freedoms in our societies that COVID-19 unmasked. The era has, at least, produced a vision of what freedom and a free society is or should be.
Bright Light News: Bruce Pardy and host Glen Jung discuss the chill on free speech posed by the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), its potential to further erode the freedoms of Canadians, and the possibility of life imprisonment if an offense is deemed motivated by hate. It is unclear, however, what the threshold is for crossing the line between speech someone may find offensive and “wandering into hatred,” notes Bruce. “The government,” he says, “has reserved for themselves the discretion to [determine] the rules and regulations as they go along.” Also on the table for discussion is the WHO pandemic treaty, which Bruce cautions should not be confused with ceding sovereignty to the World Health Organization. The issue, he says, is that our leaders will “hide behind” WHO recommendations to pursue their own agenda (such as climate change lockdowns or mandatory vaccination for travel).
Dangerous Speech: Host Obaid Omer and guest Bruce Pardy dig into government overreach. Bruce describes the root of the issue as the mandate itself. People object to the problem of overreach without recognizing that the government has been given the mandate to supervise us, he says. Did cohorts, in particular Gen X, who came of age during a time of high institutional trust, take their hands off the wheel and miss the institutional shifts that have led to rampant government overreach in education, health, and almost every aspect of today’s society? The notion of reform is challenging when institutional populations are hijacked by ideology and self-reliance has been eroded. ”We the people," says Bruce. "Have to change the ideas in our heads."
The Andrew Lawton Show: The federal government’s proposed Online Harms Act is coming under fire for having an ill-defined test for what constitutes hate speech. Bruce Pardy joins the discussion.
February 29: Bruce Pardy was the keynote speaker for this webinar discussion on UNDRIP and property rights in Canada, along with community leaders from across B.C. and Canada. [Bruce’s portion begins at 16:12].
National Parents Rights Virtual Summit 2024: Bruce Pardy’s presentation to this year’s summit looks at the original premise of public schools and how that premise (parents don’t know what they’re doing) has shaped the education landscape and the reality parents face: parents do not have the rights they assume they do. The managerial authority governing healthcare, schools and human rights operates on a pyramid of oppression that supposes children are the oppressed and parents are the oppressors. Decisions that parents might think they control for their children are instead determined by external actors (health practitioners, for example) in accordance with how the Human Rights Code is interpreted. Originally conceived to liberate people from the oppression of the state, human rights can now be applied by one citizen against another, explains Bruce. Over time, the Human Rights Code has become weaponized to protect “so-called vulnerable groups” to flip the power dynamic. That means, if you are at the top of the oppression pyramid, it is not possible for you to be discriminated against. It also means that not everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law and that some people are entitled to unequal treatment. Understanding these shifts is central to parents in their fight to change the status quo. [This presentation was recorded on Saturday, January 27].
Leaders on the Frontier: Bruce Pardy and host David Leis discuss online censorship and government regulation of online platforms in relation to Bill C-63 (the Online Harms Act) and amendments to Canada’s Criminal Code and Human Rights Act. The upshot: “cancel culture on steroids”. Bruce describes the Act as an extreme example of the trend by government to leverage law as a tool “not to protect you, but manage you … and your thoughts.” Under this Act, “if you commit the crime of mischief motivated by hatred on a prohibited ground, you can be thrown in jail for life.”
Episode 581: Bruce Pardy drops by the Shaun Newman Podcast to discuss the B.C. government plans to share management of Crown land with First Nations. A proposed amendment by the government to the B.C. Land Act to incorporate agreements with Indigenous governing bodies will permit First Nations veto over how most of B.C. is used. Mining, hydro projects, farming, forestry and more at the heart of the B.C. economy will be at risk and, ultimately, the prosperity of the province.
Further Reading
B.C.’s plan to ‘reconcile’ by giving First Nations a veto on land use
The Proposed WHO “Pandemic Agreement”
James Roguski and Bruce Pardy discuss the proposed WHO pandemic treaty and amendments to International Health Regulations. Researcher James Roguski and his team are the reason we now know and have access to information about the proposals on the table that would handover enormous decision-making power to the WHO in the event of future public health emergencies.
See James Roguski’s Substack here for more on this.
If you live in Canada, sign the Canadian petition and spread the word: http://CanadianPetition.com
The proposal for negotiating the text of the WHO pandemic agreement is available here: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb7/A_INB7_3-en.pdf
See here for the proposed amendments to International Health Regulations: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_files/wgihr2/A_WGIHR2_6-en.pdf
The Andrew Lawton Show: The World Health Organization is forging ahead with its planned pandemic treaty, which is likely to include a range of measures that should concern Canadians. The draft agreement puts the WHO at the helm of public health emergencies, getting countries to commit to “follow WHO’s recommendations.” It also asks states to commit to restricting “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.” Law professor and Rights Probe executive director Bruce Pardy joins the show to discuss.
Further Reading
WHO health treaty a convenient cover for more government overreach
Are Libertarians Being Conned?
The Canadian Libertarian: Host Bennett Hunter delves into a recent article by Bruce Pardy on freedom and virtue with guest Tim Moen, former leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada. In his article, Bruce discusses two camps (the virtue people and the freedom folks) currently filling up town halls in their shared goal to push back against woke globalism; two camps who are nevertheless akin to oil and water in other respects. The essential difference between the two worldviews, according to Hunter and Moen, is the "original sin of the state". Virtue people, for example, might see the institution of state as a means for imposing their concept of the common good on others (depending on who holds office). Freedom people see the state as an enemy of the common good from the get-go. For the latter, although the philosophy of liberty cannot guarantee virtue, it does foster the genuine respect for one another that is "more conducive to creating a genuinely free and prosperous society," says Hunter. Unsurprisingly, the two camps tend to approach woke globalism differently: one looking to nationalist authoritarianism as an antidote, the other: seeing authoritarianism itself as the crux of the problem and woke an extension of it.
The Nanny State’s a Bitch - Holiday Listening!
Chapter 23 | Professor Bruce Pardy | Audio Book Sample
Canary In a Covid World: A collection of 34 essays from contemporary and credentialed thought leaders on how Covid propaganda and censorship changed our world. An audio book sample of Bruce Pardy reading the chapter he contributed to “Canary In a Covid World” is now available here.
The complete audio book is offered by the following platforms: Amazon, Apple Books and Audible. Every chapter is read by the author (except where indicated). Bruce Pardy, executive director of Rights Probe and law professor at Queen's University, contributed Chapter 23 to this collection of essays on “How Propaganda and Censorship Changed Our World” during the Covid-era. The original version of this chapter by Professor Pardy (different title) is available here to read in full: “Anatomy of the Administrative State”.
‘Future of Free Speech’ in Canada Event - Pre-Event Thoughts
Just before they took the stage as featured speakers for the ‘Future of Free Speech’ in Canada event on Dec. 4, Rebel News reporter Tamara Ugolini interviewed Bruce Pardy [law professor and executive director of Rights Probe], Meghan Murphy [journalist and founder of Feminist Current], and Trish Wood [journalist and host of the Trish Wood is Critical Podcast] for their pre-event thoughts on Canada’s free speech crisis. If you missed the event, hosted by the Lighthouse Community Foundation, listen along for a taste of the night’s presentations, moderated by editor Jonathan Kay.
Has law in Canada lost its way?
Bruce Pardy returns to the Leaders on the Frontier Podcast to continue the discussion on Canada's legal landscape with host David Leis. Bruce describes this landscape as "shifting ground"; ground that has shifted over time to such an extent, a new landscape has formed. Where once law provided society with a set of guardrails, it now serves as a blueprint for managing our lives, herding us in a direction rooted in a terrible worldview: we think the worst of each other. That blueprint is determined and implemented by the administrative state (which Covid-19 made painfully apparent). The pandemic, however, presented the latter with a perfect storm for justifying its existence; one that doesn't guarantee us good outcomes but control. A state of control that the truckers' protest in Ottawa revealed as one we should at least be questioning that also revealed what happens now when we do. Tune in for the full discussion.
What is the responsibility of the legal system and is it working?
From tyrant kings to the administrative state: are we repeating history by vesting too much power in a centralized bureaucracy? What are the competing visions for how the law works and who benefits from the vision that rules Canada’s legal system today? What happened to the concept of law as a set of guardrails? David Leis and Bruce Pardy discuss all this and more on a new episode of the Leaders on the Frontier Podcast. Watch or listen here.
Report On 2023 Diefenbaker Lecture
by Barry W. Bussey | First Freedoms Foundation
On a cold November 9, 2023 evening in Ottawa, First Freedoms Foundation and Augustine College hosted the 2023 Diefenbaker Lecture. The event had some 80 registrants who were thoroughly engaged in Professor Pardy’s presentation. A presentation that challenged the current alignment of the legislature, executive and judiciary. With the legislature’s delegation of power to the administrative state, meaning the bureaucracy, and the courts’ consistent deference on how the bureaucracy implements the law, we are, says Pardy, left in a situation where we are increasingly run by the administrators. These administrators are the “experts,” the ones with the special knowledge that is known by no one but them.
This leads to our society being ruled by powerful officials who make the rules as they go. Rules are fluid. The problem in this system is that those who make the rules as they go are not subject to those rules. The apt saying that power corrupts is now applicable to the managerial state that has officials with power to make decisions affecting citizens with little responsibility for those decisions. We are no longer under the rule of law but rule by law!
The answer, according to Pardy, is to reimagine our government so that there is a Constitution of Consent: citizens are subject to no laws prescribing their conduct except those to which they have consented.
There are still people who value civil liberties in this country.