They go back a long, long way;
The Supreme Court of Canada says it will investigate allegations that some of its members intervened in the repatriation of the Constitution.
The high court’s decision came after urging by Quebec’s Parti Quebecois government for Ottawa to “open its books” on the events that led to the repatriation of the Constitution by Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s federal Liberals in 1982.
The call by Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Alexandre Cloutier on Tuesday came after the publication of a book that alleges Supreme Court of Canada magistrates interfered in the political process and engaged in backroom discussions.
The judiciary “cannot interfere with the political powers — that’s the basics of democracy,” Cloutier told a news conference Tuesday.
A spokesman for the Supreme Court indicated Tuesday the court is concerned by the questions about its credibility and feels it necessary to investigate.
h/t RFB
Just watch me repatriate this…notwithstanding…
Trudeau 1 — Trudeau 2 —- Notwithstanding.
If we don’t learn from history.
Yes and Margaret Thatcher had to whip her vote to repatriate the Constitution in ’82 while the judges were fiddling. Meanwhile Conservative MPs contended it would give judges too much power; precisely as predicted.
That discussion could fill several volumes…not that PMSH wants anything to do with it.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
“… not that PMSH wants anything to do with it..”
Rightly so. A huge distraction of we fall into it.
MM
So let me get this straight.
A minister from a province that is dependant for its existence on its mother country, has read a book. And the book says that thirty years ago political hacks in red robes might have whispered secrets to the grandmother country about how to move some paper from there to the mother country. And the paper was moved to the mother country , but the dependant province wouldn’t sign the paper. But because of the dependant minister’s whimpering, the present-day political hacks in red robes are going to investigate whether the political hacks in red robes who preceeded them did anything wrong thirty-odd years ago.
Is it really this stupid – or am I making this up?
The ramifications could be huge. No matter if PMSH wants to deal with this or not. If the allegations are found to have merit, the Government of Quebec has a few options. Quebec could take the case to the International Court. Because the whole way the Constitution 1982 was forced upon all Canadians is clearly outside International Law even back in 1982. The Constitution Act 1982 was imposed unilaterally by Trudeau and never ratified by the citizens of Canada. A big No, No according to the UN and International law. If Quebec did take it International and won, we could be looking at a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions. No Charter, no forced Bilingualism, etc etc…..And the whole idea of Canada’s stacked SCOC investigating itself stinks like the shithouse door on a Newfy fishing boat.
As if the freeloading quebec is not costing Canadian tax payers enough already.
“. . . concerned by the questions about its credibility . . .” What credibility? “Activist” judges disposed of that years ago.
I agree DrD, haven’t allegations arisen that the Supreme jesters wrote a ruling, Whycotte, based on what they stated was in his fliers and it turns out what they wrote the ruling upon wasn’t in the fliers atall.
scoc, has no credibility. imagine that gaggle of socialists investigating themselves.
Excellent analogy!
Yes,it’s really this stupid!
Is there anyone on the planet naive enough to imagine the SCC will find any malfeasance by it’s predecessors on the SCC?
The political corruption in this Country goes back to the first day it became a Country,(and the same could undoubtedly be said of any Country) but peaked in the 50’s and sixties when the Montreal gangsters concentrated on political power rather than just criminal enterprises.
Paul Palango’s book,”Above the Law” lifts just a small corner of the lid on corruption in Canada.
Does anyone else wonder if a similar situation developed in any other province the SCOC would be bothered. Cheers;
Frédéric Bastien: Margaret Thatcher’s problem with the Charter
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/17/frederic-bastien-margaret-thatchers-problem-with-the-charter/
“There was another notable absence, though. Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister, had declined Pierre Trudeau’s invitation. She’d supported his patriation package all along, despite the initial strong provincial opposition and the reluctance of many parliamentarians in Westminster. Yet the “blessed Margaret,” as Trudeau once described her, considered the Charter to be an embarrassment and the celebration not worthy of attending. The Falkland Crisis provided the perfect excuse to avoid the trip.
Thatcher’s reaction was representative of the sense of uneasiness that existed at the time in British political circles. While ministers, MPs and peers wanted Canada to be completely independent, many were troubled by the fact that they were asked to enact a bill of rights that went against the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Their doubts were warnings about what awaited Canada on the eve of the Charter era.
…
Margaret Thatcher believed that this approach was wrong. In one of her first speeches as prime minister, she explained that her government was determined “to return to one of the first principles which have traditionally governed our political life … the paramountcy of parliament for the protection of fundamental rights.” By that, the Iron Lady meant two things. First, rights are not absolute in a democracy. For example, a man cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre in the absence of a blaze and then justify his action in the name of freedom of speech. There is always a limit to individual rights. Thatcher thought it essential that elected politicians should have the power to draw the line, not judges. Second, she was convinced that parliamentarians were better at defining and protecting rights through vigorous debates, arguments and counter-arguments, while letting the people decide, at election time, which party is the best defender of their liberties.
…
The Charter was supposed to give us a new sense of nationhood and pride. Instead, it added a whole range of new divisive issues to the ones that already existed. Canada was transformed into a collection of bitterly opposed, self-interested groups. The Constitution was used to transform their political objectives into rights in order to achieve gains at everyone else’s expense. This result is diametrically opposed to the stated objective. The British prophesy has come true.”
Discuss…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
I’m sorry? The court not wanting to interfere with the political process? This from an activist court that routinely legislates from the bench? Pullleeeese!
Great link, Hans, but you forgot to include the money line:
‘This approach suited “the bureaucrats of Ottawa, who have a vested interest in the aggrandisement of federal power.” It also appealed “to the minds of academia and media, and, particularly, to the anglo-francophones of Montreal, who see themselves as the real elite,”’ — John Ford, British High Commissioner, 1981.
I’ll confess to being a lot more intrigued by M. Bastien’s case in respect of Mrs. Thatcher’s concerns about the Charter than about M. Cloutier’s selective nitpicking about SCOC justices talking to British officials — thanks for bringing that link forward; heck, I might even go out and get his book, along with “The Big Shift” (Ibbitson and Bricker) — which apparently deals precisely with the money line just mentioned. Bastien sounds, on the basis of the Thatcher-Charter column, like he might be one of us.
As to Cloutier’s objections, I’d point out that, if memory serves, the Supreme Court of Canada became the final court of appeal in 1948. Since we were as willing to assume that responsibility (in no small measure because of, um, sentiments in Quebec) as the United Kingdom was to relinquish it, I’m having a hard time understanding how British jurists and government lawyers would have been able, even if they had been so inclined, to express an opinion on Canadian constitutional jurisprudence to the British government in 1980-1981, without the help of, you know, Canadian jurists.
What’s sad is that neither Mr. Ford’s dispatch nor the involvement of the Supreme Court justices were disclosed at the time — Mrs. Thatcher certainly had control over one of these items, but Mr. Trudeau, Sr. had control over the other. Why Mr. Trudeau, Sr. failed to disclose the latter at the time is inexplicable — particularly in light of the current attempt by the PQ to use it as a stick with which to beat us; he had to know that it would eventually come out. Mr. Harper’s response is entirely correct: not his problem. Perhaps Mr. Trudeau, Jr., since he would like to assume Mr. Harper’s role, could enlighten us upon the question of his father’s non-disclosure: “Hold your nose and pass it” seems to ring a bell — and that certainly suggests a determination not to get into the details.
On the other hand, Mrs. Thatcher’s non-disclosure is entirely understandable: despite her alleged “reputation” for being the, er, iron British “Neo-imperialist” prime minister, telling everybody how they should get on in life, blah, blah, blah, she evidently decided that discretion was the better part of valour — no doubt someone will accuse her of “racism” for doing so, on account of our being a “white” Dominion, or something. Any other course would certainly have reaped the whirlwind. Still, Mr. Ford’s remarks were certainly prescient, from my point of view.
It’s interesting how Cloutier’s concerns about the matter do not align at all with what the SCOC proposes to investigate: as Kissinger said about Iran and Iraq, “it’s a pity they both can’t lose”.
RFB’s scenario deserves attention (not least because Quebec might actually, you know, try it), but I simply cannot imagine that it would have the least merit, in any court, kangaroo or otherwise. Of course, I am almost always wrong.
Ya!!!!!! Back to the BNA Act. Considering the power that the ’82 lefty constitution has given to the SC to change and make laws does anyone really believe they’d overturn it?
Couple of historical points. Ask yourself why Trudeau had to go to England in the first place. Answer because the actual BNA is a Statute of a Foreign Country. It actually belongs to England not Canada. What Trudeau did is equivalent to going to the USA and asking them to hand over their Declaration of Independence. It just isn’t done. He had to come up with a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors, because the last thing he wanted to do, was seek the Consent of the Governed, the Citizens of Canada. He did not want to do this as he had an agenda. He was a Quebec Nationalist all his life and put on his sheeps clothing to accomplish his goals. The unlimited expansion of French rights all over the whole of Canada. The BNA was never anything more than the written instructions to the Governor General in 1867 on how the Crown wanted the Colonies governed. What he created with his Constitution Act 1982 was he created a hybrid constitution using the BNA and adding the French Civil Code on top. The Charter of Rights. The Charter of Rights are pure French Civil Code, all rights negotiable, English Common Law Rights and for instance the Magna Carta are like an Indian Treaty, as long as rivers flow and grass grows. He knew he could not balance what he wanted in guaranteeing French paramountcy throughout Canada if he had to create a Constituent Assembly to draft a Constitution and then have it voted on and ratified. He wanted French Rights coast to coast while he was in power. Canada was and still is a Confederation of Sovereign States. Canada has 11 Prime Ministers, 11 Parliaments 11 Heads of State. Each Sovereign within the BNA under sections 91 and 92 of the BNA. Canada’s Premiers used to be called Prime Ministers but as the Prime Minister in Ottawa began centralizing power they gradually changed the terminology. They switched from Prime Minister to the French Premier Minister. Historically everything changed when Canada and England both signed the Statute of Westminster 1931. From that time forward the Letters Patent authorizing the G.G. were never again signed by the Monarch of England, it was illegal after that date. So the PM took up that power himself without Constitutional Authority and authorized his own G.G. and that is the way it has been ever since. An illegal act by a First Minister whose position (PM) is not even mentioned in the Constitution even once. The intent at the time the Statute of Westminister was signed, was that each Province would create its own Provincial Constitution, after which each Province would then consent to Federate, that never happened it was the Great Depression of the 1930’s and it fell by the wayside and lay until Trudeau made his move. So yes Quebec can and should take the whole issue to the International Court. My my, just think maybe we will finally be rid of the corrupt system in Canada where no adult man or woman ever really gets to make any big democratic decisions. The Office of PM appoints all 11 Heads of State, The Office of PM appoints 50% of the Government or all of the Senate, The Office of PM appoints all the thousands of judges in Canada both high and low. The Office of PM appoints all of the Ancient 4th level of Government exercising the ancient royal perogative of the Sovereign, the Office of PM has become the Sovereign. We elect our MP’s every 4 years and they swear on their Mothers Grave to serve us the people, yet when they get to Ottawa they serve the PM or their Party Leader, No good on Quebec take it to the International Court and lets have a real Constitution of the People by the People and for the People were we are all equal, man and woman and each race none better than the other. I say bring it on, for over 100 years we have waited to make our own decisions, but they will never relinquish the power. Also if you read the Constitution Act 1982 in section 45 it tells you in plain English and French, that each Province has the Exclusive Power to create or alter its own Constitution. To me that is the way to go. Bind the hands of first the Provincial Crooks and Thieves and then work together to bind the hands of the Federal Crooks and Thieves.
It is “patriation” and not “repatriation”.
The Constitution was not previously under Canadian control, so in 1982 it was patriated (brought to Canadian jurisdiction) from Britain. To say it was REpatriated is to say it had once been under Canadian control, then transferred to Britain and then was brought back.
Carry on.
–“The judiciary “cannot interfere with the political powers — that’s the basics of democracy,”–
No. Way to hide behind a weak tea straw man proffered to the torches and pitchforks.
No. This goes waaay beyond mere interference.
This is more akin to fireman turning to arson as a make-work project that the rest of us have had to pay continuously for these last 31 years and counting.
There is nothing really wrong with the idea of “patriating” the constitution, despite it being the work of Pierre Trudeau, who remains the most destructive force ever unleashed upon Canada. Margaret Thatcher was right to support it, and also right to regard the Charter of Rights with scorn, which she did not necessarily do for entirely correct reasons.
The Charter’s problem is that it’s full of mistakes, at least a couple of dozen, and as a result it doesn’t protect Canadians’ rights at all. We’ve seen this repeatedly, in Whatcott, Insite, Chatterjee, Lipson, Kapp, the 2005 B. C. tobacco legislation decision, Harper, Blencoe, and many other embarrassingly bad Supreme Court rulings.
If Quebec goes ballistic and tries to separate, I wish they would take McLachlin, LeBel, Fish, Abella, Rothstein and Cromwell with them. Canada deserves better than we’re getting, Charter or not.
Soooo…
IF the Constitution Act of 1982 were found and declared to be null and void?
We’d go back to the BNA Act, Bill of Rights and property rights?
Right?