33 Replies to “Honey, I Finished The British North America Act”

    1. The American Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Freedoms are fundamentally opposing philosophies, actually.

      The Canadian Charter of Freedoms is a list of the People’s rights – in American parlance, the Canadians operate on a presumption that the rights of the People are “enumerated”; that the rights of the People are “finite”.

      The American Bill of Rights is a list of the US Government’s rights, NOT the rights of the People. The Founders and their Constitution operated on the presumption that the Rights of the People are “infinite” – they cannot be listed, and thus “enumeration” would be impossible. However, under the Constitution, the Government’s rights ARE limited, and CAN be enumerated. And the Founders made sure to emphasize that foundational philosophy TWICE in the Bill of Rights (Amendment IX and X).

      You’ll notice that the American First Amendment says nothing about whether the “Law” (Government/Man) prescribes the right of Free Speech or Assembly. Rather – like all Amendments – it states what the Government can/cannot do – and anything not mentioned in the Constitution is automatically prescribed as a right of the people (or the states/provinces as their people decide):

      “Amendment I – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

      The First Amendment is a prohibition on Congress’ rights, specifically, and the federal government rights, generally. It is not a sweeping list of “guarantees” and freedoms of the People, or a listing of rights of the People, because listing the people’s rights would be an exercise in futility.

      The Canadian documents, however, DO presume that Canadian rights can be listed, that they need to be prescribed by the government, and therein lies the huge chasm between American and Canadian Constitutional philosophy and Government.

      1. The US Declaration of Independence shows the link between natural rights, civil society and the “consent of the governed.”

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

        From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

        “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.”

        One specifically limits government unequivocally stating no person or nation can define rights, since they are natural, from God or nature, and that all laws and activity within civil society must be guided by this common law principle.

        Like GB it is based on the liberalism of John Stuart Mill and many others.

        Ours states government can decide those rights and is not constrained by natural rights, as long as it can demonstrate it’s necessary to remove those rights, or fail to grant them in the case of property rights.

        This is a conversion of our guiding national principles from bottom up common law to Rousseauian top down statism.

        The great irony is we were apparently freed from colonial shackles by our Constitution from a country without one.

        Unless you count the Magna Carta of 1215. I had this prof who was out there leftist who lamented the “codification” of our constitution that would lead to many undesireable results, such as usurpation of Parliament by the Supreme Court.

        I don’t agree with the presenter’s point that we remained a dejure colony until 1982 since we were surely freer before.

      2. Our Bill of Rights is actually an anti-Bill of Rights. Almost every section has a clause that nullifies it. Paraphrasing: You have the right to freedom of speech, except when to government says you don’t. You have the right to equality under the law, except when the government says, for whatever made-up reason they can invent (the Gladue Decision), that you don’t.

  1. Dont forget section 1, yes the first section of the charter of rights is a limit on the rights that follow. Before they could even list the rights, they gave themselves a way around them.

  2. I don’t understand the idea of creating a Federal “Western” Party…..That is a way to contain the discontent in federal politics without doing anything (boxed in) It does nothing… If Alberta & Sask ran a reasonable EXIT campaign they would WIN freedom from Ontario & Quebec, and the SCOC….The future has multiple options, each one better than the existing System… Changing that system should be the goal and that may even be returning to a better/fairer Canada.. Nothing stays the same except a petrified dinosaur….Get her done

  3. Peeairs Charter… the document that locks the country in Red Peeairs warped ideological straitjacket… an imposed document that estranges the citizenry from historical reference… protecting the State from the people… institutionalizes bigotry, french language supremacy, Judicial supremacy… a document that gives judicial mandate to divide the nation into a hierarchy of ethnic nationalist socialist “groups”…. Peeairs E-NAZI State, all the “rights and freedoms” that Peeairs State will dictate… imposed on the nation without mandate consultation nor consent. #WEXIT.

    1. … a document that gives judicial mandate to divide the nation into a hierarchy of ethnic nationalist socialist “groups”
      Exactly and the SCOC rulings on native issues is a prime example. Canada’s obligations to ‘first nations’ super-cedes any rights of those who must pay for the required obligations.

  4. We need a republic, instead of our current system. Currently, we have a 4 year dictatorship as long as the governing party has a majority. Then the PMO has unlimited power, other than the Supreme Court; a body of judges appointed by that same government. A constitutional republic would limit those powers by setting up competing centers of power, thus limiting the power of any one branch. The current system, a Democracy in name only, is a relic of prairie colonialism, and has to be brought into the 21st Century.

    1. I am not sure anything you say makes sense. Most republics operate exactly the same as Canada. Some even have an appointed president. The US system where the head of state is head administrator is an oddball system and is often subject to partisan inertia like right now.

  5. Trudeau’s constitution was of lawyers, by lawyers and for lawyers, it is a piece of garbage.

    1. I remember very well the day Pieeeers Chater was passed into law..the lineup of lawyers at the Supreme Court House in Ottawa was down the walk way and around the corner. All had to do with some perceived transgression on someones rights….and it still goes on to this day… a great gig if you don’t mind standing knee deep in BS….Steve O

  6. As per promises during his first campaign, the property rights deficiency of turdo’s Charter could have and should have been addressed by Harper. But once he formed a government he and his MPs quickly and conveniently found trumped-up reasons (alienating Quebec, getting mired in a Charter dispute) for abandoning the property rights file.

    But that being said, any and all Constitutions are at best a temporary contrivance, and as we have witnessed in our own Country and across the globe, are only as solid as the judiciary’s interpretations and the tolerance of the present political leadership.

  7. It was touched on a bit but primacy of parliament is important.
    Head on it means that parliament cannot be bound by any prior decision of parliament.
    Think fixed election dates, no tax increase laws without referendum. The parliament of the day simply amends the inconvenient part of an act of a prior parliament (or itself) and moves ahead.
    The federal parliament can simply amend the constitution act’s amending formula if it so chooses and move ahead.
    The mention in the video of Chretien passing an act that changes the amending formula is hammer on the nail. He could of amended the constitution act directly but I suppose did not want to lift the veil so directly and did so by creating an additional act.

    1. “The mention in the video of Chretien passing an act that changes the amending formula is hammer on the nail.”

      Amendment of the amending formula requires unanimous provincial consent per Section 41(e) Constitution Act 1982. Anything passed by Chretien was an attempt to limit future Parliaments and as such has no validity.

      1. Two acts, each law.
        Parliament can choose to amend the constitution act at any time if it so chooses. It can amend the act to have a different amending formula if that is what parliament wants. This is why the constitution is a farce. Parliament remains supreme and parliament cannot change this fact.

  8. This infomercial is absolute garbage. Take it and throw it where it belongs.

    As it happens, I have a copy of the consolidated Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, right in front of me — and not only is it a handbook, but it weighs less than the computer upon which I am typing this post.

    If you want a new country (I do), quit barking and get on with the job: KXL starts almost immediately, Rona ain’t running for the Tory leadership, and I got an Enbridge/Union Gas bill with $37+ of Federal Carbon Tax, plus HST — Ontario hasn’t removed the provincial portion of the HST on that part of the bill, yet (it will, believe me).

    I got Iranian-Canadian (genealogical) relatives, which is going to prove to be very happy by the end of the month, when the regime falls, but I got no way forward, at the moment, on how we get the oil through B.C. to the coast. That would be a problem for all of Kate’s contributors out there on the left coast.

    I have had beyond-excellent surgeons of French-Canadian and Saudi descent (all women; and all almost entirely screwed by Chrystia Freeland, who is the definition of pernicious, assuming that Hillary is too old to take that cake).

    Just about everybody round here drives a pick-up truck: F-150s have become a status symbol, to be blunt.

    You want a new country? Tell us where we go from here?

    1. This infomercial is absolute garbage. Take it and throw it where it belongs.

      I agree. He completely ignored the Statute of Westminster and the autonomy that Canada had as a result. For example, Canada became involved in WW I because Britain had declared war, which automatically meant the colonies were as well. Canada declared it on its own in 1939.

      1. You are correct, as always, but I believe it’s even more fundamental than that: please see section 26 of the Charter:

        “The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.”

        Certain other commentators, who never get back to me, whenever I write them separately (are they really on the ball?) seem to be stoking this idea that only real-estate agents care about property rights. This has got to be among the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

        If property rights, according to law, didn’t exist, why would one purchase a piece of property? It’s unanswerably ludicrous.

        I’ve stood down my municipality in SW Ontario on this very issue, and I am prepared to do much, much more, I can assure you. The Charter ain’t what the culture thinks it is — not even close.

  9. I remember the likes of flora macdonald going on and on about “REpatriating the constitution”
    ‘RE’ ? as in we had it at one point, gave it up and want it back?

    the total volume of IGNORANCE on the topic is stunning.

    the present sit’n reflects the general naivety, willful ignorance, myths, laissezfaire, teddy bear go-along-to-get-along Cdn ‘identity’.

  10. I clicked on the link to ‘canadas worst prime minister’.
    kimmie kim campbell.

    ‘no time to discuss key issues,
    no time to discuss key issues’
    all in mad hatter getup.
    ‘gun laws’ drafted by a couple close cronies, NOT a thorough examination of what we have and what we need.

    lost her own seat. that takes some doing.
    a true conservative legacy eh? right wing sits and pouts in the corner but THIS is what you present to voters?
    andy panda musta read her book.

    1. Let’s see, taking her party from a strong majority government to just two seats, in fact losing party status.
      Met her while in CF, remember one august staff member stating Campbell had ability to listen intently while hearing nothing.
      In the process delivered nation into the corrupt, statist regime of Jean Chretien and his merry band of incompetents.
      Worst prime minister ever, with no peer in PM failure. “Ban handguns” Paul Martin was a decisive strongman in comparison.

  11. It is 2020 and I’m still waiting for the National vote on the 1982 Constitution. Maybe a referendum like the one on Immigration.