{
  "video_id": "5UGNVyqadoE",
  "segment_count": 1593,
  "duration": "1:00:42",
  "full_text": "Nadine, the other process, you didn't have to prove it was safe. In fact, you didn't even have to submit your safety data to get approval. Can I say that again? You Well, good day everybody and welcome back to the show. Today's guest, uh, MP for Niagara West, uh, MP Dean Allison, and of course, lawyer Sean Buckley. Today we're going to discuss the Allison inquiry which for some people is becoming a little bit of a hot topic. And so with further ado, I am going to invite our guests to the show. Hello gentlemen. >> Hello. >> Hey Nadine, good to be on. >> Good to see you again. And Dean, so appreciative that you took the time today to join us. So thank you very much. >> Great to be here. Thanks for inviting me. >> Wonderful. Now, I I want to jump right in because I know we've got a little bit of a constraint on our time and um you guys have decided to invite witnesses to talk and discuss the COVID vaccine injured. Now, I want to talk quickly because I don't think that a lot of people um want necessarily to bring this up to the surface. people inside who have been injured obviously need a voice uh on their behalf, but there's doctors that have been silenced. There's a lot of fear around this. People the media is painting this as kind of an antivaccine campaign. So much going on. So would you start um Dean with perhaps what it is the Allison inquiry is and what it's not? >> Sure. And and once again, thanks for having us on the show today. You know, I there's two things that two functions of a member of parliament. One is to listen. There's more, but two things that we definitely do is one, we listen to people's concerns. They come into our office every day to talk about a variety of issues. The second one is to actually help them access government programs. And so for the last number of years and for the last 22 years since I've been elected, that's exactly what I do. And you know, I was noticing challenges around COVID when they came out and people's didn't want to get vaccinated, but they were having challenges, as you're well aware, being able to go to work or travel, etc., etc. And then let's fast forward not even that far, but after that, uh, people that had gotten vaccinated were actually some of them were getting injured and those same people or maybe even different people reaching out to me. And so as my job as a member of parliament is to listen to these stories. People were calling me, texting me, emailing me, uh leaving voicemails from all across this country. And of course when I was on the road and and visiting various different places in this country, I would people would reach out to me. So I just thought, you know what I find strange and what's happened over the last number of years is that there's a real reluctance to talk about this in the public space. you just you kind of alluded to that in your opening remarks and I thought and I've been thinking about it for a number of years. I've been thinking why can we not actually have these conversations? Why can we not have these conversations publicly? Number one, and number two, why can we not actually try and put pressure on the government to do a better job with the vaccine injury support program? As you're probably aware, again, maybe your listeners are or they're not. You know, over $55 million was contributed to a vaccine injury support program of which $35 million was spent on overhead and only a third, think about that, only a third of those dollars actually went to the vaccine injured people. And by the government's own numbers, we have almost 60,000 people registered as injured in this country. 11,000 seriously, 3,500 applied to the program. 3,000 were accepted, but only 252. So less than point4 of a percent of people injured in this country are actually receiving any type of compensation. I just feel that's completely and totally unacceptable. So when we lost the ability to actually talk to people in committee uh this was actually something that the committee the health committee was going to look at and after we had a few of our members walk the floor we lost the ability to have a minority government where we could then force this as a conversation and committee. I said, \"Well, there's going to be no time like the president to be able to have this conversation because this conversation should happen in parliament.\" It's not. And so, the next best thing is why don't we have a town hall? Why don't we have our own inquiry? Why don't we invite people to Ottawa to be able to do that? And so, this is where uh Sean and Theresa Buckley came in. They were visiting me last October, so prior to some of the the us losing our majority in the House. And I, like I said, this this is a feeling that just has been with me for the last two or three years that I haven't been able to shake. And so I broached the the topic casually with Sean and Teresa and said like I know you're involved with this thing called the NCI, the National Citizens Inquiry. Like what are the possibility of us being able to do that? And we had a lot of dialogue over like probably almost six months before we actually made the decision to do anything because I was trying to weigh, you know, I'm going to take a lot of flack for this. What's going to happen? you know, where where am I going to end up? And you know, am am I prepared to walk away from my job if that's what is required? And Sean asked these questions. If we get started in this thing, you've got to see it right through to completion. And so I I you know, after sort of praying about it, thinking about it, talking to my wife about it, we decided that uh we would move forward with this regard regardless of what circumstances were going to happen. I I didn't have to worry about those circumstances. That's good to hear. talked to my le talked to my leader about it and he said, \"Listen, I've been on the road. I talk to people. He'll be lined up for an hour or two talking to people, whatever events he's at.\" He said, \"People doesn't go by. I two weeks don't go by when I'm on the road where someone doesn't come up to me and say, \"I've been injured.\" And he understood that because he's actually been talking to people out out of the countryside. So, >> that's fascinating that you bring that up. um to have to consider like the position that you're in as an MP, an elected official, um working for Parliament, working for your constituents, to think that you yourself had to weigh in the consequences of having this conversation. And one of those consequences was potentially, you know, maybe not having a job or working in a closet um you know, to finish out your term. I think goes to show the resistance um of you around the subject around COVID. Why? Why do you think that is? No, like I said, you know, I I think that it's interesting that I I find out that, you know, we end up l literally having these conversations privately. So, think about that. I'll talk to people all the time about these issues, but there is such a huge reluctance to for people to share their stories because they've been gaslit, they've been marginalized, they feel abandoned. And so I think one of one of the when we were talking about sort of the frames of reference in terms of what what does this inquiry look like, I thought about this long and hard, you know, as a member of parliament for 22 years, I figured what is this I can legitimately do and not get into the weeds and not have a have a problem. I'd love to have a a more wholesome conversation about everything. That's not what I do as a member of parliament. So I would challenge anybody to say, listen, you can't do what you're doing because this is my job. I have these conversations every day. And so really what we're trying to do is give people permission to talk about their injuries publicly. And that's I feel that's been lacking in this country for so long is that people felt embarrassed, ashamed, put to the side. We need to give people permission publicly to share their stories. And I think by us being able to start with this inquiry, I hope this catches on and people can share more of these stories and we can begin the healing amongst family members against neighbors, against community, etc., etc. We want people to have permission to be able to talk about these things freely, publicly. Now Sean, I want to bring you into the conversation here because you and I have had uh many conversations in the past about the fear around this conversation and the fact that people have tried to sweep it under the rug. People are like, \"We just want to move on. They don't want to rehash it.\" Um but I mean government has a responsibility here. They said that there was a product out there that was safe. Um it was coerced. it was literally forced upon people, you know, to keep their jobs. Um, I want to bring you in here from a legal standpoint and then we'll get back to to uh uh Dean here. But let let's talk about where is this fear coming from because I I understand the college of physicians uh and surgeons as well, you know, silenced doctors. Um MPs couldn't speak out at the time. Um it it was meant to be this monologue, one narrative that was shared and that was that the vaccines are safe and effective. >> Yeah. I I want to just segue a little bit because I think people need to understand um that we have different belief systems. So people watching your show likely are very um educated on COVID issues. If I was to say PCR test, you know, if I was to say all cause mortality, like they know what I'm talking about, but there's, you know, a very sizable portion of the population that they watch the mainstream media and they've actually been given no reason not to. And I used to watch the mainstream media and it presents itself as authoritative. Um I I think there was even a time where they did balance journalism and those people have a different belief system you know before as part of kind of the process um to try and figure out what would it be viable to go ahead with this because as Dean has been explaining I mean all he wants to do is to listen to vaccine injured persons so that they can actually be heard and hopefully we'll break this spell where people are free to talk about this. Well, we're talking to MP. He says, you know, and as part of this process, well, will you talk to other MPs to see like, am I going to be alone at the table? Like, is there any is there anyone who will sit at the table with me? So my wife Teresa and I were, you know, having a whole bunch of MP meetings and like not one person would, you know, think thought that it would be politically viable to sit at a table, you know, as an a member of parliament and listen to Canadians publicly. They're they're they're listening to them privately, but not a single MP that we met with, and we're cherry-picking ones that we think could possibly say yes, um is communicating to us that they would think that it's politically possible to sit at the table. Now, so we have to talk about the media in a second, but but we need to understand because having these conversations with MPs, I also came to believe or came to understand that I'm in a bubble. I've got this worldview where I know all these co things. Um, I ex I've come to learn I bet you it's less than 10 MPs that don't believe that the vaccines were safe and effective. So, okay. So, mo so let's flip this around. So, most all MPs believe the vaccine is safe and effective. They understand that there's injuries all around them, but they like a sizable portion of Canadians believe that the injuries were caused by long co. Now, let that sink in for a second. If you believe that most of the injuries around you are caused by long co because we all know that we're in a train wreck of injuries. We all know there's been deaths of young people and died suddenly and all of this. But if you believe that's caused by long co and you believe that the vaccine was safe and effective, then you know you believe the vaccine saved lives. It prevented a lot of this long co. If that's your belief, you actually are going to be morally outraged at anything that would cause vaccine hesitancy. Like we have to understand that that this is a passionate thing because this is life and death. just as passionate as you and I are is wait a second people are dying and people are not getting proper treatment and suffering because we can't acknowledge it's vaccine injury and not long co there's the same passion on the other side and the interesting thing is is so the whole the whole nation is divided we have to have the conversation In September, Ras Muen did a poll in the United States, not Canada, the United States, but in the United States, they found that 56.6% of Americans believed, and the language is important here, not that the vaccines caused death, but the that the vaccines cause serious death. So, it's not like, you know, Aunt May's gardener's uncle died. It's like, no, over half of Americans believe that the vaccine caused significant death. Well, what's what's the figure for people that think the vaccine cause significant harm, including death? It's going to be a lot larger. And the same in Canada. Over half of Canadians have zero trust in public health now. And they're getting fed up with the fact that we can't have this conversation. So we we have to have this conversation or or we will not function as a polity and we will have next time when we actually do need public health to be listened to we're going to be in in an extreme crisis. Like it it doesn't serve any of us. And so the only way we can get confidence back again is to actually have this conversation have those hard conversations and then you know take some action to restore trust in public health. Look, I I would like to think we could be a nation again where that happens. And actually, I believe we're going to get there, Nadine. And I actually I'm I'm tired of Canadians. Oh, the next generation is going to be poorer than the last. And we're we're we're meant to be the richest country in the world, and we we need to get back. Like, it's just we've just gotten so off the track that and I'll get back to what we're talking about. So, why can't we have this conversation? That's above my pay grade. All I know is is that it's by and large because the government is avoiding it and the media is avoiding it. Now is the media avoiding it because the government is a big funer of the media? I don't know. Is the media avoiding it because pharma is a big contributor of this? I don't know. Um I do know like I believe Dr. Hoff and he he was at our last press conference. I mean doctors from day one in medical school vaccines are safe and effective act and we've all come to understand this and we all understand the messaging. Have we gotten to the place and clearly we have because whenever you get to the place where you can't even have a conversation you're captured now whether what you believe is true or not your mind's captured. So we're a nation whose mind is captured on the idea of vaccines. They're safe and effective. that's our are captured whether they are or are not our minds are captured on that issue so we can't have a conversation so I think step one is is we have to come to realize that our minds are captured that we're we actually can't have a conversation that we can't have an open mind about it that we can't listen to each other like we have to understand we're captured first and that's both sides of the equation and then once we come to understand that we start we have to, as uncomfortable as it is, start having these conversations in a respectful and loving way because we're not meant to be divided. And, you know, here we've got um Canada has a culture because we're so spread out and you know, we we it was so we had to rely on each other so much during the pioneer days um just to survive that we have a culture of helping each other and we have a culture of taking care of our own. And now we've got this large group of people that need to be taken care of and we're not. And we need to get back to our roots and we need to have the conversation. I don't know why the mainstream media has been complicit in preventing this conversation and I don't know why the government has been complicit. It could be that that we've all just kind of had this momentum with good intentions and now we're captured including the government's captured and the media's captured. I don't know. I'm just speculating. I just know that we're captured. >> Now, I want to bring this question to um MP Allison here because the government really did push this um and and I know it wasn't the Conservative government, but the Conservatives, the NDP, everybody was in consensus that, you know, the vaccine was safe and effective, everybody should get their vaccine. I mean there's some liability I think that comes along with um this idea that if you know you're told to do something or coerced to do something or given an ultimatum in order to do something you know and it doesn't work out um I think there might be some liability. Thus, I think for a lot of Canadians, I don't even think they understand that we have a Canadian vaccine injury program because and that's existed before COVID. Uh, correct. But, you know, this idea that it's safe and effective that we don't give people the proper information to make an informed decision and there was tremendous pressure. Is this potentially part of the reason why the government just wants to kind of sweep this under the rug and does not want to have the conversation? >> Yeah. Well, you know, when I'm attacked from the the opposite side, I mean, they're saying like this this this Dean guy is trying to create vaccine hesitancy. I'm saying like I'm not the one that said people were injured. It's your your own government numbers that said it's injured. to actually set up a program to make sure that uh you would could take care of some of these individuals woefully underfunded and woefully complicated to actually figure out it. So I say it again like I don't know how I can't be on safe ground by one listening to people's stories and two fighting for the programs fighting for the things that they they deserve to be a part of. I think you hit the nail on the head. You know how many government programs do we have in existence right now that people have no idea exist and people have a hard time accessing? That's part of what I want to shed a light on and I want people to understand like I want people listening in public health to say, \"Wow, uh maybe they already knew that, but I want Canadians to understand that.\" You know, people say, \"Well, if you've been injured, why can't you get compensation?\" Well, it's a great that's a great question. And you know, Sean can probably we've both heard stories. Sean has heard more stories about how difficult it is to fill out those forms. If you hear Dr. Hoff talk about how he had 14 injured people. Here's a guy a doctor 20 30 years in his community, 1100 people, First Nations, knows his patients, knows exactly what's going on, knows what happened before they were took the shot, knows what happened after, and not all 1100 of those people got injured, but he knows very clearly. He said they had 14 people. I think now in his practice he thinks they're 36 14 individuals that he actually wrote stuff to actually wrote you know to the government of BC and it was all rejected nine pages of stuff he had to fill out and they was rejected they they sent it back and said no that's a coincidence so you think about the process all along think about the process first of all of even people knowing there's a program you just alluded to that people don't even know there's a program then think about them trying to get sign up from their doctor which is almost impossible here is one doctor, courageous, that actually was prepared to fill out the forms. Think about that for a second. A courageous doctor prepared to fill out the forms that was actually rejected. He got to the point where he said, I it doesn't even make sense to fill out these nine pages of forms just to indicate that people were uh injured in BC. That's not the vaccine injury support program, which is separate altogether. So I what we what we're hopeful is that as we have this conversation first of all more people will understand they're not alone and number two we hope that the government's listening to say you know what not only do you need more money in this program because a lot more people that are injured you think about those stats we got the 60,000 people that number the government recognizes but we just heard from Dr. Hoff talk about how difficult is even to have that registered with people. So maybe that number is even more. And so then we we get to the third step and that's actually trying to access the program. And Sean could tell you stories about and I I've got stories, Sean's got stories, but think about how complicated it is just to get into the program because then even if a doctor signed off, they're rejected as well. And I think these are the things the government needs to hear is the process needs to be streamlined and there needs to be a lot more money set aside for these individuals who on good faith on being told that these vaccines were safe and effective took that vaccine. Now I have a couple of questions as it relates to this because what is the role of government period when it comes to people's personal health um and the decisions that they choose to make in this particular case and it wasn't just Canada it was around the world people were told they were coerced in my opinion to take this vaccine um and that came from the government directly all the way down college of physicians and surgeons um to your point with Dr. Charles Hoff literally would not I mean he put in 14 that he knew only to have all 14 rejected then just said you know why am I bothering to do take the time to do the paperwork when it was pretty evident they did not want this um to be known or to be documented um it was just a denial in my opinion of the facts the information that was being provided because they had a narrative so you know what what is the role of government here during ing events like this where you have in my opin opinion it was a flu you know let's call it something else co 19 and you know that the deaths did not start increasing the mortality rates didn't start increasing until after the vaccines were introduced >> who do you want to start >> Sean go Sean you want to take a stab I'm happy to add to that as well after >> tell us what you really think? So, yeah, >> I have strong opinions. Tell me if I'm wrong. >> Can I share something? Can I share something interesting that that um has come up? So, we've had like a,000 or,00 people I think now I I don't have the most recent count. It changes every day of people that have applied. And first of all, understand a lot of people are not applying because they don't they don't want to testify in person. So these are just people that are willing to testify in person that are applying and then a lot of the country doesn't even know we exist yet. I mean we just So the fact that we already have,00 people that have applied and then you know there's volunteers that are filtering these people down because we only have like maybe 45 slots because we've only got four days of hearings, right? So, and then, you know, they get on a short list and they and they get down to me and I interview them and we've already they've already filled in a pretty extensive form. Now I'm interviewing people, you know, they they, you know, one's like a quadripollegic but can move the little joystick on the wheelchair so he can get around, you know, another's like early 30s, lost his kidneys and is waiting for kidney transplant and on dialysis six days a week and if he's going to testify, he has to arrange for dialysis in Ottawa while he's visiting or he can't come, you know, and people just in chronic pain like just horrific stories. And I've added a question and I asked them, well, what's been the most difficult part of this? And I'm expecting it to be the pain and the suffering, being a quadripollegic, all of this. And almost without exception, that's not the answer. Almost without exception, it's the gaslighting and the not being heard by the medical community and the vaccine injury support program. So could you imagine you know like literally people are showing up in emergency like not able to walk and they're being told well this is a psychiatric problem you need to see a psychiatrist like they cannot the system can't you imagine so you're suffering terribly and you're basically being told you're making it up that this is a psychiatric thing. Yeah. You're 16 years old and you've just decided never to play sports again and and to start living in a wheelchair. Like literally, this is an example where I've interviewed this girl was 16 at the time, into volleyball and soccer and all of it, like super athletic. I'm being told, \"No, it's it's in your head. You're just making this up.\" Um, like it's just so you're having this experience where almost all of a sudden you're in a different world and it's just traumatizing you and traumatizing you that that it's not the fact that you go you'll never walk again. It's not the fact that you're in chronic pain. It's not the fact that even if you get a kidney and best case scenario, it's 12 years and you're on dialysis again. You will never have a normal life. No, it's actually that you haven't been heard, that you've been gaslit, that you've been you've been treated like you're a modern-day leper. And I am ashamed when I hear these stories. I am ashamed that these that the most traumatic thing, you know, people have been traumatized by filling in our form. Like we've gotten a whole bunch of feedback. We we have a very simple form on our website and then once we get that, our system sends you a more detailed form so we can get more information. Like there's an initial sorting. Is this realistic for us to get more information on? Well, we got a whole bunch of feedback on this form, not because the people wanted to be mean to us, but just even the idea of filling in a medical form is retraumatizing them. And then when they get the form, the email that's on the form, it's like, you know, we may have some volunteer doctors interview you because we know we're under the spotlight and people are going to say, oh, it's was this is long CO or something else. It's not vaccine injury. So we only want to put people on the stand where if their own doctors haven't said this is vaccine injury that you know at least some doctors that are are willing to have an honest look say no this is a real plausible thing. Well, the idea of being interviewed by a doctor is traumatizing people. Like, what have we done as a as a nation, as a medical system, you know? So, the fact that these, you know, that the the mainstream media is against this and, you know, calling this down, I I'm just finding the whole thing fascinating. Do we not know that we're hurting people? And so I I want to maybe this question for you then um Dean here just because we right now we're in the midst especially here in Alberta. You know Albertans are very unhappy with kind of Canada in general. There's lots of conversations going on about constitutions which brings up rights, freedoms um and the role of government um and government quasi institutions which I would argue like the college of physicians and surgeons is somewhat of a quasi you know government institution um even though it it you know it's supposed to be independent I think there's lots of overlap but it brings up the concern about institutions and the lack of trust and it brings up concerns for me about the role of government. The government took a very specific role around COVID. It came out and told people, you know, what they would put into their bodies. It then reassured them that it was safe and effective. Um and and I understand the predicament that MPs might have been in, but it's one thing for the college of physicians and surgeons to make that statement as supposedly experts in their field, but then for politicians who are not experts in the field and most of them are overwhelmed with already the workload that they have um probably didn't do the studies, didn't read the reports. Um not that there was any actually done, but what is the role of government in times like this? you know, wouldn't it be better for individuals and for people to um you know, make that decision themsel rather than to find a government coming down with a heavy hand coercing them to do that? >> Well, absolutely. And I think that's, you know, we this could go a whole bunch of different ways here. I mean, David Redmond, I'm sure you're familiar with, in Alberta, is always saying that we had all these pandemic responses, you know, national, provincial, across the country, and we didn't we didn't do one of them. You we put public health in charge of it instead of actually looking at uh ways we could actually follow the plan that had been written years before. So, I I I take serious issue with the way they dealt with pandemic response and and no one's really had a good conversation with that. The second's around informed consent. You know, my thought was always there should be choice on that. And if you watch some of one of the press conference, they the uh one of the reporters said, \"Well, you're antivax.\" No, I'm I'm actually choice. People should have that choice. And you don't give people that choice when you say you can't travel, you can't see grandma, you can't have your job. And the list goes on and on. And you know, you see how the government is backtracking now or has been. It's like, \"No, no, we never really said that.\" No, no, you did say that because you forced the provinces to have all these ridiculous rules. be forced a lot of companies certainly if it was federally regulated you were forced to be able to do that and so what happened to this whole issue of choice and so at the end of the day uh you know it's it's whether it's freedom of speech or whether it's uh freedom of choice when it comes to informed consent and what you're going to put into your body uh these things were severely lacking and I think that at the end of the day you know you you had politicians paring these these same responses based on what they believe to be true not once again having because she has to look at the information believing public health and if you go back to what David Redmond says you know public health should never have been in charge of a pandemic or didn't having some type of response because you know we could talk a whole bunch of other things of this uh inquiry how the fact that we you know 125,000 kids across the country uh failed to return to school. We could talk about all the lockdowns and what kind of financial harm it did to small and medium-sized businesses. Man, these are all topics worthy of these kind of conversations. The conversation we want to have is specifically around the fact that individuals were harmed and individuals that are now harmed deserve to have right to compensation because the government admits they actually did harm them. So I think that you raised great points there. But you know, I actually had a private members bill around these two things around travel and freedom. And while uh conservatives supported this, none of the other parties in the house did, which would give you a good indication of where people's uh stands actually held on when it came to co 19 vaccinations. >> Now you have been criticized for doing this publicly and not doing this as a private inquiry or um you know behind the scenes. What what is your goal for doing this on on a a a more public manner? You know, because I mean you are taking criticism that this is antivaccine. You're creating hesitancy. Um vaccines are safe and effective. Um why why bring this to the public on on a bigger scale? you know, I mean, I love it because it I mean, it certainly, I think, exposes the the truth and you're doing it in such a transparent manner out in the open that it allows people, you know, to at least make their own judgment. But for you personally, why why do this in a public manner like this? >> Yeah. No, I I think it's important. I I've been doing it privately for a long time. And I think, you know, that was always the challenge is I think people feel like they haven't been heard publicly. there's been no acknowledgement from the government that anyone's been injured. There's no acknowledgement even of those that are injured that that can even actually get access for the program. So, I think probably we I think we're in a a sweet spot. We're in the right spot because we certainly have more pro freedom people that say it doesn't go far enough. Uh and we've got a we've got, you know, political people that say you've gone too far. So, if you're being criticized for both sides, maybe you're actually doing the right thing. I like I I'll say it again like I think there should be more of an inquir that goes further with a whole host of topics. As a member of parliament, it is my job to listen to people and advocate for them on behalf of their programs. This is what I'm doing. And I think it's so important to have this publicly because so many people feel they're alone. They feel like they're alone because they haven't been allowed to have this conversation. A lot of people can't even have this conversation with their own families, you know. So, it depends on what family you were raised in whether you could have this conversation. And I think that by saying this publicly, what people are going to begin to realize across this country is that you know what, I am not alone. There's actually people going through some of the similar things. And I thought that that was only me. And there's not a chance on earth we can begin the healing process if people can't feel at the very least that they are being heard. And so that's really what I'm hoping to accomplish that people will be heard. people then we can put some pressure on the government and you know when I go back to the house to say this is what I heard we need to do a better job with the vaccine injury support program and then you know if enough people want to continue this conversation it's really going to be people that are going to need to demand more from their government right at the end of the day government always goes where people force them to go government always goes where you know the most amount of noise is being made and so I think if we can start having that conversation I hope that this is not the end but it is the beginning of a conversation that the general public can have as we move over time. So with that in mind then what is the outcome that you would like to see as a direct result of the inquiry? >> Two things that people will continue to have this conversation they'll feel like they have permission to speak publicly about their injuries and about what has happened that we encourage doctors journalists politicians all the above to have this conversation that they've been afraid to have over the last couple years. and that the government would realize that they there's more people injured than they than they've admitted and quite frankly there needs to be more money in the new iteration of whatever that vaccine injury support program is going to look like and so they need to do a better job and need to simplify the process of people being able to apply to get access to that. Now Sean, for you there's legal implications in what um Dean just said because you know if the government is going to acknowledge that there's been more uh harm done than you know they're admitting or willing to accept um you know that that means that we do have to increase funding for vaccine injured uh you know programs and those types of things and you know what's the likelihood I mean you've been working in the health industry for a long time health Canada and you know they don't like to admit when they make mistakes and you know there's con Dean's smiling because that's just it government does not like to admit government doesn't like admitting when they're wrong I don't understand >> not just at health Canada in every area every >> if we want to talk legal consequences um Nine I I don't think we can even understand what potential legal consequences there are because Um there was something bigger than COVID happening here. Like let's just even talk, you know, about Dr. Hoff submitting 14 um adverse reactions. Precoid like the adverse reaction reporting system is meant to be an early alert. It's meant to be very easy to file and easily accessible because it's meant to be just an early warning. Adverse reaction reports aren't meant to show causation or anything. They're just to say, \"Oh, wait. Should we be looking at something here?\" So, precoid doctors could submit directly to Health Canada. But as CO approached, before it happened, they changed it. So, in every province, you had to submit to a provincial board. Wait a second. This is a a federal reporting system. Why do you have now as a doctor have to put there's a barrier put in place where now you're submitting to a provincial board? That's that's pretty interesting. And citizens used to be able to direct report but during CO they couldn't. So a decision was made. You know you're talking about the colleges. Well, in the province of Alberta, as I understand it, is basically a law was put in place um that direct forced all of the colleges that you can't do anything that goes against public health um orders. Well, so then it became, you know, the College of Physicians and Surgeons just all of a sudden they're breaking the law if they're not ensuring that all of their doctors comply with public health orders. and the public health orders were directing everyone to get vaccinated. Well, this is by design. This was put into place beforehand. You know, you're saying safe and effective, safe and effective. Well, you know, the Allison inquiry, even though the inquiry hasn't started, the rules of the inquiry allow evidence to be entered um into the record that isn't witness evidence. and and so far the only evidence that's been entered is the law around the approval of the COVID 19 vaccines. And so anyone can go to allisonin inquiry.com or coestimony.com um which hosts the Allison inquiry website and go to exhibits and look at the Canadian law. And so this is no conspiracy theorist. You anyone can go to the Canada Gazette themselves. This is the government. These are government publications. So, we're just talking about the law. So, if the law is a conspiracy theorist, that's fine. The Canadian government is a conspiracy theorist. So, the law in Canada was changed for these vaccines. Yeah. You see, the government of Canada, they're antibaxers, right? So, they publish this stuff. It's, you know, it's clearly uncomfortable. So, our regular drug approval law, as flawed as it was, for any drug except COVID 19 drugs, you would have to prove that they're safe and you'd have to prove that they were effective and it it's right in our drug law and we have that as part of the Allison inquiry record. Well, the Minister of Health before any pharmaceutical company submitted an application, but it had to be in coordination with them because two filed within 30 days of this and you couldn't pivot this quickly. An interim order is issued. This is Canadian law. So, they changed the law exempting the CO 19 vaccines from the regular process. Now, important point is they could still go through the regular process if they wanted to. They now have two choices. I can prove them to be safe and effective, my vaccine, or I can go through this other process. Nadine, the other process, you didn't have to prove it was safe. In fact, you didn't even have to submit your safety data to get approval. Can I say that again? You didn't even have to submit your safety data to get approved. You just had to tell Health Canada how you were going to get them the known safety data. So when we're getting all this messaging, safe and effective, safe and effective, that's political messaging because a decision was made to encourage everyone to get the shot. Whether that was well-intentioned or not, we have to understand that when the government wants the populace to do something and wants the populace to do something strongly, we are going to have messaging to encourage the populace to do that. And I I think it's important for Canadians to understand that that messaging which was I call it political messaging because it was to encourage the population to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. And when you look at Canadian law so I I invite everyone to go look at the Allison Inquiry record of exhibits it's really clear. And what I don't understand, Nadine, is is is, you know, probably any journalist spending half an hour could discover that the law was changed and that these vaccines did not have to be proven to be safe and effective. In fact, the words safe and the words effective are not even in the test. >> Yeah. So how how can it be that that you know when this was happening and the media is saying safe and effective safe and effective safe and effective that not a single journalist figured out that actually there that requirement wasn't there and how can it be five years later that a single journal like no no no news organization has actually shown to the public well wait a second these vaccines weren't proven safe and effective And the thing that I find interesting, and this is political, is okay, let's say we're in a crisis during COVID. Well, I can see you exempting them during the crisis. If we're in a real crisis and and hey, we're not sure what to do. We're going to relax the requirements. That's fine. But we have still exempted the CO 19 vaccines from being proven safe and effective to this day. And we're still injecting children with them. And so I don't think we're in a crisis with CO 19 today. So I don't understand why we have we're injecting children with a co 19 vaccine that to this day we have not um required them to go through the regular process of being proven safe and effective. To me that is a political decision and it's part of what's going on. is. So why why is it that we we don't today require those vaccines to go through the regular drug approval process? Well, I think that's a a much bigger conversation that maybe Sean, you and I can have um at another time because I think if you look at what's going on in the United States today with the amendments that are being proposed to the just even the regular childhood vaccine schedule, um you know, they're taking, you know, drastic measures, I think, and challenging the effect efficacy and the safety of just, you know, regular vaccines. um the timing of those, the scheduling of them, and a lot of the arguments are based around convenience. Well, it's very inconvenient for a a parent to bring their, you know, son or daughter in to do three separate, you know, vaccines. You know, it's more convenient to do it all at the one time, but that's the wrong question to be asking. The question is is does it provide less of a toxicity, less of a reaction, is it safer? You know, those questions are not being asked. you know, they're challenging, you know, that to to keep the status quo. Um, and you have to wonder sometimes, you know, whether or not that's deliberate. And I think to a certain extent, you're talking about the media and the messaging. And the media and the messaging was the same. It was the same everywhere. So, it had to be coordinated. It had to be deliberate. Um, and you're seeing that still today. You have a comment to that? Well, I'm just actually not necessarily a comment on that, but I just, you know, what I think is so precious about what MPD Allison is hoping to accomplish here is we you I just want to refocus this on, you know, we we are learning through this process that we've got a large number of people that have been literally silenced. Literally silenced. And they are suffering terribly and their stories are they're going to change this nation. And I think that or I think you know if you were to ask us what we're hoping to accomplish is I think that we need to have this conversation. You see, cuz we can go all these different ways and I can actually get excited about um real problems. And I think I think the real problem is is that somehow we've arrived in a place where we cannot be honest with with each other, where we cannot disagree with each other, where we can no longer have civil conversations. Um which is really hateful. Like it's almost like we become a hateful country. And and these people that are vaccine injured feel that way. And you know, I think that God is going to use this inquiry to basically reveal first of all to speak through these people and just say, \"Wait a second. We need to have this conversation and where it leads, who knows?\" Because the one thing that I I've come to understand is I really don't know what's going on. I have strong opinions, but I know when I actually listen to other people with an open mind, I can see things differently. And I also know that we're all the same. So that if I had a different belief system, I would act just the way people that have that different belief system act. Like we need to cut each other's slack and we need to start having a conversation and see where that goes. Now, MP Allison, what do you think that through this process we can start the healing process that we can actually start to rebuild some of the the trust in our institutions? Because I think trust in, you know, our health care system, our our politicians in general is probably at an all-time low. Do you think that this is going to help that uh process? So I I think in the first step I think this is uh a great first step in the healing processes for individuals right they can talk about their stories and feel like they're being heard. I mean the only way you build trust in institutions if the is if institutions show up and say you know what we may made some mistakes and we need to do things differently. So I don't see the institutions uh at the table right now. As I said I think this is important for individuals. Individuals need the ability to move on or start the healing process and feel like they can have conversations. Can you imagine if we go another 5 years and some of these individuals can't have a conversation with their family? Now, it takes two to have the conversation. I also understand that. But if they can recognize that indeed they were injured and that now they're going to have more conversations, we need the medical community. What What kind of damage has this done to the medical community? Well, and then you know in terms of the the ability for for people to believe and have trust in in doctors, right? What about the the journalism community? I mean, we we look at their institutions like our publicly funded uh you know CBC and some of the mainstream media. This is why there's been a a huge influx of independent media in this country because people don't feel they can trust the institutions that they have have become to. So, while this starts the process, it's a two-way street. other institutions have got to step up to the table and if they're not prepared to do that there's only so far that we can do but I really do believe we can start the process of healing with individuals. >> Now what kind of support have you had internally um for this inquiry um amongst your peers? I mean I know the media has been pretty tough on you guys um but you know you're sitting as an MP. Have you had lots of support um within your own party within government all levels of different parties or where does it stand? >> Yeah. So I haven't had a lot of support from the uh from the governing party. Uh as a matter of fact I've had a bunch of attacks from individuals uh members of of of of the uh of the governing party. I have had lots of response positive response from my own members. As a matter of fact, I've had a number of members uh you know, for example, our uh the first our lady Michelle who spoke at our second press conference, uh her member of parliament is Bob Zimmer. And I was I was taking her back to her hotel after the press conference. She said, you know, Dean, I've had a lot of great conversations with Bob. Bob has been very receptive. And I would say that that has been the case with other members of parliament across the country, even members in the in in the in the government. So, I think that uh you know, while I'm hoping for a good turnout, I also understand that members of parliament are incredibly busy. This is right after Labor Day weekend. This was uh the best we could do working on Sean's schedule, Teresa's schedule, and my schedule, which is there's always never a great a great opportunity to figure out what what would be the best time. The reason why we're doing it then and not while we're sitting is because committee rooms are at a premium. It's very hard to get access to committee rooms because regular scheduled committees are be going to be going about their business. So, we're doing this the best way we can, but if I've got any indication for the number of people, I got a couple emails today. I got one from an individual that says, Dean, I've got uh uh somebody that would like to participate and I've told them, you know, I'm going to send them to you. And by the way, I'm going to be there. They're not someone that's come out publicly and said that because they're probably working on their schedule. I've had a lot of other MPs have said, \"Listen, take a look at this person here. They've had an issue. Would you talk to Would you, you know, get them into the, you know, at least into the queue and through the website, help figure that stuff out?\" I've had a ton of support from that that perspective. So, you know, I'm I'm proud of the colleagues that have actually taken the time to speak to some of these injured people and I would say that that's probably happened with a number of parties across the way. And so, that's great. Now the next step is let's get these people in a public forum once again where they can tell their stories publicly where they can start to feel like they are have permission to tell their stories publicly. >> So now I know we're running out of time here. When is the inquiry? It's September 8th to the 11th in Ottawa in Parliament as you've pointed out. Where can people watch? Um, are they able to participate in person? Um, give us more details about that. >> Can can I answer that one, Dean? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> So, um, yeah, so just go to the Allison Inquiry website. So, it's allisoninquiry.com or coestimony.com and we can get you those to post. Nadine, um, subscribe to the newsletter. We will be live streaming it um, off the website. We will be live streaming it on on various social media. I expect the dean will be live streaming it on his social media and I will on mine. Um, so there'll be and there'll be others that will be live streaming it. So hopefully you'll be live streaming it, Nadine. So um, and we may have a live stream in both French and English. So sub follow us on social media, subscribe to the newsletter. Um, also you know I just Dean was talking about David Redmond. He's Lieutenant Colonel David Redmond who was trained in the armed forces to be an emergency management specialist. He's a world expert. He set up the province of Alberta's kind of um response uh at the National Citizens Archives. So national citizensarchive.com he has testified under oath. It will change everyone's opinion of what happened if you watch his presentation. Yeah, I've had Colonel Redmond on the the show here and during COVID in particular actually he wasn't able to make an event that I was uh attending and he allowed me to present his information and he is just a brilliant man and as you've pointed out an expert in emergency preparedness and you know this whole claim that Canada didn't have we weren't prepared for this we were we had a plan there was plans and they just threw out everything and denied that we had ever done anything and we were illprepared. Um which again for me it's just it's a a destruction of the credibility. It it destroys trust. Um you have to believe that there was an agenda here. Um any final words MP um Dean Allison, you know that you know people who are watching that you think you know maybe they should hear or um just some sentiments of your own. >> Yeah. No, I I just, you know, I think that uh so important to be able to have dialogue. I worry about censorship in this country right now and censorship really is about, you know, not letting people tell their stories. We see an increasing amount of legislation since CO that involves some elements of censorship. And I I think that's why we have to be so diligent. We have to be so we need to make sure we continue to find ways to have conversations and tell the truth even if it's not comfortable. And I think, you know, this is why I appreciate what you do and so many other independent people. You know, if we don't continue to fight for our ability to have free speech, we're going to lose it. And I think that, you know, censorship is shows up in many different forms. One of them is, you know, refusing to hear what people have to say. It's just it's simple. We're talking about people just listening to people. That's what we're talking. We're not talking about anything. We're we we wanted to be very clear. We could have done so much more, gone so much further, but we wanted to make sure that we were on safe ground. And that's why we're ju we're just listening to people. Think about that. Listening to people that have been injured. And so I just I just people need to be so much more aware that our freedoms are not always free and they're not always going to be a given that we're going to have to continue to to fight for that. That's why I think this inquiry is so important is because if we don't give people permission to tell their stories, what is next? Is it going to be because I don't like what you said about A, B, or C? We've got to be very diligent around these things. And so that's why I think this inquiry is so important. People have stories to tell and they deserve to be heard and that we need to give people permission to tell their stories in a public way, not privately. They're having those conversations but in a public forum. >> Regrettably, I think the Liberal government is going down the path of censorship and uh fear. Um even people like myself in podcasts and independent journalists who do try to bring the truth. Um I think are under attack with some of these new bills that are out. Again, a conversation for another time. Um but you know, you see what's happening in the UK. People are posting things online um and being put in jail. some of them for, you know, terms um much further than more serious crimes, you know, uh that are being committed. So, it it is a scary proposition to think that we can't even just have a conversation. Sean, any last words from you that you'd like people to know or I mean, you've been on the show many times and and your breath and knowledge, especially as it relates to Health Canada and a lot of the the issues. Um, you know, they're self-evident, but you know, any any final words today for our audience? Well, I I'd just like to follow up on what what Dean was saying is I and invite people to participate. Like these people um really need to be heard and they need to tell their stories and I I promise you it will change their lives and let's privilege them. Like let's all watch this live and listen to their stories because you know they are going to pay attention and they're going to talk about how many people were online watching. And if we can if we can have those numbers large if we can participate as a country that's how we start this journey. You know if we do this and nobody watches then you know that's a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear. So I think we all have a responsibility to watch and get other people to watch like let's make this the event that starts the conversation. I see this a little bit as the freedom convoy, you know, during the COVID um days itself in the pandemic where people did feel alone. They they were feeling very pressured and very isolated and uh when the freedom convoy happened, it was like, \"Oh my goodness, there are other people who think like me and there was a sense of community and camaraderie.\" So, um, it sounds to me like that's what we're you're trying to recreate here is to give people that space to know they're not alone. >> We're listening. >> You you can't recreate what they did. Um, they they acted at at a time like I remember I they gave me hope. So, I I'm so I'm I will be thankful every day of my life for what the truckers did and the sacrifice that they made. Um, so I don't I don't want to make any comparison. I just do know that that um that God's moving and he wants us in Canada to come together again. And I believe that this is this is a start and I'd really invite everyone to participate. >> Amen to that. Well, thank you gentlemen both for being with us today and for sharing some information and we'll be watching. >> Thanks Nadine. >> Thanks so much. >> You're very welcome. Well, there you have it everybody. The Allison inquiry. Please do check out the website. Please do check out follow along. Please do participate. As Sean and NP De and Allison have said, you know, there's no point in doing this if nobody is going to listen, nobody wants to partake. Um, it's very important that we continue the conversation and that we preserve and we fight, we defend our right to have our voices heard, especially when it comes to our government officials. Um, there's been harms that have been done here. It's important to know who's responsible, you know, for some of these harms and there's programs out there that are available that Canadians are not even aware of. So, that in and of itself tells you some of the issues that we have to address here. So, anyway, I want to say thank you all for listening. Please do like, please do share. Again, I can do these all day, but if nobody shares them, if nobody, you know, uh, gets involved, likes them, send them to friends, send them family. Um, say, \"Hey, check this out.\" And so please do like, please do share, please do subscribe to the channel and uh leave us your comments. God bless you all.",
  "timestamped_text": "0:00 Nadine, the other process, you didn't\n0:01 have to prove it was safe. In fact, you\n0:04 didn't even have to submit your safety\n0:05 data to get approval. Can I say that\n0:07 again? You\n0:18 Well, good day everybody and welcome\n0:20 back to the show. Today's guest, uh, MP\n0:23 for Niagara West, uh, MP Dean Allison,\n0:26 and of course, lawyer Sean Buckley.\n0:28 Today we're going to discuss the Allison\n0:30 inquiry which for some people is\n0:32 becoming a little bit of a hot topic.\n0:34 And so with further ado, I am going to\n0:37 invite our guests to the show. Hello\n0:40 gentlemen.\n0:42 >> Hello.\n0:43 >> Hey Nadine, good to be on.\n0:45 >> Good to see you again. And Dean, so\n0:47 appreciative that you took the time\n0:49 today to join us. So thank you very\n0:50 much.\n0:52 >> Great to be here. Thanks for inviting\n0:54 me.\n0:54 >> Wonderful. Now, I I want to jump right\n0:57 in because I know we've got a little bit\n0:58 of a constraint on our time and um you\n1:02 guys have decided to invite witnesses to\n1:08 talk and discuss the COVID vaccine\n1:11 injured. Now, I want to talk quickly\n1:13 because I don't think that a lot of\n1:16 people um want necessarily to bring this\n1:20 up to the surface. people inside who\n1:24 have been injured obviously need a voice\n1:26 uh on their behalf, but there's doctors\n1:28 that have been silenced. There's a lot\n1:30 of fear around this. People the media is\n1:32 painting this as kind of an antivaccine\n1:34 campaign. So much going on. So would you\n1:38 start um Dean with perhaps what it is\n1:42 the Allison inquiry is and what it's\n1:45 not?\n1:47 >> Sure. And and once again, thanks for\n1:49 having us on the show today. You know, I\n1:52 there's two things that two functions of\n1:54 a member of parliament. One is to\n1:55 listen. There's more, but two things\n1:57 that we definitely do is one, we listen\n1:59 to people's concerns. They come into our\n2:01 office every day to talk about a variety\n2:03 of issues. The second one is to actually\n2:06 help them access government programs.\n2:08 And so for the last number of years and\n2:10 for the last 22 years since I've been\n2:12 elected, that's exactly what I do. And\n2:14 you know, I was noticing challenges\n2:16 around COVID when they came out and\n2:18 people's didn't want to get vaccinated,\n2:20 but they were having challenges, as\n2:22 you're well aware, being able to go to\n2:24 work or travel, etc., etc. And then\n2:27 let's fast forward not even that far,\n2:29 but after that, uh, people that had\n2:31 gotten vaccinated were actually some of\n2:33 them were getting injured and those same\n2:36 people or maybe even different people\n2:38 reaching out to me. And so as my job as\n2:41 a member of parliament is to listen to\n2:42 these stories. People were calling me,\n2:44 texting me, emailing me, uh leaving\n2:46 voicemails from all across this country.\n2:48 And of course when I was on the road and\n2:50 and visiting various different places in\n2:53 this country, I would people would reach\n2:55 out to me. So I just thought, you know\n2:57 what I find strange and what's happened\n2:59 over the last number of years is that\n3:01 there's a real reluctance to talk about\n3:03 this in the public space. you just you\n3:05 kind of alluded to that in your opening\n3:06 remarks and I thought and I've been\n3:08 thinking about it for a number of years.\n3:10 I've been thinking why can we not\n3:11 actually have these conversations? Why\n3:13 can we not have these conversations\n3:15 publicly? Number one, and number two,\n3:17 why can we not actually try and put\n3:19 pressure on the government to do a\n3:20 better job with the vaccine injury\n3:22 support program? As you're probably\n3:24 aware, again, maybe your listeners are\n3:26 or they're not. You know, over $55\n3:28 million was contributed to a vaccine\n3:30 injury support program of which $35\n3:32 million was spent on overhead and only a\n3:35 third, think about that, only a third of\n3:37 those dollars actually went to the\n3:38 vaccine injured people. And by the\n3:40 government's own numbers, we have almost\n3:42 60,000 people registered as injured in\n3:45 this country. 11,000 seriously, 3,500\n3:47 applied to the program. 3,000 were\n3:49 accepted, but only 252. So less than\n3:53 point4 of a percent of people injured in\n3:55 this country are actually receiving any\n3:57 type of compensation. I just feel that's\n3:59 completely and totally unacceptable. So\n4:01 when we lost the ability to actually\n4:03 talk to people in committee uh this was\n4:06 actually something that the committee\n4:08 the health committee was going to look\n4:09 at and after we had a few of our members\n4:12 walk the floor we lost the ability to\n4:14 have a minority government where we\n4:16 could then force this as a conversation\n4:18 and committee. I said, \"Well, there's\n4:19 going to be no time like the president\n4:21 to be able to have this conversation\n4:23 because this conversation should happen\n4:25 in parliament.\" It's not. And so, the\n4:27 next best thing is why don't we have a\n4:29 town hall? Why don't we have our own\n4:31 inquiry? Why don't we invite people to\n4:33 Ottawa to be able to do that? And so,\n4:34 this is where uh Sean and Theresa\n4:36 Buckley came in. They were visiting me\n4:38 last October, so prior to some of the\n4:42 the us losing our majority in the House.\n4:44 And I, like I said, this this is a\n4:46 feeling that just has been with me for\n4:47 the last two or three years that I\n4:49 haven't been able to shake. And so I\n4:50 broached the the topic casually with\n4:52 Sean and Teresa and said like I know\n4:54 you're involved with this thing called\n4:56 the NCI, the National Citizens Inquiry.\n4:59 Like what are the possibility of us\n5:01 being able to do that? And we had a lot\n5:03 of dialogue over like probably almost\n5:05 six months before we actually made the\n5:07 decision to do anything because I was\n5:09 trying to weigh, you know, I'm going to\n5:11 take a lot of flack for this. What's\n5:12 going to happen? you know, where where\n5:14 am I going to end up? And you know, am\n5:16 am I prepared to walk away from my job\n5:18 if that's what is required? And Sean\n5:20 asked these questions. If we get started\n5:22 in this thing, you've got to see it\n5:23 right through to completion. And so I I\n5:26 you know, after sort of praying about\n5:27 it, thinking about it, talking to my\n5:29 wife about it, we decided that uh we\n5:31 would move forward with this regard\n5:33 regardless of what circumstances were\n5:36 going to happen. I I didn't have to\n5:37 worry about those circumstances. That's\n5:39 good to hear. talked to my le talked to\n5:41 my leader about it and he said, \"Listen,\n5:42 I've been on the road. I talk to people.\n5:44 He'll be lined up for an hour or two\n5:46 talking to people, whatever events he's\n5:48 at.\" He said, \"People doesn't go by. I\n5:50 two weeks don't go by when I'm on the\n5:52 road where someone doesn't come up to me\n5:54 and say, \"I've been injured.\" And he\n5:56 understood that because he's actually\n5:58 been talking to people out out of the\n6:00 countryside. So,\n6:02 >> that's fascinating that you bring that\n6:04 up. um to have to consider like the\n6:07 position that you're in as an MP, an\n6:09 elected official, um working for\n6:12 Parliament, working for your\n6:14 constituents, to think that you yourself\n6:18 had to weigh in the consequences of\n6:21 having this conversation. And one of\n6:24 those consequences was potentially,\n6:27 you know, maybe not having a job or\n6:30 working in a closet um you know, to\n6:32 finish out your term. I think goes to\n6:35 show the resistance um of\n6:39 you around the subject around COVID.\n6:41 Why? Why do you think that is?\n6:45 No, like I said, you know, I I think\n6:46 that it's interesting that I I find out\n6:49 that, you know, we end up l literally\n6:52 having these conversations privately.\n6:54 So, think about that. I'll talk to\n6:56 people all the time about these issues,\n6:57 but there is such a huge reluctance to\n7:00 for people to share their stories\n7:01 because they've been gaslit, they've\n7:03 been marginalized, they feel abandoned.\n7:05 And so I think one of one of the when we\n7:06 were talking about sort of the frames of\n7:08 reference in terms of what what does\n7:10 this inquiry look like, I thought about\n7:13 this long and hard, you know, as a\n7:15 member of parliament for 22 years, I\n7:16 figured what is this I can legitimately\n7:18 do and not get into the weeds and not\n7:21 have a have a problem. I'd love to have\n7:22 a a more wholesome conversation about\n7:24 everything. That's not what I do as a\n7:27 member of parliament. So I would\n7:28 challenge anybody to say, listen, you\n7:31 can't do what you're doing because this\n7:33 is my job. I have these conversations\n7:35 every day. And so really what we're\n7:36 trying to do is give people permission\n7:39 to talk about their injuries publicly.\n7:42 And that's I feel that's been lacking in\n7:44 this country for so long is that people\n7:46 felt embarrassed, ashamed, put to the\n7:48 side. We need to give people permission\n7:51 publicly to share their stories. And I\n7:53 think by us being able to start with\n7:55 this inquiry, I hope this catches on and\n7:58 people can share more of these stories\n8:00 and we can begin the healing amongst\n8:02 family members against neighbors,\n8:05 against community, etc., etc. We want\n8:07 people to have permission to be able to\n8:09 talk about these things freely,\n8:10 publicly.\n8:12 Now Sean, I want to bring you into the\n8:14 conversation here because you and I have\n8:16 had uh many conversations in the past\n8:19 about the fear around this conversation\n8:23 and the fact that people have tried to\n8:25 sweep it under the rug. People are like,\n8:27 \"We just want to move on. They don't\n8:29 want to rehash it.\" Um but I mean\n8:31 government has a responsibility here.\n8:33 They said that there was a product out\n8:35 there that was safe. Um it was coerced.\n8:38 it was literally forced upon people, you\n8:40 know, to keep their jobs. Um, I want to\n8:42 bring you in here from a legal\n8:44 standpoint and then we'll get back to to\n8:46 uh uh Dean here. But let let's talk\n8:50 about where is this fear coming from\n8:52 because I I understand the college of\n8:53 physicians uh and surgeons as well, you\n8:56 know, silenced doctors. Um MPs couldn't\n8:59 speak out at the time. Um it it was\n9:02 meant to be this monologue, one\n9:03 narrative that was shared and that was\n9:05 that the vaccines are safe and\n9:07 effective.\n9:09 >> Yeah. I I want to just segue a little\n9:12 bit because I think people need to\n9:14 understand\n9:15 um that we have different belief\n9:18 systems. So people watching your show\n9:22 likely are very um educated on COVID\n9:26 issues. If I was to say PCR test, you\n9:29 know, if I was to say all cause\n9:30 mortality, like they know what I'm\n9:32 talking about,\n9:34 but there's, you know, a very sizable\n9:37 portion of the population\n9:40 that they watch the mainstream media and\n9:42 they've actually been given no reason\n9:44 not to. And I used to watch the\n9:45 mainstream media and it presents itself\n9:48 as authoritative.\n9:50 Um I I think there was even a time where\n9:52 they did balance journalism\n9:55 and those people have a different belief\n9:58 system you know before as part of kind\n10:01 of the process um to try and figure out\n10:04 what would it be viable to go ahead with\n10:06 this because as Dean has been explaining\n10:09 I mean\n10:11 all he wants to do is to listen to\n10:13 vaccine injured persons so that they can\n10:16 actually be heard and hopefully we'll\n10:19 break this spell where people are free\n10:21 to talk about this. Well, we're talking\n10:24 to MP. He says, you know, and as part of\n10:26 this process, well, will you talk to\n10:28 other MPs to see like, am I going to be\n10:31 alone at the table? Like, is there any\n10:33 is there anyone who will sit at the\n10:35 table with me? So my wife Teresa and I\n10:36 were, you know, having a whole bunch of\n10:38 MP meetings and like not one person\n10:43 would, you know, think thought that it\n10:44 would be politically viable\n10:48 to sit at a table,\n10:50 you know, as an a member of parliament\n10:53 and listen to Canadians publicly.\n10:56 They're they're they're listening to\n10:57 them privately, but not a single MP that\n11:00 we met with, and we're cherry-picking\n11:02 ones that we think could possibly say\n11:05 yes, um is communicating to us that they\n11:08 would think that it's politically\n11:10 possible\n11:12 to sit at the table. Now, so we have to\n11:16 talk about the media in a second, but\n11:18 but we need to understand because having\n11:21 these conversations with MPs, I also\n11:23 came to believe or came to understand\n11:26 that I'm in a bubble.\n11:29 I've got this worldview where I know all\n11:31 these co things. Um, I ex I've come to\n11:34 learn I bet you it's less than 10 MPs\n11:39 that don't believe that the vaccines\n11:42 were safe and effective.\n11:44 So, okay. So, mo so let's flip this\n11:46 around. So, most all MPs\n11:49 believe the vaccine is safe and\n11:51 effective. They understand that there's\n11:54 injuries all around them, but they like\n11:57 a sizable portion of Canadians believe\n11:59 that the injuries were caused by long\n12:01 co. Now, let that sink in for a second.\n12:05 If you believe that most of the injuries\n12:07 around you are caused by long co because\n12:10 we all know that we're in a train wreck\n12:12 of injuries.\n12:13 We all know there's been deaths of young\n12:15 people and died suddenly and all of\n12:18 this. But if you believe that's caused\n12:20 by long co and you believe that the\n12:22 vaccine was safe and effective, then you\n12:25 know you believe the vaccine saved\n12:27 lives. It prevented a lot of this long\n12:29 co. If that's your belief, you actually\n12:33 are going to be morally outraged at\n12:35 anything that would cause vaccine\n12:38 hesitancy.\n12:40 Like we have to understand that that\n12:43 this is a passionate thing because this\n12:45 is life and death. just as passionate as\n12:48 you and I are is wait a second people\n12:50 are dying\n12:53 and people are not getting proper\n12:55 treatment and suffering because we can't\n12:58 acknowledge it's vaccine injury and not\n13:00 long co there's the same passion on the\n13:04 other side\n13:06 and\n13:09 the interesting thing is is so the whole\n13:11 the whole nation is divided we have to\n13:14 have the conversation\n13:16 In September, Ras Muen did a poll in the\n13:18 United States, not Canada, the United\n13:20 States, but in the United States, they\n13:23 found that 56.6%\n13:25 of Americans\n13:27 believed, and the language is important\n13:29 here, not that the vaccines caused\n13:31 death, but the that the vaccines cause\n13:34 serious death. So, it's not like, you\n13:36 know, Aunt May's gardener's uncle died.\n13:39 It's like, no, over half of Americans\n13:42 believe that the vaccine caused\n13:44 significant death. Well, what's what's\n13:46 the figure for people that think the\n13:48 vaccine cause significant harm,\n13:49 including death? It's going to be a lot\n13:52 larger. And the same in Canada. Over\n13:54 half of Canadians have zero trust in\n13:57 public health now.\n14:00 And they're getting fed up with the fact\n14:03 that we can't have this conversation. So\n14:05 we we have to have this conversation or\n14:09 or we will not function as a polity and\n14:13 we will have next time when we actually\n14:15 do need public health to be listened to\n14:17 we're going to be in in an extreme\n14:19 crisis. Like it it doesn't serve any of\n14:21 us. And so the only way we can get\n14:23 confidence back again is to actually\n14:26 have this conversation have those hard\n14:28 conversations and then you know take\n14:31 some action to restore trust in public\n14:34 health. Look, I I would like to think we\n14:36 could be a nation again where that\n14:38 happens. And actually, I believe we're\n14:39 going to get there, Nadine. And I\n14:41 actually I'm I'm tired of Canadians. Oh,\n14:43 the next generation is going to be\n14:45 poorer than the last. And we're we're\n14:46 we're meant to be the richest country in\n14:48 the world, and we we need to get back.\n14:52 Like, it's just we've just gotten so off\n14:54 the track that and I'll get back to what\n14:55 we're talking about. So, why can't we\n14:57 have this conversation?\n14:59 That's above my pay grade. All I know is\n15:03 is that it's by and large because the\n15:05 government is avoiding it and the media\n15:08 is avoiding it. Now is the media\n15:09 avoiding it because the government is a\n15:12 big funer of the media? I don't know. Is\n15:15 the media avoiding it because pharma is\n15:17 a big contributor of this? I don't know.\n15:20 Um I do know like I believe Dr. Hoff and\n15:23 he he was at our last press conference.\n15:25 I mean doctors from day one in medical\n15:28 school vaccines are safe and effective\n15:29 act and we've all come to understand\n15:31 this and we all understand the\n15:33 messaging. Have we gotten to the place\n15:36 and clearly we have because whenever you\n15:38 get to the place where you can't even\n15:40 have a conversation you're captured\n15:42 now whether what you believe is true or\n15:44 not your mind's captured. So we're a\n15:46 nation whose mind is captured on the\n15:49 idea of vaccines. They're safe and\n15:51 effective. that's our are captured\n15:54 whether they are or are not our minds\n15:57 are captured on that issue so we can't\n15:59 have a conversation so I think step one\n16:02 is is we have to come to realize that\n16:05 our minds are captured that we're we\n16:07 actually can't have a conversation that\n16:09 we can't have an open mind about it that\n16:12 we can't listen to each other like we\n16:13 have to understand we're captured first\n16:15 and that's both sides of the equation\n16:19 and then once we come to understand that\n16:21 we start we have to, as uncomfortable as\n16:23 it is, start having these conversations\n16:25 in a respectful and loving way because\n16:28 we're not meant to be divided.\n16:31 And, you know, here we've got um Canada\n16:34 has a culture because we're so spread\n16:36 out and you know, we we it was so we had\n16:39 to rely on each other so much during the\n16:41 pioneer days um just to survive that we\n16:44 have a culture of helping each other and\n16:46 we have a culture of taking care of our\n16:48 own. And now we've got this large group\n16:51 of people that need to be taken care of\n16:52 and we're not. And we need to get back\n16:54 to our roots and we need to have the\n16:56 conversation. I don't know why the\n16:58 mainstream media has been complicit in\n17:01 preventing this conversation and I don't\n17:04 know why the government has been\n17:05 complicit. It could be that that we've\n17:07 all just kind of had this momentum with\n17:09 good intentions and now we're captured\n17:13 including the government's captured and\n17:14 the media's captured. I don't know. I'm\n17:16 just speculating. I just know that we're\n17:18 captured.\n17:20 >> Now, I want to bring this question to um\n17:23 MP Allison here because\n17:26 the government really did push this um\n17:31 and and I know it wasn't the\n17:32 Conservative government, but the\n17:33 Conservatives, the NDP, everybody was in\n17:36 consensus that, you know, the vaccine\n17:38 was safe and effective, everybody should\n17:40 get their vaccine. I mean there's some\n17:42 liability I think that comes along with\n17:46 um this idea that if you know you're\n17:48 told to do something or coerced to do\n17:50 something or given an ultimatum in order\n17:52 to do something you know and it doesn't\n17:55 work out um I think there might be some\n17:57 liability. Thus, I think for a lot of\n17:59 Canadians, I don't even think they\n18:01 understand that we have a Canadian\n18:04 vaccine injury program because and\n18:08 that's existed before COVID. Uh,\n18:11 correct. But, you know, this idea that\n18:15 it's safe and effective that we don't\n18:16 give people the proper information to\n18:20 make an informed decision and there was\n18:23 tremendous pressure. Is this potentially\n18:27 part of the reason why the government\n18:29 just wants to kind of sweep this under\n18:32 the rug and does not want to have the\n18:34 conversation?\n18:36 >> Yeah. Well, you know, when I'm attacked\n18:38 from the the opposite side, I mean,\n18:40 they're saying like this this this Dean\n18:43 guy is trying to create vaccine\n18:44 hesitancy. I'm saying like I'm not the\n18:47 one that said people were injured. It's\n18:49 your your own government numbers that\n18:50 said it's injured. to actually set up a\n18:53 program to make sure that uh you would\n18:55 could take care of some of these\n18:57 individuals woefully underfunded and\n18:59 woefully complicated to actually figure\n19:01 out it. So I say it again like I don't\n19:04 know how I can't be on safe ground by\n19:06 one listening to people's stories and\n19:08 two fighting for the programs fighting\n19:10 for the things that they they deserve to\n19:12 be a part of. I think you hit the nail\n19:13 on the head. You know how many\n19:15 government programs do we have in\n19:16 existence right now that people have no\n19:17 idea exist and people have a hard time\n19:20 accessing? That's part of what I want to\n19:22 shed a light on and I want people to\n19:24 understand like I want people listening\n19:26 in public health to say, \"Wow, uh maybe\n19:29 they already knew that, but I want\n19:30 Canadians to understand that.\" You know,\n19:32 people say, \"Well, if you've been\n19:33 injured, why can't you get\n19:34 compensation?\" Well, it's a great that's\n19:36 a great question. And you know, Sean can\n19:38 probably we've both heard stories. Sean\n19:40 has heard more stories about how\n19:42 difficult it is to fill out those forms.\n19:44 If you hear Dr. Hoff talk about how he\n19:46 had 14 injured people. Here's a guy a\n19:49 doctor 20 30 years in his community,\n19:52 1100 people, First Nations, knows his\n19:54 patients, knows exactly what's going on,\n19:57 knows what happened before they were\n19:58 took the shot, knows what happened\n20:00 after, and not all 1100 of those people\n20:03 got injured, but he knows very clearly.\n20:05 He said they had 14 people. I think now\n20:07 in his practice he thinks they're 36 14\n20:10 individuals that he actually wrote stuff\n20:12 to actually wrote you know to the\n20:15 government of BC and it was all rejected\n20:17 nine pages of stuff he had to fill out\n20:19 and they was rejected they they sent it\n20:21 back and said no that's a coincidence so\n20:23 you think about the process all along\n20:26 think about the process first of all of\n20:28 even people knowing there's a program\n20:30 you just alluded to that people don't\n20:31 even know there's a program then think\n20:32 about them trying to get sign up from\n20:34 their doctor which is almost impossible\n20:36 here is one doctor, courageous, that\n20:38 actually was prepared to fill out the\n20:40 forms. Think about that for a second. A\n20:43 courageous doctor prepared to fill out\n20:44 the forms that was actually rejected. He\n20:46 got to the point where he said, I it\n20:48 doesn't even make sense to fill out\n20:50 these nine pages of forms just to\n20:52 indicate that people were uh injured in\n20:55 BC. That's not the vaccine injury\n20:57 support program, which is separate\n20:59 altogether. So I what we what we're\n21:01 hopeful is that as we have this\n21:03 conversation first of all more people\n21:05 will understand they're not alone and\n21:07 number two we hope that the government's\n21:09 listening to say you know what not only\n21:11 do you need more money in this program\n21:12 because a lot more people that are\n21:14 injured you think about those stats we\n21:16 got the 60,000 people that number the\n21:18 government recognizes but we just heard\n21:20 from Dr. Hoff talk about how difficult\n21:23 is even to have that registered with\n21:25 people. So maybe that number is even\n21:26 more. And so then we we get to the third\n21:29 step and that's actually trying to\n21:30 access the program. And Sean could tell\n21:32 you stories about and I I've got\n21:34 stories, Sean's got stories, but think\n21:35 about how complicated it is just to get\n21:37 into the program because then even if a\n21:40 doctor signed off, they're rejected as\n21:42 well. And I think these are the things\n21:43 the government needs to hear is the\n21:45 process needs to be streamlined and\n21:47 there needs to be a lot more money set\n21:49 aside for these individuals who on good\n21:52 faith on being told that these vaccines\n21:55 were safe and effective took that\n21:57 vaccine. Now I have a couple of\n21:59 questions as it relates to this because\n22:02 what is the role of government period\n22:04 when it comes to people's personal\n22:06 health um and the decisions that they\n22:08 choose to make in this particular case\n22:10 and it wasn't just Canada it was around\n22:12 the world people were told they were\n22:14 coerced in my opinion to take this\n22:17 vaccine um and that came from the\n22:20 government directly all the way down\n22:23 college of physicians and surgeons um to\n22:26 your point with Dr. Charles Hoff\n22:29 literally would not I mean he put in 14\n22:32 that he knew only to have all 14\n22:34 rejected then just said you know why am\n22:36 I bothering to do take the time to do\n22:38 the paperwork when it was pretty evident\n22:41 they did not want this um to be known or\n22:45 to be documented um it was just a denial\n22:48 in my opinion of the facts the\n22:51 information that was being provided\n22:52 because they had a narrative so you know\n22:54 what what is the role of government here\n22:56 during ing events like this where you\n22:59 have in my opin opinion it was a flu you\n23:03 know let's call it something else co 19\n23:06 and you know that the deaths did not\n23:08 start increasing the mortality rates\n23:11 didn't start increasing until after the\n23:14 vaccines were introduced\n23:19 >> who do you want to start\n23:21 >> Sean go\n23:23 Sean you want to take a stab I'm happy\n23:25 to add to that as well after\n23:26 >> tell us what you really think? So, yeah,\n23:30 >> I have strong opinions.\n23:33 Tell me if I'm wrong.\n23:34 >> Can I share something? Can I share\n23:36 something interesting that that um has\n23:38 come up? So, we've had like a,000 or,00\n23:42 people I think now I I don't have the\n23:44 most recent count. It changes every day\n23:46 of people that have applied. And first\n23:48 of all, understand a lot of people are\n23:50 not applying because they don't they\n23:52 don't want to testify in person. So\n23:55 these are just people that are willing\n23:57 to testify in person that are applying\n23:58 and then a lot of the country doesn't\n24:00 even know we exist yet. I mean we just\n24:02 So the fact that we already have,00\n24:05 people that have applied and then you\n24:07 know there's volunteers that are\n24:09 filtering these people down because we\n24:11 only have like maybe 45 slots because\n24:15 we've only got four days of hearings,\n24:16 right?\n24:18 So, and then, you know, they get on a\n24:20 short list and they and they get down to\n24:23 me and I interview them and we've\n24:26 already they've already filled in a\n24:27 pretty extensive form.\n24:30 Now I'm interviewing people, you know,\n24:32 they they, you know, one's like a\n24:34 quadripollegic but can move the little\n24:36 joystick on the wheelchair so he can get\n24:38 around, you know, another's like\n24:41 early 30s, lost his kidneys and is\n24:43 waiting for kidney transplant and on\n24:45 dialysis six days a week and if he's\n24:48 going to testify, he has to arrange for\n24:50 dialysis in Ottawa while he's visiting\n24:52 or he can't come, you know, and people\n24:55 just in chronic pain like just horrific\n24:57 stories. And I've added a question and I\n25:01 asked them, well, what's been the most\n25:02 difficult part of this? And I'm\n25:04 expecting it to be the pain and the\n25:05 suffering, being a quadripollegic, all\n25:07 of this. And almost without exception,\n25:11 that's not the answer. Almost without\n25:14 exception, it's the gaslighting and the\n25:17 not being heard by the medical community\n25:19 and the vaccine injury support program.\n25:22 So could you imagine you know like\n25:25 literally people are showing up in\n25:26 emergency like not able to walk\n25:30 and they're being told well this is a\n25:32 psychiatric problem you need to see a\n25:34 psychiatrist like they cannot the system\n25:37 can't you imagine so you're suffering\n25:39 terribly and you're basically being told\n25:41 you're making it up that this is a\n25:43 psychiatric thing. Yeah. You're 16 years\n25:46 old and you've just decided never to\n25:48 play sports again and and to start\n25:50 living in a wheelchair. Like literally,\n25:52 this is an example where I've\n25:53 interviewed this girl was 16 at the\n25:56 time, into volleyball and soccer and all\n25:59 of it, like super athletic. I'm being\n26:01 told, \"No, it's it's in your head.\n26:03 You're just making this up.\" Um, like\n26:05 it's just so you're having this\n26:07 experience where almost all of a sudden\n26:09 you're in a different world and it's\n26:11 just traumatizing you and traumatizing\n26:13 you that that it's not the fact that you\n26:16 go you'll never walk again. It's not the\n26:19 fact that you're in chronic pain. It's\n26:20 not the fact that even if you get a\n26:22 kidney and best case scenario, it's 12\n26:25 years and you're on dialysis again. You\n26:27 will never have a normal life. No, it's\n26:29 actually that you haven't been heard,\n26:31 that you've been gaslit, that you've\n26:33 been you've been treated like you're a\n26:36 modern-day leper. And I am ashamed when\n26:39 I hear these stories. I am ashamed that\n26:43 these that the most traumatic thing, you\n26:46 know, people have been traumatized by\n26:49 filling in our form.\n26:52 Like we've gotten a whole bunch of\n26:53 feedback. We we have a very simple form\n26:56 on our website and then once we get\n26:58 that, our system sends you a more\n27:00 detailed form so we can get more\n27:02 information. Like there's an initial\n27:04 sorting. Is this realistic for us to get\n27:06 more information on? Well, we got a\n27:09 whole bunch of feedback on this form,\n27:11 not because the people wanted to be mean\n27:14 to us, but just even the idea of filling\n27:17 in a medical form is retraumatizing\n27:21 them.\n27:22 And then when they get the form, the\n27:24 email that's on the form, it's like, you\n27:26 know, we may have some volunteer doctors\n27:28 interview you because we know we're\n27:30 under the spotlight and people are going\n27:32 to say, oh, it's was this is long CO or\n27:34 something else. It's not vaccine injury.\n27:36 So we only want to put people on the\n27:38 stand where if their own doctors haven't\n27:40 said this is vaccine injury that you\n27:43 know at least some doctors that are are\n27:44 willing to have an honest look say no\n27:46 this is a real plausible thing. Well,\n27:49 the idea of being interviewed by a\n27:50 doctor is traumatizing people. Like,\n27:53 what have we done\n27:55 as a as a nation, as a medical system,\n27:59 you know? So, the fact that these, you\n28:01 know, that the the mainstream media is\n28:05 against this and, you know, calling this\n28:08 down, I I'm just finding the whole thing\n28:11 fascinating. Do we not know that we're\n28:13 hurting people?\n28:15 And so I I want to maybe this question\n28:18 for you then um Dean here just because\n28:22 we right now we're in the midst\n28:24 especially here in Alberta. You know\n28:25 Albertans are very unhappy with kind of\n28:28 Canada in general. There's lots of\n28:30 conversations going on about\n28:31 constitutions which brings up rights,\n28:34 freedoms um and the role of government\n28:38 um and government quasi institutions\n28:40 which I would argue like the college of\n28:42 physicians and surgeons is somewhat of a\n28:44 quasi you know government institution um\n28:47 even though it it you know it's supposed\n28:49 to be independent I think there's lots\n28:50 of overlap but it brings up the concern\n28:53 about institutions and the lack of trust\n28:56 and it brings up concerns for me about\n28:58 the role of government. The government\n29:00 took a very specific role around COVID.\n29:04 It came out and told people, you know,\n29:06 what they would put into their bodies.\n29:09 It then reassured them that it was safe\n29:12 and effective. Um and and I understand\n29:14 the predicament that MPs might have been\n29:16 in, but it's one thing for the college\n29:18 of physicians and surgeons to make that\n29:20 statement as supposedly experts in their\n29:23 field, but then for politicians who are\n29:25 not experts in the field and most of\n29:27 them are overwhelmed with already the\n29:30 workload that they have um probably\n29:32 didn't do the studies, didn't read the\n29:34 reports. Um not that there was any\n29:37 actually done, but what is the role of\n29:39 government in times like this? you know,\n29:41 wouldn't it be better for individuals\n29:44 and for people to um you know, make that\n29:48 decision themsel rather than to find a\n29:50 government coming down with a heavy hand\n29:52 coercing them to do that?\n29:54 >> Well, absolutely. And I think that's,\n29:56 you know, we this could go a whole bunch\n29:59 of different ways here. I mean, David\n30:00 Redmond, I'm sure you're familiar with,\n30:02 in Alberta, is always saying that we had\n30:04 all these pandemic responses, you know,\n30:06 national, provincial, across the\n30:08 country, and we didn't we didn't do one\n30:10 of them. You we put public health in\n30:11 charge of it instead of actually looking\n30:13 at uh ways we could actually follow the\n30:16 plan that had been written years before.\n30:18 So, I I I take serious issue with the\n30:20 way they dealt with pandemic response\n30:22 and and no one's really had a good\n30:23 conversation with that. The second's\n30:25 around informed consent. You know, my\n30:26 thought was always there should be\n30:28 choice on that. And if you watch some of\n30:30 one of the press conference, they the uh\n30:32 one of the reporters said, \"Well, you're\n30:33 antivax.\" No, I'm I'm actually choice.\n30:35 People should have that choice. And you\n30:37 don't give people that choice when you\n30:38 say you can't travel, you can't see\n30:40 grandma, you can't have your job. And\n30:42 the list goes on and on. And you know,\n30:44 you see how the government is\n30:45 backtracking now or has been. It's like,\n30:47 \"No, no, we never really said that.\" No,\n30:49 no, you did say that because you forced\n30:51 the provinces to have all these\n30:53 ridiculous rules. be forced a lot of\n30:55 companies certainly if it was federally\n30:57 regulated you were forced to be able to\n30:58 do that and so what happened to this\n31:00 whole issue of choice and so at the end\n31:02 of the day uh you know it's it's whether\n31:04 it's freedom of speech or whether it's\n31:07 uh freedom of choice when it comes to\n31:08 informed consent and what you're going\n31:10 to put into your body uh these things\n31:12 were severely lacking and I think that\n31:14 at the end of the day you know you you\n31:16 had politicians paring these these same\n31:19 responses based on what they believe to\n31:21 be true not once again having because\n31:23 she has to look at the information\n31:25 believing public health and if you go\n31:27 back to what David Redmond says you know\n31:29 public health should never have been in\n31:31 charge of a pandemic or didn't having\n31:33 some type of response because you know\n31:36 we could talk a whole bunch of other\n31:37 things of this uh inquiry how the fact\n31:39 that we you know 125,000 kids across the\n31:42 country uh failed to return to school.\n31:44 We could talk about all the lockdowns\n31:46 and what kind of financial harm it did\n31:48 to small and medium-sized businesses.\n31:50 Man, these are all topics worthy of\n31:52 these kind of conversations. The\n31:54 conversation we want to have is\n31:55 specifically around the fact that\n31:57 individuals were harmed and individuals\n31:59 that are now harmed deserve to have\n32:01 right to compensation because the\n32:02 government admits they actually did harm\n32:04 them. So I think that you raised great\n32:06 points there. But you know, I actually\n32:08 had a private members bill around these\n32:10 two things around travel and freedom.\n32:13 And while uh conservatives supported\n32:15 this, none of the other parties in the\n32:17 house did, which would give you a good\n32:18 indication of where people's uh stands\n32:21 actually held on when it came to co 19\n32:24 vaccinations.\n32:26 >> Now you have been criticized for doing\n32:28 this publicly and not doing this as a\n32:30 private inquiry or um you know behind\n32:33 the scenes. What what is your goal for\n32:35 doing this on on a a a more public\n32:39 manner?\n32:40 You know, because I mean you are taking\n32:42 criticism that this is antivaccine.\n32:44 You're creating hesitancy. Um vaccines\n32:47 are safe and effective. Um why why bring\n32:52 this to the public on on a bigger scale?\n32:54 you know, I mean, I love it because it I\n32:56 mean, it certainly, I think, exposes the\n32:58 the truth and you're doing it in such a\n33:01 transparent manner out in the open that\n33:04 it allows people, you know, to at least\n33:06 make their own judgment. But for you\n33:08 personally, why why do this in a public\n33:10 manner like this?\n33:12 >> Yeah. No, I I think it's important. I\n33:14 I've been doing it privately for a long\n33:15 time. And I think, you know, that was\n33:17 always the challenge is I think people\n33:19 feel like they haven't been heard\n33:20 publicly. there's been no\n33:21 acknowledgement from the government that\n33:23 anyone's been injured. There's no\n33:25 acknowledgement even of those that are\n33:26 injured that that can even actually get\n33:28 access for the program. So, I think\n33:30 probably we I think we're in a a sweet\n33:33 spot. We're in the right spot because we\n33:35 certainly have more pro freedom people\n33:37 that say it doesn't go far enough. Uh\n33:40 and we've got a we've got, you know,\n33:42 political people that say you've gone\n33:43 too far. So, if you're being criticized\n33:45 for both sides, maybe you're actually\n33:47 doing the right thing. I like I I'll say\n33:49 it again like I think there should be\n33:51 more of an inquir that goes further with\n33:53 a whole host of topics. As a member of\n33:55 parliament, it is my job to listen to\n33:57 people and advocate for them on behalf\n33:58 of their programs. This is what I'm\n34:00 doing. And I think it's so important to\n34:02 have this publicly because so many\n34:04 people feel they're alone. They feel\n34:06 like they're alone because they haven't\n34:08 been allowed to have this conversation.\n34:09 A lot of people can't even have this\n34:10 conversation with their own families,\n34:12 you know. So, it depends on what family\n34:14 you were raised in whether you could\n34:16 have this conversation. And I think that\n34:18 by saying this publicly, what people are\n34:21 going to begin to realize across this\n34:23 country is that you know what, I am not\n34:25 alone. There's actually people going\n34:26 through some of the similar things. And\n34:28 I thought that that was only me. And\n34:31 there's not a chance on earth we can\n34:32 begin the healing process if people\n34:34 can't feel at the very least that they\n34:37 are being heard. And so that's really\n34:39 what I'm hoping to accomplish that\n34:41 people will be heard. people then we can\n34:43 put some pressure on the government and\n34:45 you know when I go back to the house to\n34:46 say this is what I heard we need to do a\n34:48 better job with the vaccine injury\n34:50 support program and then you know if\n34:52 enough people want to continue this\n34:54 conversation it's really going to be\n34:56 people that are going to need to demand\n34:57 more from their government right at the\n34:59 end of the day government always goes\n35:01 where people force them to go government\n35:04 always goes where you know the most\n35:06 amount of noise is being made and so I\n35:08 think if we can start having that\n35:10 conversation I hope that this is not the\n35:13 end but it is the beginning of a\n35:15 conversation that the general public can\n35:17 have as we move over time. So with that\n35:19 in mind then what is the outcome that\n35:22 you would like to see as a direct result\n35:25 of the inquiry?\n35:28 >> Two things that people will continue to\n35:30 have this conversation they'll feel like\n35:32 they have permission to speak publicly\n35:35 about their injuries and about what has\n35:36 happened that we encourage doctors\n35:39 journalists politicians all the above to\n35:42 have this conversation that they've been\n35:43 afraid to have over the last couple\n35:45 years. and that the government would\n35:46 realize that they there's more people\n35:48 injured than they than they've admitted\n35:51 and quite frankly there needs to be more\n35:53 money in the new iteration of whatever\n35:55 that vaccine injury support program is\n35:57 going to look like and so they need to\n35:59 do a better job and need to simplify the\n36:01 process of people being able to apply to\n36:04 get access to that. Now Sean, for you\n36:06 there's legal implications in what um\n36:10 Dean just said because you know if the\n36:12 government is going to acknowledge that\n36:15 there's been more uh harm done than you\n36:18 know they're admitting or willing to\n36:20 accept um you know that that means that\n36:23 we do have to increase funding for\n36:25 vaccine injured uh you know programs and\n36:28 those types of things and you know\n36:30 what's the likelihood I mean you've been\n36:32 working in the health industry for a\n36:33 long time health Canada and you know\n36:36 they don't like to admit when they make\n36:37 mistakes and you know there's con Dean's\n36:41 smiling because that's just it\n36:43 government does not like to admit\n36:45 government doesn't like admitting when\n36:47 they're wrong I don't understand\n36:50 >> not just at health Canada in every area\n36:52 every\n36:53 >> if we want to talk legal consequences um\n36:56 Nine I I don't think we can even\n36:59 understand what potential legal\n37:01 consequences\n37:02 there are because Um\n37:05 there was something bigger than COVID\n37:07 happening here. Like let's just even\n37:09 talk, you know, about Dr. Hoff\n37:12 submitting 14 um adverse reactions.\n37:15 Precoid\n37:17 like the adverse reaction reporting\n37:19 system is meant to be an early alert.\n37:22 It's meant to be very easy to file and\n37:25 easily accessible because it's meant to\n37:27 be just an early warning. Adverse\n37:30 reaction reports aren't meant to show\n37:31 causation or anything. They're just to\n37:33 say, \"Oh, wait. Should we be looking at\n37:35 something here?\" So, precoid doctors\n37:38 could submit directly to Health Canada.\n37:42 But\n37:43 as CO approached, before it happened,\n37:46 they changed it. So, in every province,\n37:49 you had to submit to a provincial board.\n37:51 Wait a second. This is a a federal\n37:53 reporting system. Why do you have now as\n37:56 a doctor have to put there's a barrier\n37:58 put in place where now you're submitting\n38:00 to a provincial board?\n38:03 That's that's pretty interesting. And\n38:04 citizens used to be able to direct\n38:06 report but during CO they couldn't. So a\n38:09 decision was made. You know you're\n38:11 talking about the colleges. Well, in the\n38:14 province of Alberta, as I understand it,\n38:16 is basically a law was put in place um\n38:19 that direct forced all of the colleges\n38:22 that you can't do anything that goes\n38:24 against public health um orders.\n38:28 Well, so then it became, you know, the\n38:31 College of Physicians and Surgeons just\n38:33 all of a sudden they're breaking the law\n38:36 if they're not ensuring that all of\n38:38 their doctors comply with public health\n38:39 orders. and the public health orders\n38:41 were directing everyone to get\n38:43 vaccinated. Well, this is by design.\n38:46 This was put into place beforehand. You\n38:49 know, you're saying safe and effective,\n38:50 safe and effective.\n38:53 Well, you know, the Allison inquiry,\n38:55 even though the inquiry hasn't started,\n38:57 the rules of the inquiry allow evidence\n39:00 to be entered um into the record that\n39:04 isn't witness evidence. and and so far\n39:07 the only evidence that's been entered is\n39:09 the law around the approval of the COVID\n39:14 19 vaccines. And so anyone can go to\n39:16 allisonin inquiry.com or coestimony.com\n39:20 um which hosts the Allison inquiry\n39:22 website and go to exhibits\n39:25 and look at the Canadian law. And so\n39:29 this is no conspiracy theorist. You\n39:31 anyone can go to the Canada Gazette\n39:33 themselves. This is the government.\n39:35 These are government publications. So,\n39:37 we're just talking about the law. So, if\n39:38 the law is a conspiracy theorist, that's\n39:41 fine. The Canadian government is a\n39:42 conspiracy theorist.\n39:45 So, the law in Canada was changed for\n39:47 these vaccines.\n39:50 Yeah. You see, the government of Canada,\n39:51 they're antibaxers, right? So, they\n39:54 publish this stuff. It's, you know, it's\n39:57 clearly uncomfortable. So, our regular\n40:00 drug approval law, as flawed as it was,\n40:03 for any drug except COVID 19 drugs,\n40:08 you would have to prove that they're\n40:09 safe and you'd have to prove that they\n40:11 were effective and it it's right in our\n40:14 drug law and we have that as part of the\n40:16 Allison inquiry record.\n40:19 Well, the Minister of Health before any\n40:22 pharmaceutical company submitted an\n40:24 application, but it had to be in\n40:26 coordination with them because two filed\n40:29 within 30 days of this and you couldn't\n40:30 pivot this quickly.\n40:33 An interim order is issued. This is\n40:34 Canadian law. So, they changed the law\n40:37 exempting the CO 19 vaccines from the\n40:40 regular process. Now, important point is\n40:42 they could still go through the regular\n40:44 process if they wanted to. They now have\n40:47 two choices. I can prove them to be safe\n40:50 and effective, my vaccine, or I can go\n40:53 through this other process. Nadine, the\n40:56 other process, you didn't have to prove\n40:57 it was safe. In fact, you didn't even\n41:00 have to submit your safety data to get\n41:02 approval. Can I say that again? You\n41:04 didn't even have to submit your safety\n41:08 data to get approved. You just had to\n41:10 tell Health Canada how you were going to\n41:12 get them the known safety data.\n41:16 So\n41:18 when we're getting all this messaging,\n41:21 safe and effective, safe and effective,\n41:23 that's political messaging\n41:27 because a decision was made to encourage\n41:30 everyone to get the shot. Whether that\n41:32 was well-intentioned or not, we have to\n41:35 understand\n41:36 that when the government wants the\n41:39 populace to do something and wants the\n41:41 populace to do something strongly, we\n41:44 are going to have messaging to encourage\n41:46 the populace to do that. And I I think\n41:49 it's important for Canadians to\n41:51 understand that that messaging which was\n41:54 I call it political messaging because it\n41:56 was to encourage the population to do\n41:58 something\n42:00 doesn't necessarily mean that it's true.\n42:02 And when you look at Canadian law so I I\n42:06 invite everyone to go look at the\n42:08 Allison Inquiry record of exhibits\n42:13 it's really clear. And what I don't\n42:14 understand, Nadine, is is is, you know,\n42:19 probably any journalist spending half an\n42:21 hour could discover\n42:25 that the law was changed\n42:28 and that these vaccines did not have to\n42:30 be proven to be safe and effective. In\n42:32 fact, the words safe and the words\n42:34 effective are not even in the test.\n42:39 >> Yeah. So how how can it be that that you\n42:43 know when this was happening and the\n42:45 media is saying safe and effective safe\n42:47 and effective safe and effective that\n42:49 not a single journalist figured out that\n42:52 actually there that requirement wasn't\n42:54 there and how can it be five years later\n42:57 that a single journal like no no no news\n43:01 organization\n43:02 has actually shown to the public well\n43:06 wait a second these vaccines weren't\n43:08 proven safe and effective And the thing\n43:09 that I find interesting, and this is\n43:11 political,\n43:13 is okay, let's say we're in a crisis\n43:15 during COVID. Well, I can see you\n43:17 exempting them during the crisis. If\n43:20 we're in a real crisis and and hey,\n43:22 we're not sure what to do. We're going\n43:24 to relax the requirements. That's fine.\n43:27 But we have still exempted the CO 19\n43:30 vaccines from being proven safe and\n43:31 effective to this day. And we're still\n43:33 injecting children with them. And so\n43:37 I don't think we're in a crisis with CO\n43:39 19 today.\n43:42 So I don't understand why we have we're\n43:45 injecting children with a co 19 vaccine\n43:48 that to this day we have not um required\n43:52 them to go through the regular process\n43:54 of being proven safe and effective. To\n43:57 me that is a political decision and it's\n44:01 part of what's going on. is. So why why\n44:04 is it that we we don't today require\n44:07 those vaccines to go through the regular\n44:09 drug approval process? Well, I think\n44:11 that's a a much bigger conversation that\n44:14 maybe Sean, you and I can have um at\n44:16 another time because I think if you look\n44:18 at what's going on in the United States\n44:20 today with the amendments that are being\n44:22 proposed to the just even the regular\n44:25 childhood vaccine schedule, um you know,\n44:28 they're taking, you know, drastic\n44:31 measures, I think, and challenging the\n44:33 effect efficacy and the safety of just,\n44:37 you know, regular vaccines. um the\n44:40 timing of those, the scheduling of them,\n44:43 and a lot of the arguments are based\n44:45 around convenience. Well, it's very\n44:47 inconvenient for a a parent to bring\n44:49 their, you know, son or daughter in to\n44:51 do three separate, you know, vaccines.\n44:54 You know, it's more convenient to do it\n44:55 all at the one time, but that's the\n44:57 wrong question to be asking. The\n44:59 question is is does it provide less of a\n45:02 toxicity, less of a reaction, is it\n45:04 safer? You know, those questions are not\n45:07 being asked. you know, they're\n45:08 challenging, you know, that to to keep\n45:11 the status quo. Um, and you have to\n45:13 wonder sometimes, you know, whether or\n45:15 not that's deliberate. And I think to a\n45:17 certain extent, you're talking about the\n45:19 media and the messaging. And the media\n45:22 and the messaging was the same. It was\n45:23 the same everywhere. So, it had to be\n45:25 coordinated. It had to be deliberate.\n45:27 Um, and you're seeing that still today.\n45:29 You have a comment to that? Well, I'm\n45:32 just actually not necessarily a comment\n45:34 on that, but I just, you know, what I\n45:37 think is so precious about what MPD\n45:40 Allison is hoping to accomplish here is\n45:44 we you I just want to refocus this on,\n45:47 you know, we we are learning through\n45:49 this process that we've got a large\n45:51 number of people that have been\n45:53 literally silenced.\n45:55 Literally silenced. And they are\n45:59 suffering terribly and their stories are\n46:03 they're going to change this nation.\n46:06 And I think that\n46:09 or I think you know if you were to ask\n46:10 us what we're hoping to accomplish is I\n46:13 think that we need to have this\n46:14 conversation. You see, cuz we can go all\n46:16 these different ways and I can actually\n46:18 get excited about um real problems. And\n46:21 I think I think the real problem is is\n46:25 that somehow we've arrived in a place\n46:28 where we cannot be honest with with each\n46:30 other, where we cannot disagree with\n46:33 each other, where we can no longer have\n46:36 civil conversations. Um which is really\n46:38 hateful. Like it's almost like we become\n46:41 a hateful country. And and these people\n46:42 that are vaccine injured feel that way.\n46:46 And you know, I think that God is going\n46:50 to use this inquiry\n46:52 to basically reveal first of all to\n46:55 speak through these people and just say,\n46:58 \"Wait a second. We need to have this\n47:00 conversation and where it leads, who\n47:02 knows?\" Because the one thing that I\n47:06 I've come to understand is I really\n47:08 don't know what's going on.\n47:10 I have strong opinions, but I know when\n47:13 I actually listen to other people with\n47:14 an open mind, I can see things\n47:17 differently. And I also know that we're\n47:19 all the same. So that if I had a\n47:21 different belief system, I would act\n47:23 just the way people that have that\n47:25 different belief system act. Like we\n47:27 need to cut each other's slack and we\n47:30 need to start having a conversation and\n47:32 see where that goes. Now, MP Allison,\n47:36 what do you think that through this\n47:38 process we can start the healing process\n47:41 that we can actually start to rebuild\n47:43 some of the the trust in our\n47:46 institutions? Because I think trust in,\n47:48 you know, our health care system, our\n47:51 our politicians in general is probably\n47:54 at an all-time low. Do you think that\n47:56 this is going to help that uh process?\n48:00 So I I think in the first step I think\n48:01 this is uh a great first step in the\n48:04 healing processes for individuals right\n48:06 they can talk about their stories and\n48:08 feel like they're being heard. I mean\n48:10 the only way you build trust in\n48:11 institutions if the is if institutions\n48:14 show up and say you know what we may\n48:16 made some mistakes and we need to do\n48:17 things differently. So I don't see the\n48:19 institutions uh at the table right now.\n48:22 As I said I think this is important for\n48:24 individuals. Individuals need the\n48:26 ability to move on or start the healing\n48:28 process and feel like they can have\n48:30 conversations. Can you imagine if we go\n48:32 another 5 years and some of these\n48:34 individuals can't have a conversation\n48:36 with their family? Now, it takes two to\n48:38 have the conversation. I also understand\n48:40 that. But if they can recognize that\n48:44 indeed they were injured and that now\n48:47 they're going to have more\n48:48 conversations, we need the medical\n48:50 community. What What kind of damage has\n48:52 this done to the medical community?\n48:54 Well, and then you know in terms of the\n48:56 the ability for for people to believe\n48:58 and have trust in in doctors, right?\n49:00 What about the the journalism community?\n49:02 I mean, we we look at their institutions\n49:04 like our publicly funded uh you know CBC\n49:07 and some of the mainstream media. This\n49:09 is why there's been a a huge influx of\n49:12 independent media in this country\n49:14 because people don't feel they can trust\n49:16 the institutions that they have have\n49:18 become to. So, while this starts the\n49:20 process, it's a two-way street. other\n49:23 institutions have got to step up to the\n49:24 table and if they're not prepared to do\n49:26 that there's only so far that we can do\n49:28 but I really do believe we can start the\n49:30 process of healing with individuals.\n49:33 >> Now what kind of support have you had\n49:35 internally um for this inquiry um\n49:39 amongst your peers? I mean I know the\n49:41 media has been pretty tough on you guys\n49:44 um but you know you're sitting as an MP.\n49:47 Have you had lots of support um within\n49:50 your own party within government\n49:53 all levels of different parties or where\n49:57 does it stand?\n49:59 >> Yeah. So I haven't had a lot of support\n50:01 from the uh from the governing party. Uh\n50:04 as a matter of fact I've had a bunch of\n50:06 attacks from individuals uh members of\n50:08 of of of the uh of the governing party.\n50:11 I have had lots of response positive\n50:13 response from my own members. As a\n50:15 matter of fact, I've had a number of\n50:16 members uh you know, for example, our uh\n50:18 the first our lady Michelle who spoke at\n50:21 our second press conference, uh her\n50:23 member of parliament is Bob Zimmer. And\n50:25 I was I was taking her back to her hotel\n50:27 after the press conference. She said,\n50:28 you know, Dean, I've had a lot of great\n50:30 conversations with Bob. Bob has been\n50:32 very receptive. And I would say that\n50:34 that has been the case with other\n50:36 members of parliament across the\n50:37 country, even members in the in in the\n50:40 in the government. So, I think that uh\n50:42 you know, while I'm hoping for a good\n50:45 turnout, I also understand that members\n50:47 of parliament are incredibly busy. This\n50:49 is right after Labor Day weekend. This\n50:51 was uh the best we could do working on\n50:53 Sean's schedule, Teresa's schedule, and\n50:55 my schedule, which is there's always\n50:58 never a great a great opportunity to\n51:00 figure out what what would be the best\n51:01 time. The reason why we're doing it then\n51:03 and not while we're sitting is because\n51:05 committee rooms are at a premium. It's\n51:07 very hard to get access to committee\n51:08 rooms because regular scheduled\n51:10 committees are be going to be going\n51:12 about their business. So, we're doing\n51:13 this the best way we can, but if I've\n51:15 got any indication for the number of\n51:17 people, I got a couple emails today. I\n51:19 got one from an individual that says,\n51:21 Dean, I've got uh uh somebody that would\n51:23 like to participate and I've told them,\n51:26 you know, I'm going to send them to you.\n51:27 And by the way, I'm going to be there.\n51:29 They're not someone that's come out\n51:31 publicly and said that because they're\n51:32 probably working on their schedule. I've\n51:34 had a lot of other MPs have said,\n51:36 \"Listen, take a look at this person\n51:38 here. They've had an issue. Would you\n51:40 talk to Would you, you know, get them\n51:42 into the, you know, at least into the\n51:44 queue and through the website, help\n51:46 figure that stuff out?\" I've had a ton\n51:47 of support from that that perspective.\n51:50 So, you know, I'm I'm proud of the\n51:52 colleagues that have actually taken the\n51:53 time to speak to some of these injured\n51:55 people and I would say that that's\n51:57 probably happened with a number of\n51:58 parties across the way. And so, that's\n52:01 great. Now the next step is let's get\n52:03 these people in a public forum once\n52:06 again where they can tell their stories\n52:08 publicly where they can start to feel\n52:10 like they are have permission to tell\n52:13 their stories publicly.\n52:14 >> So now I know we're running out of time\n52:16 here. When is the inquiry? It's\n52:19 September 8th to the 11th in Ottawa in\n52:22 Parliament as you've pointed out. Where\n52:25 can people watch? Um, are they able to\n52:29 participate in person? Um, give us more\n52:32 details about that.\n52:34 >> Can can I answer that one, Dean?\n52:36 >> Yeah, go ahead.\n52:37 >> So, um, yeah, so just go to the Allison\n52:39 Inquiry website. So, it's\n52:41 allisoninquiry.com or coestimony.com and\n52:44 we can get you those to post. Nadine,\n52:47 um, subscribe to the newsletter. We will\n52:50 be live streaming it um, off the\n52:52 website. We will be live streaming it on\n52:55 on various social media. I expect the\n52:57 dean will be live streaming it on his\n52:58 social media and I will on mine. Um, so\n53:02 there'll be and there'll be others that\n53:03 will be live streaming it. So hopefully\n53:06 you'll be live streaming it, Nadine. So\n53:08 um, and we may have a live stream in\n53:10 both French and English. So sub follow\n53:13 us on social media, subscribe to the\n53:15 newsletter. Um, also you know I just\n53:19 Dean was talking about David Redmond.\n53:21 He's Lieutenant Colonel David Redmond\n53:24 who was trained in the armed forces to\n53:26 be an emergency management specialist.\n53:28 He's a world expert. He set up the\n53:30 province of Alberta's kind of um\n53:33 response uh at the National Citizens\n53:37 Archives. So national\n53:38 citizensarchive.com\n53:40 he has testified under oath. It will\n53:42 change everyone's opinion of what\n53:44 happened if you watch his presentation.\n53:47 Yeah, I've had Colonel Redmond on the\n53:48 the show here and during COVID in\n53:51 particular actually he wasn't able to\n53:53 make an event that I was uh attending\n53:55 and he allowed me to present his\n53:58 information and he is just a brilliant\n54:00 man and as you've pointed out an expert\n54:02 in emergency preparedness and you know\n54:05 this whole claim that Canada didn't have\n54:07 we weren't prepared for this we were we\n54:09 had a plan there was plans and they just\n54:12 threw out everything and denied that we\n54:15 had ever done anything and we were\n54:17 illprepared. Um which again for me it's\n54:21 just it's a a destruction of the\n54:22 credibility. It it destroys trust. Um\n54:25 you have to believe that there was an\n54:26 agenda here. Um any final words MP um\n54:31 Dean Allison, you know that you know\n54:33 people who are watching that you think\n54:34 you know maybe they should hear or um\n54:37 just some sentiments of your own.\n54:41 >> Yeah. No, I I just, you know, I think\n54:43 that uh so important to be able to have\n54:45 dialogue. I worry about censorship in\n54:46 this country right now and censorship\n54:49 really is about, you know, not letting\n54:50 people tell their stories. We see an\n54:52 increasing amount of legislation since\n54:54 CO that involves some elements of\n54:56 censorship. And I I think that's why we\n54:59 have to be so diligent. We have to be so\n55:03 we need to make sure we continue to find\n55:05 ways to have conversations\n55:08 and tell the truth even if it's not\n55:10 comfortable. And I think, you know, this\n55:12 is why I appreciate what you do and so\n55:13 many other independent people. You know,\n55:15 if we don't continue to fight for our\n55:18 ability to have free speech, we're going\n55:20 to lose it. And I think that, you know,\n55:22 censorship is shows up in many different\n55:24 forms. One of them is, you know,\n55:26 refusing to hear what people have to\n55:28 say. It's just it's simple. We're\n55:30 talking about people just listening to\n55:32 people. That's what we're talking. We're\n55:34 not talking about anything. We're we we\n55:36 wanted to be very clear. We could have\n55:38 done so much more, gone so much further,\n55:40 but we wanted to make sure that we were\n55:43 on safe ground. And that's why we're ju\n55:46 we're just listening to people. Think\n55:48 about that. Listening to people that\n55:49 have been injured. And so I just I just\n55:51 people need to be so much more aware\n55:54 that our freedoms are not always free\n55:56 and they're not always going to be a\n55:58 given that we're going to have to\n55:59 continue to to fight for that. That's\n56:01 why I think this inquiry is so important\n56:04 is because if we don't give people\n56:07 permission to tell their stories, what\n56:09 is next? Is it going to be because I\n56:11 don't like what you said about A, B, or\n56:13 C? We've got to be very diligent around\n56:16 these things. And so that's why I think\n56:18 this inquiry is so important. People\n56:21 have stories to tell and they deserve to\n56:22 be heard and that we need to give people\n56:25 permission to tell their stories in a\n56:27 public way, not privately. They're\n56:29 having those conversations but in a\n56:31 public forum.\n56:32 >> Regrettably, I think the Liberal\n56:34 government is going down the path of\n56:36 censorship and uh fear. Um even people\n56:39 like myself in podcasts and independent\n56:42 journalists who do try to bring the\n56:45 truth. Um I think are under attack with\n56:46 some of these new bills that are out.\n56:48 Again, a conversation for another time.\n56:50 Um but you know, you see what's\n56:52 happening in the UK. People are posting\n56:54 things online um and being put in jail.\n56:57 some of them for, you know, terms um\n57:01 much further than more serious crimes,\n57:04 you know, uh that are being committed.\n57:06 So, it it is a scary proposition to\n57:08 think that we can't even just have a\n57:10 conversation. Sean, any last words from\n57:13 you that you'd like people to know or I\n57:15 mean, you've been on the show many times\n57:17 and and your breath and knowledge,\n57:18 especially as it relates to Health\n57:20 Canada and a lot of the the issues. Um,\n57:23 you know, they're self-evident, but you\n57:25 know, any any final words today for our\n57:27 audience? Well, I I'd just like to\n57:30 follow up on what what Dean was saying\n57:32 is I and invite people to participate.\n57:35 Like these people um really need to be\n57:39 heard and they need to tell their\n57:40 stories and I I promise you it will\n57:42 change their lives and let's privilege\n57:44 them. Like let's all watch this live and\n57:47 listen to their stories because you know\n57:49 they are going to pay attention and\n57:51 they're going to talk about how many\n57:52 people were online watching. And if we\n57:55 can if we can have those numbers large\n57:57 if we can participate as a country\n57:59 that's how we start this journey. You\n58:01 know if we do this and nobody watches\n58:03 then you know that's a tree falling in\n58:05 the forest with no one to hear. So I\n58:08 think we all have a responsibility to\n58:10 watch and get other people to watch like\n58:12 let's make this the event that starts\n58:14 the conversation. I see this a little\n58:17 bit as the freedom convoy, you know,\n58:20 during the COVID um days itself in the\n58:23 pandemic where people did feel alone.\n58:26 They they were feeling very pressured\n58:27 and very isolated\n58:30 and uh when the freedom convoy happened,\n58:32 it was like, \"Oh my goodness, there are\n58:34 other people who think like me and there\n58:36 was a sense of community and\n58:38 camaraderie.\" So, um, it sounds to me\n58:41 like that's what we're you're trying to\n58:42 recreate here is to give people that\n58:44 space to know they're not alone.\n58:46 >> We're listening.\n58:49 >> You you can't recreate what they did.\n58:51 Um, they they acted at at a time like I\n58:54 remember I they gave me hope. So, I I'm\n58:57 so I'm I will be thankful every day of\n59:00 my life for what the truckers did and\n59:02 the sacrifice that they made. Um, so I\n59:05 don't I don't want to make any\n59:07 comparison. I just do know that that um\n59:10 that God's moving and he wants us in\n59:13 Canada to come together again. And I\n59:15 believe that this is this is a start and\n59:18 I'd really invite everyone to\n59:19 participate.\n59:20 >> Amen to that. Well, thank you gentlemen\n59:22 both for being with us today and for\n59:24 sharing some information and we'll be\n59:27 watching.\n59:29 >> Thanks Nadine.\n59:29 >> Thanks so much.\n59:30 >> You're very welcome. Well, there you\n59:32 have it everybody. The Allison inquiry.\n59:34 Please do check out the website. Please\n59:37 do check out follow along. Please do\n59:40 participate. As Sean and NP De and\n59:43 Allison have said, you know, there's no\n59:45 point in doing this if nobody is going\n59:47 to listen, nobody wants to partake. Um,\n59:50 it's very important that we continue the\n59:53 conversation and that we preserve and we\n59:55 fight, we defend our right to have our\n59:59 voices heard, especially when it comes\n1:00:02 to our government officials. Um, there's\n1:00:04 been harms that have been done here.\n1:00:05 It's important to know who's\n1:00:07 responsible, you know, for some of these\n1:00:09 harms and there's programs out there\n1:00:11 that are available that Canadians are\n1:00:13 not even aware of. So, that in and of\n1:00:15 itself tells you some of the issues that\n1:00:17 we have to address here. So, anyway, I\n1:00:19 want to say thank you all for listening.\n1:00:21 Please do like, please do share. Again,\n1:00:23 I can do these all day, but if nobody\n1:00:25 shares them, if nobody, you know, uh,\n1:00:27 gets involved, likes them, send them to\n1:00:29 friends, send them family. Um, say,\n1:00:31 \"Hey, check this out.\" And so please do\n1:00:33 like, please do share, please do\n1:00:35 subscribe to the channel and uh leave us\n1:00:37 your comments. God bless you all."
}


STDERR:
/Users/macfebruary-20-2026/Library/Python/3.9/lib/python/site-packages/urllib3/__init__.py:35: NotOpenSSLWarning: urllib3 v2 only supports OpenSSL 1.1.1+, currently the 'ssl' module is compiled with 'LibreSSL 2.8.3'. See: https://github.com/urllib3/urllib3/issues/3020
  warnings.warn(

RETURN:0