Skip directly to content

Government can pass SHADY bills as long as any argument is made supporting it.

Like us on fb

Lukes Dad's picture
on Sun, 01/27/2013 - 00:58
Fight Child Protection Department Corruption: 
Government can pass SHADY bills as long as any argument is made supporting it.

I know this is CANADIAN dirt but I'm sure you can learn from it & understand how HUGE of a deal this is. Finally the WAY may have been revealed for Ontario's child protection system to FALL & all the unjust devastation of biological family constellations through political interference be given victims' compensation.

"What is learned from reading this article is a little something of the structuring of Canada's Constitutional act....Within the rules of the Canadian Constitutional Act it is defined that government lawyers are instructed to raise possible Charter conflicts only when the violations are not unclear or vague.

 A conflict of keeping powers & interests in law-making or legislation can arise from HOW the Constitutional Act is worded in that the Canadian Constitutional Act defines: " Even if a bill is deemed to have a 95 per cent probability of contravening the Charter, as long as some argument, however dubious, can be made in its defense, the minister is not to be notified." This reads to me that the Government can pass SHADY bills as long as any argument is made supporting it.

The Minister of Justice is ALSO the Attorney General. So this presents as a very real CONFLICT in that the person assigned to MAKE POLICY is also the one in charge of evaluating the LEGALITY OF IT! This also serves as a SECURITY HOLE for the entirety of laws & bills in Canada....which in turn serves to EFFECT the whole binding laws of LEGISLATIVE powers to make bills & legislation which could conceivably be considered in violation of Charter rights or serve to conflict with existing Federal parameters. An example of SUCH a conflict is Ontario's Child & Family Services Act...Ontario has legislated immense powers to CAS's, a PRIVATE CORPORATION, to conduct child welfare duties. There are already prescribed Federal statutes on Child Welfare which extend to serve & protect children which includes enforcement policies on the criminal level; yet Ontario has legislated POLICING powers to a private business industry that serves to act as CHILDREN COPS. This action by Ontario leadership should mean that Ontario's Child Protection Act is above it's jurisdiction (latin term: "ultra vires") & therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL; not to mention it violates unlimited thresholds of Constitutional proclivity & human rights elements. But because of this "SECURITY GAP" in the administrative powers of Parliament, this is how charter protections are being CIRCUMVENTED or outright "usurped" because of a profound FLAW in Constitutional wording.

 It's been LONG known by law experts in Constitutional analysis that this "security hole" in Canada's Constitutional fabric has permitted for indefinite GROSS charter violations & oppressive use of LEGISLATION at the provincial level to DEPRIVE people of their essential liberties & freedoms. And you still think Canada is a DEMOCRATIC & FREE Country....all you IMMIGRANTS should THINK again. Canada is just more CIVIL at HIDING IT's DIRTY POLITICS until someone with some BRAINS & insight puts it in the LIGHT & is FIRED because Ottawa doesn't like being exposed for the corrupt soughts they are....Socialism perpetrates CORRUPTION, as inevitable. You can't have a system of Government devised on the imposed policies of Socialist control.

ahhhhhhghhh! This is BIG!!! I don't think people realize how BIG this is. I SINCERELY pray that Mr. Schmidt is successful for if he is, or there is any positive exposure in the context of the case, it can be used to expose the DIRTY system at the TOP level which will therefore give leverage to "DISEMPOWERING" Ontario's Child Protection INDUSTRY for the LAWLESS machine that it is....there's such PROFOUND implications for finding Ontario's Child & Family Services Act "ULTRA Vires" & showing that Ontario has been acting ILLEGALLY in having DELEGATED unlimited POWERS of APPREHENSION which are even ABOVE police authorities (re: unwarranted apprehensions) to a PRIVATE business corporation. It would be a MIRACLE for Mr. Schmidt to succeed as it would mean that every CHILD unjustly made a Crown Ward & IMPRISONED under the Crown for life....the Government would have to COMPENSATE the families for the LOSS."

Yvonne Craig

Edgar Schmidt courageously blows the whistle

Even at the risk of his reputation and livelihood, Edgar Schmidt couldn't stay quiet any longer.

For more than a decade, the senior Justice Department lawyer has been trying to convince his bosses that they are breaking the law by inadequately evaluating whether proposed bills violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When he was finally satisfied that no one would ever listen to him, he decided to sue the government.

Before a federal judge last week, Schmidt maintained that government lawyers are instructed to raise possible Charter conflicts only when the violations are unambiguous. Even if a bill is deemed to have a 95 per cent probability of contravening the Charter, as long as some argument, however dubious, can be made in its defence, the minister is not to be notified.

That's fine, says the government. It responded that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, himself a lawyer, is capable of asking for a more detailed report when a "review is not stringent enough." But why would he do that when as minister he is responsible for a standing request that reviews not be stringent?

One reason to hope he would is that the minister of justice is also the attorney general. He's charged both with making policy and evaluating its legality -- a conflict, political scientists often point out, that can be mediated somewhat by impartial advice from the public service. If it's sought.

The justice minister is obligated by law to alert Parliament whenever he is advised of a potential conflict between legislation and the Charter. The fact that he has never had to do so may reflect a dearth of advice rather than consistently sound bills. In the past month alone, two provincial courts have overturned legislation on human trafficking and mandatory minimum sentences on constitutional grounds. Something is wrong.

For saying so -- and, ostensibly, for violating a confidentiality agreement -- the government suspended Schmidt without pay.

That did not sit well with the presiding judge, Simon Noel. "The day after the filing of this statement (by Mr. Schmidt), bang: 'You're suspended,' " said Noel. "It's unbelievable... (the government) has done everything it can to kill this thing. The court doesn't like that... We see that in different countries and we don't like it... Canada is still a democracy."

Schmidt seems willing to pay a price to keep it that way. During an interview on CBC Radio's As It Happens, the lawyer said that after a decade fighting within the system, he decided finally to bring the matter before the courts only after a recent trip to Egypt underscored "how fragile democracy is and how much it needs care and tending."

How vulnerable it is, for instance, to opaque, legally ambiguous legislative processes -- or the stifling of dissent.

winnipegfreepress.com