Grounds for provincial refusal of federal disallowance Any attempt by Ottawa to disallow legislation passed by a them would be rejected on several grounds.
A) Canada’s central government has never received authori...ty from the people to govern. It is not a
lawfully constituted government.
B) No confederation document approved by the people of BC exists. No
provincial powers have been transferred to a central government with the
approval of the BC people. No lawful confederation exists.
C) An unlawful central government has no power to create a lawful Supreme
Court of Canada.
D) Statutes passed by the unlawful central government and rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada can not have the
force of law.
E) The Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 is a statute passed by politicians. It is not a constitution approved by the people.
lawfully constituted government.
B) No confederation document approved by the people of BC exists. No
provincial powers have been transferred to a central government with the
approval of the BC people. No lawful confederation exists.
C) An unlawful central government has no power to create a lawful Supreme
Court of Canada.
D) Statutes passed by the unlawful central government and rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada can not have the
force of law.
E) The Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 is a statute passed by politicians. It is not a constitution approved by the people.
Canada has no constitution approved by the people. Constitutions create
governments. Governments do not create constitutions.
F) Disregarding the unconstitutionality of the central government and its
Supreme Court, the current Canadian Charter of Rights, Sec 33, allows a
province to opt out of certain legislation of the central government.
G) Sec 33 is known as the “Notwithstanding Clause”, and sets the precedent that under certain conditions “the wall of constitutionality can be pierced” [quote from the central government website].
2) Discussion of Sec 33, the Notwithstanding Clause
The principles of domestic and international law support the expansion by BC of Sec 33 to include more than its present application to language in Canada.
Some lawful reasons for expanding the use of Sec 33 follow.
A) As mentioned in 1 (H) above, the central government website about 5 years ago contained the admission that "the wall of constitutional
entrenchment may properly be pierced by a provincial Legislature
possessing demonstrable popular support”. Politicians may try to
restrict the use of Sec 33 to the issue of language, but the people of
BC have the political power to expand its application to all central
government laws [popular support].
B) In 1981 Trudeau's Federal Justice Minister, Jean Chretien, defended
Sec 33 would serve as a safety valve. It would ensure "that legislatures rather than judges would have the final say on important matters of public policy."
He said it would allow elected governments "to correct absurd situations without going through the difficulty of obtaining constitutional amendments."
He also said that provinces should be able "to opt out of the Canadian constitution in order to “protect important societal values and goals”
He also said that "the overriding of the Canadian constitution by a province is acceptable if there is widespread popular support for such a move."
C) The reasons for this expansion of the Sec 33 override precedent are
simple and not arguable. The people of BC have never voted approval of
the Constitution Act 1982. British Columbians have never consented to be
ruled by this statute that politicians are using as a constitution.
They have never entered a contract to accept the form of government set up by this statute.
They have never even granted the people's authority for politicians to pass statutes with the force of law.
D) Contracts are at the heart of all our affairs. Canadians have been
persuaded that they have contracted with the Canadian central government to obey laws passed by the government.
But no contract exists. Key elements of a contract are an offer and an acceptance.
The Constitution Act 1982 is an offer by the Canadian central government to provide "peace order and good government", etc. But there is no document proving the acceptance of this offer by the Canadian people. Therefore no lawful contract exists. The Canadian people are not liable to
perform.
3) Summary
Similar to the United States of America, Canada’s constitution has never been approved by the people [at least in the USA the nation’s constitution was approved by the representatives of the States].
The result is a constitutional vacuum and one of Canada’s provinces must take the lead to put all governments in the country on a proper constitutional footing.
No comments:
Post a Comment