[Readers please note, Mr Brian Peckford’s response in full is linked below, if you wish to read him before, or after, reading my reply to him.] ______________________________________ I was somewhat happily surprised that the Honourable Mr. Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, would go to the extent of writing over 2,600-word response to my essay – “Canada is constitutionally broken, and by the will of the people it can be fixed” – published in substack on March 14. Mr. Peckford published the response in his blog on March 23 under the heading “Unrealistic.”[1] My essay was not directed to Mr. Peckford, whose sign off under his name in blogposts is “Only Living First Minister Who Is A Signatory To The Patriation Agreement 1981–The Constitution Act 1982.” I could not have imagined when writing my essay that I would receive a public response from the last living member of the ten first ministers – (the eleventh first minister, premier of Quebec dissented) – from 1981-82 who were together responsible for bringing home the BNA Act of 1867 with an amending formula and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Peckford is an octogenarian, a Newfie and a dog with a bone right now; a stubborn combination indeed. He simply won't/can't entertain anymore thoughts until perhaps his own legal case (s) subside. However, one can't help but note that with his voluminous constitutional rhetoric, he NEVER uses the word "freedom" in any context out side its use in the title of "Charter of Rights and Freedoms". He's simply wrong to rebuff your thoughts in the manner in which he did. Perhaps Robert Vaughan could broker a good old chin-wag of the three of you.
Peckford is an octogenarian, a Newfie and a dog with a bone right now; a stubborn combination indeed. He simply won't/can't entertain anymore thoughts until perhaps his own legal case (s) subside. However, one can't help but note that with his voluminous constitutional rhetoric, he NEVER uses the word "freedom" in any context out side its use in the title of "Charter of Rights and Freedoms". He's simply wrong to rebuff your thoughts in the manner in which he did. Perhaps Robert Vaughan could broker a good old chin-wag of the three of you.