Reply Arguments In Appeal Of Dismissal To S3CA Challenge

1. Quotes From Gov’t Defense Of Dismissal

2. Previous Posts On Case

CLICK HERE, for abuse of Safe Third Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for Prothonotary strikes out Statement of Claim.
CLICK HERE, for Uppity Peasants on the moral arguments.
CLICK HERE, for arguments to appeal S3CA dismissal.

3, Text Of Plaintiff’s Reply

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

(1) To avoid rehashing the entire written submissions section in the original Motion Record, this will be limited to 5 follow up questions for the Court to consider.

ISSUES

  • Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?
  • To what degree should court officials be able to decide what cases are important?
  • What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?
  • Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?
  • Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(2) The above questions are to aid the Court in determining whether the original ruling should be allowed to stand, and the bigger issues at stake here.

Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?

(3) Part of the appeal is on the grounds that Prothonotary Milczynski made overriding palpable error in the findings that claims of mass illegal crossings were just “opinion” and “unsupported”. The defence suggests that there was no reason to have submitted the evidence affidavit in the motion record.

(4) Where was the opportunity to submit proof of this?
First: Evidence is not supposed to be submitted with the Statement of Claim.
Second: Evidence is not allowed in Rule 221 motions to strike.

(5) So where exactly was the opportunity to prove any of the allegations? Remember, the standard of review for findings of fact is “overriding palpable error”. Unless this can be demonstrated, the default position is to “give deference” to the lower court ruling.

(6) So yes, it was necessary to submit the evidence affidavit with the motion record. This was the first opportunity to have this evidence submitted, and it shows irrefutably that Prothonotary Milczynski was completely wrong about Roxham Road crossings. So yes, it is important to the course of justice.

(7) Fact is, illegals have been crossing the Canada/U.S. border for years, particularly at Roxham Road in Quebec. This is public information, and has been in the media fairly regularly. There is a “loophole” in the agreement, in that simply going around border ports allows entry into Canada.

(8) Prothonotary Milczynski seems not to have been at all aware of this, despite the media attention. Instead, the allegations in the Statement of Claim were labelled as “opinions” and “bald face assertions”. Even a minimal amount of research (even a Google search) would have immediately found a wealth of media, photographic and video evidence corroborating every assertion made in the Statement of Claim.

(9) The affidavit contained only a tiny piece of the evidence available to prove the Plaintiff’s claims. No one, with any seriousness, can deny the hordes of illegals crossing into Canada. Again, the loophole (not any intended outcome), was that it doesn’t apply BETWEEN official border ports.

(10) In my view, this falls far short of what should be considered acceptable by a Court official. If a Prothonotary or Judge is going to call a Plaintiff’s statements “opinion”, then some due diligence should be done. Prothonotary Milczynski committed overriding palpable error in those findings, and the affidavit should outweigh the default position to “give deference”.

(11) While it is true that Court Officers have a heavy workload, there must be some due diligence performed before declaring a Statement of Claim to be “opinion”. The information included in the SoC has been public knowledge for about 3 years now, and could have been easily verified. This falls far short of what should be acceptable from a Prothonotary.

To what degree should court officials be able to decide what case are important

(12) Admittedly there is a level of discretion for the Prothonotary or Judgeinvolved. There has to be some leeway to decide what cases are important.

(13) That being said, the discretion was improperly used. From the Vancouversex workers case the Defendant referred to earlier.

[1] This appeal is concerned with the law of public interest standing in constitutional cases. The law of standing answers the question of who is entitled to bring a case to court for a decision. Of course it would be intolerable if everyone had standing to sue for everything, no matter how limited a personal stake they had in the matter. Limitations on standing are necessary in order to ensure that courts do not become hopelessly overburdened with marginal or redundant cases, to screen out the mere “busybody” litigant, to ensure that courts have the benefit of contending points of view of those most directly affected and to ensure that courts play their proper role within our democratic system of government: Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 1986 CanLII 6 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607, at p. 631.The traditional approach was to limit standing to persons whose private rights were at stake or who were specially affected by the issue. In public law cases, however, Canadian courts have relaxed these limitations on standing and have taken a flexible, discretionary approach to public interest standing, guided by the purposes which underlie the traditional limitations.

[2] In exercising their discretion with respect to standing, the courts weigh three factors in light of these underlying purposes and of the particular circumstances. The courts consider whether the case raises a serious justiciable issue, whether the party bringing the action has a real stake or a genuine interest in its outcome and whether, having regard to a number of factors, the proposed suit is a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court: Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1992 CanLII 116 (SCC), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236, at p. 253. The courts exercise this discretion to grant or refuse standing in a “liberal and generous manner” (p. 253).

(14) First, this case is not about some minor or trivial thing. Rather, it is about trying to close the Canadian border to illegals trying to enter Canada. The Government of Canada “should” be taking this seriously. In fact, providing a secure border is arguably the most important function a government should serve.

(15) It is asinine to suggest that a citizen does not have a legitimate interest in having secure borders, and asinine that society as a whole is not impacted by mass illegal entries. Protecting its borders and sovereignty is arguably the most important function a government has. Without borders to mark and enforce its territory, the nation dies.

(16) It is not enough to simply have signs saying “Welcome to Canada” or some such thing. Borders must be enforced by people, and they must have laws — laws with teeth — enforcing them.

(17) Second, on a personal level, it does impact the Plaintiff. She has to pay more in taxes, it cheapens her citizenship if anyone can simply enter Canada if they go AROUND the border crossings, and social service access is limited as more resources are used on illegals who have no right to be in the country. On a public level, the same issues apply. Tax dollars are spent when they shouldn’t be.

(18) Third, as for being a reasonable means of bringing the court hearing the case, what’s the alternative? If the Government won’t act in ways that are most conducive to the safety and well being of its people, then what options are there other than the court?

(19) Although there is clearly discretion in whether or not to grant standing to hear such cases, it was inappropriately used here, especially when the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to hear it. (This is not a trivial or minor case). See the Federal Courts Act

Jurisdiction of Federal Court
Marginal note:
Relief against the Crown 17 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction in all cases in which relief is claimed against the Crown.

Extraprovincial jurisdiction
25 The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy.

What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?

(20) The Defendant makes a straw-man argument alleging I claim that Prothonotaries have no jurisdiction to hear motions to strike. That is weasly, and a misrepresentation.

(21) What was actually said (and cited by many cases) is that: (a) Amendments should be allowed prior to striking; (b) striking should be reserved to only when pleading is bad beyond argument; (c) Claims should not be struck out just because they are novel; (d) Prothonotaries should not strike on matters that are not fully settled before the courts. From the COMER case (Commission on Monetary and Economic Reform), submitted with motion record.

[30] The Plaintiffs remind the Court of the general principles to be applied on a motion to strike. The facts pleaded by the Plaintiffs must be taken as proven: Canada (Attorney General) v Inuit Tapirasat of Canada, 1980 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1980] 2 SCR 735; Nelles v Ontario (1989), DLR (4th) 609 (SCC) [Nelles]; Operation Dismantle Inc., above; Hunt, above; Dumont v Canada (Attorney General), 1990 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 279 [Dumont]; Trendsetter Developments Ltd v Ottawa Financial Corp. (1989), 32 OAC 327 (CA) [Trendsetter]; Nash v Ontario (1995), 1995 CanLII 2934 (ON CA), 27 OR (3d) 1 (Ont CA) [Nash]; Canada v Arsenault, 2009 FCA 242 (CanLII) [Arsenault]. A claim should be struck “only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading is bad beyond argument” (Nelles, above, at 627), or where it is “‘plain and obvious’ or ‘beyond doubt’” that the claim will not succeed (Dumont, above, at 280; Trendsetter, above). It is inappropriate to strike a claim simply because it raises an “arguable, difficult or important point of law” (Hunt, above, at 990-91), or because it is a novel claim: Nash, above; Hanson v Bank of Nova Scotia (1994), 1994 CanLII 573 (ON CA), 19 OR (3d) 142 (CA); AdamsSmith v Christian Horizons (1997), 14 CPC (4th) 78 (Ont Gen Div); Miller (Litigation Guardian of) v Wiwchairyk (1997), 1997 CanLII 12256 (ON SC), 34 OR (3d) 640 (Ont Gen Div). Indeed, in the law of torts in particular, this may make it critical that the claim proceed so that the law can evolve in response to modern needs (Hunt, above, at 991-92). Matters not fully settled by the jurisprudence should not be decided on a motion to strike: R.D. Belanger & Associates Ltd v Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd (1991), 1991 CanLII 2731 (ON CA), 5 OR (3d) 778 (CA). The Plaintiffs say that, in order to succeed, the Defendants must produce a “decided case directly on point from the same jurisdiction demonstrating that the very same issue has been squarely dealt with and rejected”: Dalex Co v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman (1994), 1994 CanLII 7290 (ON SC), 19 OR (3d) 463 (Gen Div). Furthermore, the Court should be generous with respect to the drafting of the pleadings, permitting amendments before striking: Grant v Cormier – Grant et al (2001), 2001 CanLII 3041 (ON CA), 56 OR (3d) 215 (CA); Toronto-Dominion Bank v Deloite Hoskins & Sells (1991), 1991 CanLII 7366 (ON SC), 5 OR (3d) 417 (Gen Div). Finally, the Claim has to be taken as pleaded by the Plaintiffs, not as reconfigured by the Defendants: Arsenault, above.

[31] The Plaintiffs say that the Prothonotary correctly stated the test on a motion to strike, but wholly misapplied it by determining substantive matters that should have been left for the trial judge, striking the Claim despite acknowledging that it was a “novel” and “complex” one, and making an erroneous ruling on the application of the Charter.

(22) As possible amendments, if certain statements were vague, or needed rewriting, that would certainly be possible to do. The option should have been given previously.

(23) With all of these principles in mind, striking with leave to amend (rewrite, clarify or otherwise fix) the Statement of Claim would have been the proper course rather than striking without leave. Here are a few proposed amendments if needed

  • Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, with more precise detail as seen fit.
  • Rewriting, redrafting the SoC, to make the legal arguments more clear
  • Modifying remedies sought, and just focusing on the law itself, not the fake refugees already here.

(24) If specific facts alleged should have clearer or more specific, that was — and still is — something that the Court can direct. Throwing the case out completely should not have been the first reaction.

Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?

(25) The Defendant/Respondent has not disclosed that they have been fighting a case with a similar issue in Toronto since 2017. 3 “refugee claimants” are appealing the denial of their entry into Canada from the “warzone” that is the United States.

MOHAMMAD MAJD MAHER HOMSI ET AL v. MCI ET ALL
Court File: #IMM-775-17

NEDIRA JEMAL MUSTEFAv. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2229-17

THE CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR RFUGEES ET AL v. MIRC ET AL
Court File: #IMM-2977-17

(26) The mental gymnastics are stunning. The Canadian Government tells the TORONTO Court that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is necessary to protect Canadian borders from abuse. That same Government tells the VANCOUVER Court that an obvious loophole should not be closed, since the challenger is not a refugee claimant.

(27) That’s right. In Toronto, the Federal Government is telling the Court (and just had a 5 day hearing) that the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is vital. But in Vancouver, the Feds try to strike out a Claim attempting to close the loophole, which allows people to enter, just as long as they go around the actual border ports.

(28) In Toronto, border security is a critically important issue. In Vancouver, the case to secure the border from mass illegal entry is considered “busybody” work.

(29) Although the two cases are separate, and have separate parties, there is a palpable level of cognitive dissonance required in order for the Federal Government to argue both positions. As such, it should be considered arguing in bad faith, or being deliberately obfuscating.

Motion to strike
 221 (1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that it:
(a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be
(b) is immaterial or redundant
(c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action,
(e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
(f) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court
,

(30) Considering that the Toronto cases were started in 2017 — before this one — the defense in this case (the motion to strike) should actually not have been allowed to proceed. If not for contradictory pleadings, then for arguing in bad faith. 221(1)(e)

(31) In addition to the mental gymnastics of the 2 cases, the original motion to strike (filed by Aman Owais) was an abuse of the process of the court 221(1)(f)

(32) On top of that, take a look at the agreement itself. In the “understanding” portion of the Agreement, the following is written out.

EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;

(33) In the original Motion to Strike, previous counsel Aman Owais argued that there was no loophole in the Safe 3rd Country Agreement, and that it was INTENDED to apply only to official border points (not the vast areas around them). This is utter nonsense and the Court should reject such arguments.

(34) The Agreement openly states that both Canada and the United States offer generous systems of refugee protection. It is therefore incoherent babble that people should be able to “asylum shop” simply by-passing official ports. This would reward people for breaking the law. The Government’s absurd claims like this are an abuse of the Court process in violation of Rule 221(1)(f), and the Motion should have been denied for that reason alone.

Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(35) Section 39, 40 of Immigration & Refugee Protection Act

39. A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made

40(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresentations or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this act.

(36) Section 39 and 40 of the Act are not for the protection of foreigners coming into Canada. Rather, they are to protect Canadians from people who are unwilling to support themselves, or who lie in order to get into Canada.

(37) The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in their 2011 publication “Smuggling of Migrants”

(38) A Global Review and Annotated Bibliography of Recent Publications”, noted the connection between illegal entry (which they call “irregular migration”) and the smuggling of people.

2.1 Smuggling of migrants and the concepts of irregular migration and trafficking in persons 2.1.1 Irregular migration
.
The relationship between irregular migration and smuggling of migrants has been discussed in the literature, with most authors acknowledging the crucial role of smuggling of migrants in facilitating irregular migration. The legal definition of smuggling of migrants finds wide acceptance among the academiccommunity, which usually refers to articles 3 and 6 of the Smuggling of migrants Protocol.

Contrary to the concept of smuggling, the notion of irregular migration does not have a universally accepted definition; however, most academics and experts refer to the definition provided by IOM, which highlights that the most common forms of irregular migration are illegal entry, overstaying and unauthorized work. In looking at the relationship between the two concepts, Friedrich Heckmann stresses that smuggling of migrants plays a crucial role in facilitating irregular migration, as smugglers may provide a wide range of services, from physical transportation and illegal crossing of a border to the procurement of false documents

(39) By refusing to properly protect and enforce the Canada/U.S. border, is Canada not taking the risk of aiding and abetting in the possible human smuggling across international borders?

(40) Objective 10 of the UN Global Migration Compact (which this government signed) requires Canada to act in ways to prevent smuggling and trafficking ofpersons

OBJECTIVE 10: Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
.
To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:
.
a) Promote, ratification, accession and implementation of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC)
.
b) Promote the implementation of the Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons and take into consideration relevant recommendations of the UNODC Toolkit to Combat Trafficking in Persons and other relevant UNODC documents when developing and implementing national and regional policies and measures relating to trafficking in persons

(41) Also, read article 11 of the UN Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, particularly woman and children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. Canada ratified it in 2003, and is still a party to it.

(42) To state the obvious, how exactly does allowing fake refugees to come in BETWEEN official border ports?

(43) These are the 5 questions being asked in this reply

  • Should “due diligence” be required before making rulings?
  • To what degree should court officials be able to decide what cases are important?
  • What role should Prothonotaries have in striking out documents?
  • Should the government be allowed to submit conflicting, or incoherent pleadings?
  • Does Canada owe an obligation (beyond S3CA) to protect its borders?

(44) If the Court thinks it proper, I am willing to make necessary changes to fix whatever problems may exist in the original Statement of Claim. Here are a few ideas to consider:
(a) Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, with more precise detail as seen fit.
(b) Rewriting, redrafting the Statement of Claim, to make the legal arguments more clear
(c) Modifying remedies sought, and just focusing on the law itself, not the fake refugees
already here.

4. Authorities Cited

[1] Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement
[2] UN Protocol to Prevent, Supress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, particularly woman and children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime
[3] Federal Courts Act
[4] UN Global Migration Compact
[5] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
[6] UN Office Of Drugs and Crime (UN Site down)
https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Migrant
Smuggling/Smuggling_of_Migrants_A_Global_Review.pdf

5. Order Sought

The Plaintiff, Moving Party requests:
(a) The decision of Prothonotary Milczynski be overturned and
 The Claim be allowed to proceed, or
 Necessary amendments be allowed to be made
(b) Costs for the appeal (revoking the earlier waiver)

Defense Motion To Stike: Safe 3rd Country Agreement Loophole

On Thursday, the Federal Government filed a motion to strike out (throw out) challenge to closing the loophole in the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.

Here are the main points:

(1) I’m not a lawyer, so it is a waste of the court’s time to hear from someone who isn’t professionally trained.

That is irrelevant. Self-reps are allowed to do their own work, and the Court must give them fair consideration as per the Supreme Court ruling (Pintea v. Johns, 2017)

(2) I have no standing, either privately or publicly, to challenge this matter.

Sure, protecting the integrity of your borders and immigration systems are not at all a public or private interest.

(3) I have no genuine interest in the matter.

Obviously not, I just filed the case for fun (sarcasm).

(4) Challenge would be better off coming from someone directly effected by the S3CA loophole, such as an actual refugee claimant.

Even if this were true, it would be a huge conflict of interest. Why would a refugee claimant file a challenge to make rules harder for him/herself?

(5) Hearing this case is a waste of court resources

No, letting tens of thousands of illegals in at taxpayer expense is a waste of resources. This is just to stop it.

(6) Federal Court not the place to bring challenges to immigration law

Immigration is a Federal jurisdiction. The Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review (when immigration and refugee claims are denied). They should also have the ability to decide what is proper procedure.

(7) This would involve making a ruling that would impact other “refugee claimants'” hearings and claims.

That is the point.

(8) Orginal document not worded clearly or specificly enough.

Thank you for the head’s up.

Of course, this is an overly simplified response. The real one will be coming soon enough.

Opinion: Why Pride is Obsolete

(We’re tolerant, except to police officers)

(Pride: lesbians v.s. transgenders)

(Brown and black added for “racial inclusion”)

Serious question: What is the ultimate goal of the LGBT movement?

  1. Achieving equality and acceptance in mainstream life
  2. Constantly viewing itself as a victim in need of protection
  3. Both (1) and (2)

We live in a country where gays and trans have full equality under the law, and have for many years.

So called “marriage equality” was settled in Canada back in 2005. That’s right, 14 years ago. There are also provisions in every Provincial human rights code to protect sexual orientation. And hate crime provisions have existed for many years in the Criminal Code.

We also live in a country where being trans is protected, and employers and schools are required to make accommodations. Bill C-16 seems to be both poorly written and overkill.

You would think all is great, but not so. Despite the very limited scientific knowledge on gender dysphoria, we are prohibited from questioning it, even in young children. Even in our children. Questioning if changing gender is possible will now net a hefty fine. Bake-my-cake-or-I’ll-sue is no longer just a punchline, at least in Colorado. And SOGI has creeped into elementary schools.

Note: The issues and concerns with how gender dysphoria is treated will be a topic for another post. Likewise with having young children transition.

The problem with advocacy groups is that they eventually run out of grievances to protest. And the need to celebrate a movement becomes less and less important.

If misgendering people, or suing over wedding cakes is the worst we have going on, then what genuine causes are left?

Answer: No serious causes.

Since LGBT people enjoy full rights, and equality under the law, why does this need to be flaunted in public every Spring/Summer? Isn’t the ultimate goal to live freely and without stigmatization as your true self? This is what activists don’t seem to realize.

And while a small march or parade seems harmless enough, some larger Prides are downright raunchy (Toronto is a specific example). Nudity and lewd behaviour do often happen, at sites where children are present. For the sake of readers, I’ll spare the details. What this does to promote equality is beyond me.

If LGBT people want to just go about their lives, nothing stops them. Legally, nothing can stop them, and the vast majority of people don’t care. Prides (and other such events) detract from this by bringing the issue up again and again, throwing it in the public’s face.

Yes, people had their rights violated in the past, but that ended decades ago. It doesn’t help to bring it up with people who had absolutely no involvement. It also doesn’t help when municipalities fund (all or in part) of these movements.

As an aside, LGBT activists often get triggered at the idea (often trolling) of a “straight pride”. Well, identity cuts both ways, doesn’t it?

Having equality is an important part of this nation, but your orientation or identity isn’t. It doesn’t need to be forced on the public. Rather, Canada should focus more on what built the nation, and what holds it together.

The question at the start seemed rhetorical, but is not. Activists want option (3).

Guys, you won. Go live your lives.

A Nationalist’s Rejection of Conservatism and Libertarianism

This is going to be quite different from the usual article. This is simply an ideological standing: Nationalism v.s. Conservatism and Libertarianism.

1. Disclaimer

  1. This is an opinion. Don’t be triggered.
  2. Feedback or rebuttal always welcome.
  3. Most of the following is backed up in other articles.

2. Rejection Of Conservativism


As is now a common rebuttal point, so called “Conservatives” don’t actually conserve anything. This is true throughout the Western world. Most “Conservative” parties are really just corporatists, trying to serve a business class.

  • Culture isn’t conserved. Multiculturalism is forced upon us.
  • Language isn’t conserved, and learning it becomes less of a priority
  • Heritage isn’t conserved. Our history can be rewritten.
  • Founding of nation isn’t conserved. Everyone is replaceable.
  • Respect for life isn’t conserved.
  • Any meaning of family isn’t conserved
  • Any religion which helped found society isn’t conserved.
  • With the above points, the “majority” culture, language or heritage dwindles, however, “minority” ones are encouraged to thrive.
  • The environment isn’t conserved (the lefties are right on this one).
  • Education standards aren’t conserved. School is big business.
  • Pensions and social benefits aren’t conserved.
  • Health Care isn’t conserved.
  • National borders aren’t conserved.
  • National sovereignty isn’t conserved.
  • Military strength isn’t conserved, nor veterans cared for.
  • Actual free markets aren’t conserved. Cronyism is rampant.
  • “Small Government” ideals aren’t conserved.
  • Employment prospects aren’t conserved, if they can be outsourced.
  • True free speech isn’t conserved

Any semblance of “social conservatism” has long been abandoned by these “self-identified” conservative parties. As such, money, growth, and individualism seem to be the only things that matter.

And while “Conservatives” like to crow about how responsible they are with the public purse, successive governments have heaped debts onto the populations. But they don’t like that detail pointed out.

Consider too: so called neo-cons who have little to no hesitation about starting foreign wars abroad either for resources or power.

Most topics on the list have been addressed elsewhere on the site. There is much more to a nation than GDP, unemployment and stock prices.

3. Rejection Of Libertarianism


Most of the above points can also be directed towards Libertarians. They have no interest in conserving anything either.

To be fair, Libertarians do have a genuine interest in smaller government overall. They push for less regulation and government involvement in people’s lives. Valid points.

An interesting note: while pushing for “individual” rights and freedoms, Libertarians (many anyway), take no issue with mass migration from cultures which push for “collective” powers. It never seems to dawn on them that these freedoms can be eventually voted away by the people they welcome.

It also never occurs to Libertarians (or Conservatives) that in pushing for multiculturalism, they are forging alliances with groups which will wield power by numbers. Individual preference doesn’t matter when an entire group votes another way.

4. Protect Individual Rights


Looking out for group identity doesn’t mean we should have to — EVER — give up our individual freedoms, such as these:

  1. Freedom of speech
  2. Freedom of association
  3. Freedom of the press
  4. Freedom of peaceful assembly
  5. Freedom of religion (except violent movements “cloaked” as religion)
  6. Private property rights
  7. Presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings

Most (if not all) nationalists also support these rights.

While Libertarians go on about the “dangers of collectivism”, it never dawns on them that collectivism can also help preserve these rights. If your group believes in individual rights, then as a group it can act to protect them.

Much harder to do when “individuals” work against “collectives” who oppose these freedoms, or your way of life.

5. Look To Generations Ahead


This should be commonsense, but is worth repeating: we should be looking ahead generations to what kind of society we will leave our descendants. It is not worth sacrificing it for our short term gain.

Left v.s. Right is a myth to obscure the real distinction of Nationalist v.s. Globalist. Other labels differ, but are irrelevant. Doesn’t matter if these “right-wingers” self identify as:
-Classical Liberals
-Conservatives
-Real Conservatives
-Libertarians

Policies should be aimed at protecting the items cited above (Section #2). After all, our ancestors left them to us.

As such, nationalism is the way forward.
OUR PEOPLE COME FIRST.

Different Approach On Fixing S3CA Loophole

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for trying to use Notice of Application.
CLICK HERE, for trying to get a motion to extend time for A.J.R.
CLICK HERE, for background on the loophole.
CLICK HERE, for abuse of loophole in S3CA.

CLICK HERE, for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

2. Background Information

The Federal Court has shot down multiple attempts to use application for judicial review (Section 18 of Federal Courts Act) to correct this problem. So, now the next approach taken: ask for straight-up enforcement of how the agreement was “intended” to be.

Specifically, it was never meant that anyone could bypass the S3CA simply by going around official checkpoints.

3. New Attempt: Statement Of Claim

Facts Alleged

  1. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) was signed between Canada and the United States on December 5, 2002, under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

  2. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) came into effect on December 29, 2004, under then Prime Minister Paul Martin.

  3. The intention behind this agreement is to recognize that both countries are “safe” countries, and that “asylum seekers”, shouldn’t be “shopping around” for a better country to arrive at.

  4. The Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) remains in effect legally, the only issue is of enforcing it properly.

  5. Recently, however, more than 40,000 economic migrants (fake refugees) have come into Canada from the United States. This poses security and financial burdens.

  6. Instead of deporting these illegal, economic migrants (fake refugees), the Federal Government has decided instead to take them in, at great expense to taxpayers.

  7. By far the most common location is Roxham Road, in Quebec, which shares a border with New York State.

  8. A loophole in the S3CA means this only covers “official ports of entry”, or official land border crossings. This means the law can be circumvented merely by going AROUND any official border crossings.

  9. While the wording in the official agreement may be poor, the intent was to avoid “asylum shopping”.

  10. No reasonable person could interpret the agreement to mean that the agreement could be
    bypassed by ignoring official checkpoints. That would reward lawbreakers.

  11. This is even more outrageous when considered that the US gets tens of thousands of asylum applications annually. Hardly a dangerous place.

Law On The Subject

(12) As specified on the Canadian Government’s own website, the point of the Safe Third Country Agreement (S3CA) is to prevent abuse. Here is a quote:

The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States (U.S.) is part of the U.S.–Canada Smart Border Action Plan. Under the Agreement, refugee claimants are required to request refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they qualify for an exception to the Agreement.

The Agreement helps both governments better manage access to the refugee system in each country for people crossing the Canada–U.S. land border. The two countries signed the Agreement on December 5, 2002, and it came into effect on December 29, 2004.

To date, the U.S. is the only country that is designated as a safe third country by Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Agreement does not apply to U.S. citizens or habitual residents of the U.S. who are not citizens of any country (“stateless persons”).

(13) There is nothing vague or arguable about the intent of the agreement. People seeking asylum are required to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive at.

(14) Canada recognises the United States as a safe country. Period.

(15) It is further codified later on the Government website

Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) permits the designation of safe third countries for the purpose of sharing the responsibility for refugee claims. Only countries that respect human rights and offer a high degree
of protection to asylum seekers may be designated as safe third countries. To date, the United States is the only designated safe third country.

(16) And from reading Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, we gain this information.

Regulations
102 (1) The regulations may govern matters relating to the application of sections
100 and 101, may, for the purposes of this Act, define the terms used in those sections and, for the purpose of sharing responsibility with governments of foreign states for the consideration of refugee claims, may include provisions
(a) designating countries that comply with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture;
(b) making a list of those countries and amending it as necessary; and
(c) respecting the circumstances and criteria for the application of paragraph
101(1)(e).

Marginal note:Factors
(2) The following factors are to be considered in designating a country under
paragraph (1)(a):
(a) whether the country is a party to the Refugee Convention and to the
Convention Against Torture;
(b) its policies and practices with respect to claims under the Refugee Convention
and with respect to obligations under the Convention Against Torture;
(c) its human rights record; and
(d) whether it is party to an agreement with the Government of Canada for the
purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection.
Source: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-19.html#h-56

(17) The United States, being the only officially designated “safe country” certainly means that people are safe there.

(18) To reiterate, it is the complete flaunting of a legitimate international agreement that is the issue. The S3CA was NEVER meant to mean anyone can claim asylum in Canada if they merely bypass official checkpoints.

(19) Under 101(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, so called “asylum seekers” who enter Canada illegally via the US would be inadmissible anyways, even without the S3CA.

101(1)(e) the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations, other than a country of their nationality or their former habitual residence; or

(20) Again, clearly this would make these illegal economic migrants ineligible.

(21) And to beat a dead horse, these illegal, economic migrants (fake refugees) would be ineligible under 34(1)(1.b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This is on the grounds that it would be subversion against an institution or process.
34(1)(b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

(22) Also, allowing these illegal economic migrants (fake refugees), into Canada from the United States arguably violates AMERICAN law. Consider Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

(42) The term “refugee” means
(A) any person who is outside any country of such
person’s
 nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group,or political opinion, or
 (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate
consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any
person who is within the country of such person’s

Here is the source.

(23) Please note: the Canadian Federal Court is not being asked to rule on the validity of US refugee laws. This is added to acknowledge that the US does offer refugee status to approved asylum applicants. Again, this is not an attempt to amend or alter US law.

(24) Allowing this to happen is not saved by Perogative Powers. True, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has the power to make treaties, and has legitimate purpose.

(25) However this is a treaty signed by a previous administration, that of Jean Chretien in December 2002. The treaty is valid, binding, and to this date, has never been rescinded. The current federal government must respect that.

(26) If the current administration has no interest in enforcing the S3CA as it was intended, then perhaps they should leave the agreement entirely.

Public Interest

(27) As should be obvious from the content of the Statement of Claim, this case is not about money, or getting rich from it. It is about enforcing the integrity of existing border security laws.

(28) The Federal Government has an obligation to the public to enforce agreements in good faith, and to not allow loopholes to undermine public policy.

Remedies Sought

(a) To declare the entire Canada/US border an “official port of entry” or an “official border crossing” to close the loophole in the S3CA.
(b) To deport automatically illegal economic migrants (fake refugees) attempting to cross in the future.
(c) To retroactively void/deny or invalidate any existing or previous claims (where these illegal crossings happen) on grounds that it takes advantage of the loophole

Challenge To Proposed UN Parliament: Calgary

(Topic Previously Covered by Canuck Law)

CLICK HERE, for a very interesting page on free speech in Canada (links included).

Here is a portion of what is going to the Federal Court of Canada:

REMEDY SOUGHT
(a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government ever participating in such a United Nations Parliament or other ”World Government” scheme on the grounds it violates the laws cited above

(b) To find that any such actions in furtherance of this scheme are unconstitutional.

Alternatively an order that:
(c) To rule that any such measure would require the following forms of consent:
I/ Vote from the Federal House of Commons
II/ Vote from the Senate
III/ Signature of the Prime Minister
IV/ Royal Assent from the Governor General
V/ A nationwide referendum on this issue with 75% majority
VI/ 7 of 10 Provinces (with 50%+ population) affirming

Note, should that alternative be ordered, it is asked that the court also rule for (c), that any Province or Municipality that wishes to opt out may do so.

Written submissions For challenge to UN Parliament

Part I: Jurisdiction
Part II: Issues
Part III: Facts
Part IV: Law
Part V: Authorities
Part VI: Order Sought
Part I: Jurisdiction

Part I: Jurisdiction

  1. Under Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act, and Section 300/301 of Federal Court Rules, the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear such an application.

  2. Federal Court also has jurisdiction to issue an injunction under Rule 18(1)(a) and 18(3) of Federal Courts Act ”
    18 (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction (a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal;

  3. Remedies to be obtained on application
    (3) The remedies provided for in subsections (1) and (2) may be obtained only on an application for judicial review made under section 18.1.

  4. Rule 303(2) in Federal Court Rules states that in an application for judicial review (which an extension of time is sought here), where no person can be named, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Respondent. Since there is no ”single person” who is responsible for this mess, the Attorney General of Canada shall be named as a Defendant

Part II: Issues

  1. Seven questions to consider

  2. First: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), violate the 1867-1982 Constitution Act, which requires the Government of Canada to provide, “Peace, Order and Good Government” and makes no provision for abdication of that duty to supra-national bodies?

  3. Second: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) violate the 1982 Constitution Act, which states that it is the supreme law of Canada, and that any laws that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”

  4. Third: Considering that this would add a new layer of Government to Canada, would this violate Sections 91 and 92 of the Consitution, which separate Federal and Provincial Jurisdictions?

  5. Fourth: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), require a constitutional amendment (Part V, Section 38 of the Constitution) that would require consent of:
    (a) The House of Commons
    (b) The Senate
    (c) 7 of 10 Provinces, consisting of 50%+ of the population

  6. Fifth: Does the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) violate Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which ensure all Canadians the right to participate in their democracy?

  7. Sixth: Given some of the initiatives the UN proposes, such as internet regulation and free speech restrictions, would these violate Canadians’ fundamental freedoms, enshrined in Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and explicitly affirmed in Section 32?

  8. Seventh: Would the proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government), violate Part II, Section 35 of the Constitution of Canada, which enshrines Aboriginal Rights?

Part III: Facts

  1. The United Nations (UN) is a globalist body which more and more is taking rights and sovereignty away from individual nation states

  2. Since 2007, there has been an initiative by high ranking politicians and former politicians of ”UN Countries” to form a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA). Dozens of current Canadian MPs, including Liberal, NDP, PM Justin Trudeau, and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May have all endorsed such a World Gov’t (Exhibit B)

  3. As shown by screenshots (Exhibit A) from the website, the goal is explicitly to form LEGALLY BINDING decisions. This would in effect reduce nations to mere ”States” or ”Provinces” of the UN.

  4. Other initiatives by the UN include
    A/ Internet governance (digital cooperation)
    B/ Global ban on blasphemy (criticism of Islam)
    C/ Gender language agenda
    D/ Global MIgration Compact (258M economic migrants)
    E/ Paris Accord (carbon taxes)
    F/ UN Global Citizenship Education
    G/ Encouraging repatriation of Islamic terrorists
    H/ Right to abortion (even for children)
    I/ Agenda 21 (June 1992)
    J/ Agenda 2030 (September 2015)
    K/ Urban Development Agenda

  5. This is only a partial list. But if this proposed UN Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) were ever to take place, all of these ”non-legally binding” initiatives will become ”legally-binding”.

  6. Canadians have never been asked to vote on such a matter, either at the Municipal, Provincial or Federal level. The Government of Canada (nor any Gov’t) has no legal or moral mandate to enact such a proposal.

  7. Canadians have never participated in any sort of national referendum to guage interest and approval of such an idea.

  8. Canadians have never had the sort of public debate necessary to give an informed and intelligent response to such a proposed World Government.

Part IV: Relevant Laws

  1. The proposed United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (World Government) should be rejected because it violates a number of Constitutional provisions. Here are some of them:

(a) Section 2 of Charter: Fundamental Freedoms
(b) Section 3 of Charter: Right to participate in democracy
(c) Section 32 of Charter: Applicability
(d) Part II, Section 35 of Constitution, Aboriginal rights
(e) Part V, Section 38 of Constitution, amending Constitution
(f) Part VII, Section 52 of Constitution, primacy of Constitution
(g) Part VI: Section 91 & 92 of Constitution, distribution of powers

FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (S2)

  1. (a) Fundamental Freedoms
    Marginal note:
    Fundamental freedoms
  2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association.

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS (S3)

  1. Democratic Rights
    Marginal note:
    Democratic rights of citizens
  2. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER (S32)

  1. Application of Charter
    Marginal note:
    Application of Charter
  2. (1) This Charter applies
    (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
    (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS (S35)

  1. RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA
    Marginal note:
    Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights
  2. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
    Definition of “aboriginal peoples of Canada”
    (2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
    Marginal note:
    Land claims agreements
    (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION (S38)

  1. PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (101)
    Marginal note:
    General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
  2. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
    (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
    (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.
    Marginal note:
    Majority of members
    (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).
    Marginal note:
    Expression of dissent
    (3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.

PRIMACY OF CONSTITUTION (S52)

  1. Primacy of Constitution of Canada
  2. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
    Marginal note:
    Constitution of Canada
    (2) The Constitution of Canada includes
    (a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;
    (b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
    (c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
    Marginal note:
    Amendments to Constitution of Canada
    (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS (S91/S92)

  1. VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS
    Powers of the Parliament
    Marginal note:
    Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada
  2. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
  3. Repealed. (44)
    1A.
    The Public Debt and Property. (45)
  4. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce.
    2A.
    Unemployment insurance. (46)
  5. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
    And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. (47)
    Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures
    Marginal note:
    Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation
  6. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
  7. Repealed. (48)
  8. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes.
  9. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province.
  10. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers.
  11. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon.
  12. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
  13. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.
  14. Municipal Institutions in the Province.
  15. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes.
  16. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
    (a)
    Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
    (b)
    Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
    (c)
    Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
  17. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects.
  18. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province.
  19. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.
  20. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.
  21. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section.
  22. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

  23. Sections 91 and 92 have no provision for any supra-national body to interfere with this distribution of powers.

  24. Note that ”Parliamentary Perogative” does not apply here, since the proposed Gobal Government is not a treaty BETWEEN governments. Rather, it would dissolve nations in favour of a supra-national body,

Part V: Authorities

Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)
CLICK HERE, for the full text of decision.

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S3)
CLICK HERE, for decision, view para 27, 30, 31.

2 cases on Aboriginal duty to consult:
Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)
(1) CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

(2) Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII) (S35)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.


Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

(a) The General Amending Procedure
[33] Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides:
38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and

(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

(2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).

(3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.

(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.

[34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

  1. Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)
    CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

[6] The respondent’s amended petition cannot be pursued under principles of Canadian constitutional practice that must now be regarded as established. They include the political reality that it is the people of Canada, expressing their political will through the joint constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada and the elected legislative assemblies of the provinces, who are sovereign in the delineation of federal-provincial power-sharing under the Constitution of Canada. Beyond that no segment of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is paramount to other segments, or indeed the balance, of the Constitution. The Constitution “as a whole” is Canada’s supreme law.

[7] Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides:
52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act, 1982, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

[8] Section 52 espouses the equality of its components including amendments. Charter scrutiny could not have been reserved by its drafters: Reference re an Act to Amend the Education Act (Ontario) (1987), 1987 CanLII 65 (SCC), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, 77 N.R. 241.

[9] The Constitution Act, 1982, also provides:
Application of Charter
32(1) This Charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

  1. Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)
    CLICK HERE, for the full text of decision.

C.The Second Step: Was the Purpose or Effect of the Government Action to Restrict Freedom of Expression?

Having found that the plaintiff’s activity does fall within the scope of guaranteed free expression, it must next be determined whether the purpose or effect of the impugned governmental action was to control attempts to convey meaning through that activity. The importance of focussing at this stage on the purpose and effect of the legislation is nowhere more clearly stated than in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at pp. 331-32 where Dickson J. (as he then was), speaking for the majority, observed:

In my view, both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through the impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of the legislation’s object and its ultimate impact, are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and actual effects have often been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus, its validity.

Moreover, consideration of the object of legislation is vital if rights are to be fully protected. The assessment by the courts of legislative purpose focuses scrutiny upon the aims and objectives of the legislature and ensures they are consonant with the guarantees enshrined in the Charter. The declaration that certain objects lie outside the legislature’s power checks governmental action at the first stage of unconstitutional conduct. Further, it will provide more ready and more vigorous protection of constitutional rights by obviating the individual litigant’s need to prove effects violative of Charter rights. It will also allow courts to dispose of cases where the object is clearly improper, without inquiring into the legislation’s actual impact.

Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S2)
CLICK HERE, for decision, view para 27.

27 An understanding of s. 3 that emphasizes the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process also is sensitive to the full range of reasons that individual participation in the electoral process is of such importance in a free and democratic society. As Dickson C.J. wrote in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136:

The Court must be guided by the values and principles essential to a free and democratic society which I believe embody, to name but a few, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.

In this passage, Dickson C.J. was addressing s. 1 . Yet since reference to “a free and democratic society” is essential to an enriched understanding of s. 3 , this passage indicates that the best interpretation of s. 3 is one that advances the values and principles that embody a free and democratic state, including respect for a diversity of beliefs and opinions. Defining the purpose of s. 3 with reference to the right of each citizen to meaningful participation in the electoral process, best reflects the capacity of individual participation in the electoral process to enhance the quality of democracy in this country.

30 In the final analysis, I believe that the Court was correct in Haig, supra, to define s. 3 with reference to the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process. Democracy, of course, is a form of government in which sovereign power resides in the people as a whole. In our system of democracy, this means that each citizen must have a genuine opportunity to take part in the governance of the country through participation in the selection of elected representatives. The fundamental purpose of s. 3 , in my view, is to promote and protect the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the political life of the country. Absent such a right, ours would not be a true democracy.

31 For this reason, I cannot agree with LeBel J. that it is proper, at this stage of the analysis, to balance the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process against other democratic values, such as the aggregation of political preferences. Legislation that purports to encourage the aggregation of political preferences might advance certain collective interests, but it does not benefit all citizens, namely, those whose interests are not aggregated by the mainstream political parties. As a result, the proportionality analysis endorsed by LeBel J. clearly admits of the possibility that collective or group interests will be balanced against the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process at the infringement stage of the analysis. If the government is to interfere with the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process in order to advance other values, it must justify that infringement under s. 1 .

Also worth noting (need a residency to vote) persons who have recently arrived in a province or territory (Reference Re Yukon Election Residency Requirements (1986), 27 D.L.R. (4th) 146 (Y.T.C.A.); Storey v. Zazelenchuk (1984), 36 Sask.R. 103 (C.A.); Olson v. Ontario (1992), 12 C.R.R. (2d) 120 (Ont.Gen.Div.); Arnold v. Ontario (Attorney General) (1987), 43 D.L.R. 4th 94 (Ont.H.Ct.) — although 6 to 12 month minimum residency requirements were justified under section 1)

Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests. The Crown is not rendered impotent. It may continue to manage the resource in question pending claims resolution. But, depending on the circumstances, discussed more fully below, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult with and reasonably accommodate Aboriginal interests pending resolution of the claim. To unilaterally exploit a claimed resource during the process of proving and resolving the Aboriginal claim to that resource, may be to deprive the Aboriginal claimants of some or all of the benefit of the resource. That is not honourable.

Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII)
CLICK HERE, for full text of decision.

23 The Province argues that, before the determination of rights through litigation or conclusion of a treaty, it owes only a common law “duty of fair dealing” to Aboriginal peoples whose claims may be affected by government decisions. It argues that a duty to consult could arise after rights have been determined, through what it terms a “justificatory fiduciary duty”. Alternatively, it submits, a fiduciary duty may arise where the Crown has undertaken to act only in the best interests of an Aboriginal people. The Province submits that it owes the TRTFN no duty outside of these specific situations.

24 The Province’s submissions present an impoverished vision of the honour of the Crown and all that it implies. As discussed in the companion case of Haida, supra, the principle of the honour of the Crown grounds the Crown’s duty to consult and if indicated accommodate Aboriginal peoples, even prior to proof of asserted Aboriginal rights and title. The duty of honour derives from the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty in the face of prior Aboriginal occupation. It has been enshrined in s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal rights and titles. Section 35(1) has, as one of its purposes, negotiation of just settlement of Aboriginal claims. In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, the Crown must act honourably, in accordance with its historical and future relationship with the Aboriginal peoples in question. The Crown’s honour cannot be interpreted narrowly or technically, but must be given full effect in order to promote the process of reconciliation mandated by s. 35(1).

25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

Part VI: Order Sought

  1. (a) To issue a permanent, binding injunction against the Federal Government ever participating in such a United Nations Parliament or other ”World Government” scheme on the grounds it violates the laws cited above

(b) To find that any such actions in furtherance of this scheme are unconstitutional.

Alternatively an order that:

(c) To rule that any such measure would require the following forms of consent:
I/ Vote from the Federal House of Commons
II/ Vote from the Senate
III/ Signature of the Prime Minister
IV/ Royal Assent from the Governor General
V/ A nationwide referendum on this issue with 75% majority
VI/ 7 of 10 Provinces (with 50%+ population) affirming

Note, should that alternative be ordered, it is asked that the court also rule for (c), that any Province or Municipality that wishes to opt out may do so.

Sincerely,

Me