OUR rights, THEIR duties
How well do our elected representatives and unelected public officials understand the Canadian constitution in light of their government roles? I am starting a survey to find out starting today.
The Canadian Bill of Rights became constitutional law in 1960 under the authority of Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982 with the approval of Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau and 9 provincial Premiers, all except Quebec.
The Canadian Statement of Principles: the Right of Persons and the Duties of Government (“PRINCIPLES”) (download your pdf copy from this page) was published in February 2024. PRINCIPLES was written by a group of Canadian citizens and has since been approved and embraced by hundreds more at an accelerating pace. Its popularity reflects an almost universal feeling of distrust felt by Canadians towards their elected representatives and senior public official who have acted beyond public oversight or accountability. Those Canadians have repeatedly experienced, and suffered from in recent years, when the people who have accepted their responsibilities as CUSTODIANS OF THE PUBLIC INTERESTS have overstepped their constitutional rights and freedoms of the Canadians they are expected to serve.
A screen shot of the first opening section of PRINCIPLES is displayed before. Get the entire and original 3-page document as a PDF from the link above.
Bob Dylan’s 1964 lyrics for this song are timeless.
When the Bill of Rights was passed, it acknowledged BOTH person and property rights of all Canadians and specificed how those must be reasonably protected.
If this Act of Parliament was sufficient for that purpose in 1960, why was it necessary for the Charter to be created and enacted in 1982?
I prefer the Bill over the Charter for three reasons:
The Charter’s opening statement references “the supremacy of God” as an authority. This was a mistake. Individual Canadians across the nation practice a variety of religious faiths, and many citizens are atheists. A reference to God automatically shaded this document as partisan to those of religious faith. Does this not violate the Equality rights – section 15?
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The Charter’s focus is on the social rights of individual citizens while assiduously avoiding property rights. One can only surmise from this omission that the Charter authors intended the federal and provincial governments to retain absolute and final authority of all property in Canada.
The infamous “notwithstanding clause”, referred to in subsections 32 and 33 under the Application of Charter title, continues to be a regular criticism of this constitutional document. It asserts that government leaders retain final authority over all decisions made allegedly “for the greater good” of Canadians which is open to interpretation. For example, when Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act after thousands of truckers had driven their rigs to Ottawa to peacefully protest his Covid policies, the “notwithstanding clause” allowed Justin to interpret the Charter to his political advantage at the personal expense of Canadians nationwide.
No more loopholes
The Canadian Statement of Principles: the Right of Persons and the Duties of Government contains NO WITHSTANDING CLAUSES.
PRINCIPLES has been written in the context of innumerable Canadians who have lived through a period of history during which neither the Bill nor the Charter have been effective to shield Canadians against the excessive and self-serving powers of every level of government in Canada.
My meeting later today with my ward Councillor.
A week ago, I presented the Canadian Statement of Principles: the Right of Persons and the Duties of Government (“PRINCIPLES”) to Mike, my local Councillor and asked that he carefully read and consider it for a followup meeting with me scheduled for 4 PM today.
This meeting will be the first of a series of Survey Meetings I intend to conduct. I will explain to Mike that it serves as a MECHANISM OF FEEDBACK for the two authors of “PRINCIPLES” who are leading a nation-side campaign to reinstate the idea and reality of “governments for the people by the people”.
Here are some of the questions I plan to ask Mike.
What is your general impression of PRINCIPLES?
Have you read the Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
How would you compare PRINCIPLES to the Bill and Charter? Specifically: __ in your opinion, does it align well with the rights and duties laid out in those two constitutional documents?
__ would you consider PRINCIPLES to be contemporary update to the 1960 and 1982 Acts of Parliament?
Do you believe that City Council and the various City Department heads are well-informed of Constitutional Law and how it must guide them in their work responsibilities? If not, why not?
Would you endorse and support PRINCIPLES as an appropriate guide for inclusion into the City’s Strategic Plan for all responsibilities it undertakes?
Stay tuned.
I hope to be able to report on this meeting tomorrow as a Citizen Journalist.
The next day: Disappointment.
I met with Councillor Mike yesterday as planned. It was a disappointing meeting for many reasons. Here are the highlights.
Councillor Mike would not answer my prepared questions because he felt they were a trap and feared that his answers would be misquoted and used against him. I gave him my copy of the questions for him to take away and consider later in his own time. Hopefully, he will reply.
When he saw the questions about if he had read the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he stated in a condescending manner: “I am a lawyer. I teach law at Trent University. They real question is: have YOU read them?” Then he paraphrased from the Charter: “1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” When I asked who determines the “reasonable limits”, he replied “Parliament, of course” implying the elected representatives of Canadians. When I pointed out that “freedom groups” have sprung up across Canada in large numbers because trust in our elected representatives is at an all time low, he offered no reply.
Councillor Mike asked me what I would do to address the current lack of trust in our elected representatives and unelected government officials. I replied that “The #1 problem in Canada today is too much government which is why I have been a LESS GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE for decades. I would reduce the size, cost and scope of authorities held by all levels of government to a small fraction of the present state until the leaders of all public institutions reliably serve Canadians rather than their own self-serving agendas.” Councillor Mike has faith in our “democratic instutions” and simply replied that “we can agree to disagree”.
I had asked for the meeting with Councillor Mike for the expressed purpose of asking for his considered opinion of PRINCIPLES so as to provide feedback to the two main authors of that document. He came unprepared had left the copy I gave to him a week ago at home. Instead, he treated our meeting as a political and legal debate in which he cut me off in mid-sentence many times. A lawyer by training, Councillor Mike relishes debates on his own turf in a game of one-up-manship in which he would inevitable win. My goal for the meeting was not met and I suspect this was his goal.
A few hours after the meeting, I received an email from Councillor Mike in which he began: “Well, that could have gone better….”. I had expressed my frustrations about getting no replies or updates concerning the five Council deputations I have presented since last September. Councillor Mike schooled me saying the purpose of deputations was for Council to “hear and consider” citizen concerns with no obligation to reply or accept proposals from deputants.
I complained that each deputation is limited to 5 minutes which is insufficient to address complex issues. I reminded him that in my last deputation a week ago, I had asked Council for a longer meeting with three members of the Advocates For Civil Society (me included) for a more fulsome discussion about our concerns and recommendations. Mike replied:
“What makes you think that you are so special that Council would grant you such a meeting?”
This last statement says all you need to know about the reason for my disappointment in my meeting with Councillor Mike. A condescending tone ran through the meeting under a superficial guise of being “friendly and congenial” which is typical of all of my past interactions with Councillor Mike.
When elected representatives treat their constituents’ legitimate concerns as an annoyance and not deserving of serious consideration or respect, this underscores the urgency for every Canadian to read and endorse the…
Whell everyone who isn’t blind is awaking to the obvious. Trudeau, Singh and Freeland and most of the co-opted Liberal Cabinet who are members of the WEF an umbrella organization to the UN , are driving policies hard and furious that surely challenge and likely override our Constitutional rights. They are implementing the goals of the evil UN Agenda 21 with their 17 SDG’s. Your individual rights , freedom and property rights belong now to the collective . The goals are being further strengthened with the CCP designed and UN approved ESG targets. Welcome to the collective Communism.
Gene, I disagree with your first reason as to how the Bill of Rights as been written. To not acknowledge God is a mistake! Your example in the Charter seems to be inclusive in my mind. By not recognizing One Supreme Being over and above what this world represents is the current agenda of the Woke ideology of the WEF and UN’s. Protecting our right to the religion of our choice and property rights in this day and age is necessary. Stopping the encroaching spread of communism as the WEF policy represents worldwide is more important to me than rewriting the Charter and Bill of Rights at this time.