Sandra Finley

Feb 252022
 

from The Canadian Encyclopedia

re  Canada:  Constitution Act, 1982

Editorial: Newfoundland’s Contribution to the Patriation of the Constitution

NOTE:  2022 Freedom Convoy, Constitutional Law.  Brian Peckford is the

In the decades since 1982, politicians and the media have recounted the same story about the patriation of Canada’s constitution and the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Most of the credit in this version goes to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Three others are credited with breaking an impasse in the 1981 negotiations: federal justice minister Jean Chrétien, Saskatchewan attorney general Roy Romanow, and Ontario attorney general Roy McMurtry. But in his memoirs, former Newfoundland PremierBrian Peckford argues that the key intervention in the patriation process came from Peckford and the members of the Newfoundland delegation.

Brian Peckford, politician

Former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford.The long-accepted narrative goes like this. In the early 1980s, Pierre Trudeau was determined to create a charter of rights and a procedure that would allow Canada to amend (change) its constitution without Britain’s permission. Eight provincial premiers (all but those from Ontario and New Brunswick) opposed Trudeau’s plan. They formed the Gang of Eight to advance their own decentralized vision of Canada. (See also Federalism; Federal-Provincial Relations.) After failing to come to an agreement with the provinces, Trudeau decided to proceed without them. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Patriation Reference case persuaded him to come back to the table.

According to this version of history, the decisive moment came during a federal-provincial conference in November 1981. The deadlock between Ottawa and the provinces was broken when Chrétien, Romanow and McMurtry ducked into an unused kitchen pantry at the Ottawa Conference Centre. There they reached a compromise, which journalists called the “Kitchen Accord.” Seen as the backbone of the new constitution, the agreement provided for a charter of rights and a notwithstanding clause; it would allow legislatures to exempt laws from the charter’s terms. The accord also included a provision that the constitution could be amended with the approval of the federal government and two-thirds (seven) of the provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population. This was called the 7/50 rule.

kitchen-accord-page-one

Kitchen Accord – Page 1

Page 1 of the Kitchen Accord, drafted in the kitchen of the National Conference Centre in Ottawa on 4 November 1981 by Jean Chrétien, Roy Romanow and Roy McMurtry.

(courtesy Library and Archives Canada / MIKAN no. 3912723)

However, in his 2012 memoir Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More, Brian Peckford provides documentation to support his claim that the patriation package of 1981 evolved from a Newfoundland proposal and not from the kitchen accord. In Peckford’s account, he prepared a formal document in a meeting with delegates from several provinces. It was revised during the night of 4 November 1981, hours after the creation of the kitchen accord. The next morning, Peckford presented the agreement to the federal-provincial conference. The federal government and all the provinces except Quebec agreed to the package. With a few changes, it became Canada’s constitution.

Peckford’s account brought long-needed balance to the story. The patriation process was highly complex. Several individuals played pivotal roles. To credit only Trudeau, Chrétien, Romanow and McMurtry is to miss a large part of what happened. Many politicians and officials were present on the night of 4 November 1981 in the Chateau Laurier suite of Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney. There, six provinces accepted a revised version of Peckford’s plan. Few of the participants in that historic meeting even knew about the kitchen accord.

kitchen-accord-page-two

Kitchen Accord – Page 2

Page 2 of the Kitchen Accord, drafted in the kitchen of the National Conference Centre in Ottawa on 4 November 1981 by Jean Chrétien, Roy Romanow and Roy McMurtry.

(courtesy Library and Archives Canada / MIKAN no. 3912723)

This is not to say that the kitchen accord was unimportant. It might not have had any direct effect on Newfoundland or many of the other provincial delegations. But it was essential in altering the positions of Ontario and the federal government. Chrétien and McMurtry had devised an agreement that would include a notwithstanding clause to limit the force of a new charter of rights. Chrétien began to push Trudeau to accept such a deal, unknowingly preparing him for the Peckford proposal. Ontario had also come to a place where it would accept what the Newfoundland premier put forward. It was Romanow, through the kitchen accord, and not Peckford, who had forged an agreement with the governments of Canada and Ontario.

Brian Peckford deserves considerable credit for our constitution, alongside Trudeau, Chrétien, Romanow and McMurtry. Also important were Howard Leeson and Peter Meekison, the ministers of intergovernmental relations for Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively. Countless other unelected officials who shunned the spotlight have been largely ignored in the history books.

People like simple stories, and the media and politicians oblige. Yet there was nothing simple about our constitutional drama of 1981.

See also: Constitution of Canada; Constitutional History; Constitutional Law; Constitution Act, 1867; Constitution Act, 1867 Document; Statute of Westminster; Editorial: Statute of Westminster, Canada’s Declaration of Independence; Constitution Act, 1982; Constitution Act, 1982 Document; Patriation of the Constitution; Editorial: The Canadian Constitution Comes Home.

Feb 252022
 

The declaration of a public order emergency will be seen as a grave mistake that should never be repeated

Article content

By Christine Van Geyn, Sujit Choudhry and Janani Shanmuganathan

The federal cabinet has revoked the proclamation of a public order emergency, as Justin Trudeau announced on Wednesday. But the prime minister will still need to answer in court for his illegal and unconstitutional decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.

 

On Feb. 23, the Canadian Constitution Foundation filed an urgent application for judicial review of the government’s decision to invoke this extraordinary piece of legislation. This application will still proceed because it is imperative this legislation receive scrutiny the first time it is used, especially when the circumstances of its use are so questionable.

 

The Emergencies Act gives the federal cabinet the exceptional powers to unilaterally proclaim a public order emergency. After the federal cabinet proclaims a public order emergency, vast legislative authority is delegated to the cabinet. This authority encompasses the power to create new criminal offences and police powers, without recourse to Parliament, advance notice or public debate.

 

The prime minister will still need to answer in court

In this case, the government enacted measures to limit assembly, direct people to assist the RCMP with towing vehicles, and require banks to disclose otherwise private banking information to the police. The measures captured a broad range of conduct that carried with it the threat of fine or imprisonment. In his announcement ending the public order emergency, the prime minister made it clear that any enforcement measures from when the act was invoked will continue. These are extraordinary powers, and when the Emergencies Act was enacted in 1988, it was designed to ensure that the abuses under its predecessor, the War Measures Act, never happened again. The War Measures Act was used during the Second World War to intern Japanese Canadians and Italian Canadians, and was abused during the FLQ crisis in Quebec in 1970. This is a dark and troubled history we need to remember when considering the context in which the Emergencies Act was drafted and the conditions under which it can be invoked.

 

Every provision of the Emergencies Act is designed with the intent of limiting the federal cabinet’s power to declare an emergency to only those situations where it is absolutely necessary, to grant to the cabinet only the powers it needs to deal with that particular emergency, and for the powers to exist only as long as the emergency exists.

 

The federal cabinet did not have reasonable grounds for concluding there was a public order emergency that justified invoking the Emergencies Act, no matter how challenging and difficult it perceived the ongoing protests to be. Invoking the Emergencies Act was not absolutely necessary, as the law requires. Federal, provincial and municipal law enforcement already had all of the legal tools and authorities they needed to respond to the protests, and their perceived failure to effectively respond does not mean that the government was authorized to invoke the Emergencies Act. These are the tools that the prime minister has said are now capable of addressing any ongoing or re-emerging issues. The stringent conditions set by the Emergencies Act for declaring a public order emergency were clearly not met.

Protests aren’t emergencies, even if the protests are disruptive and even if the protests have illegal elements. Politicians and police must handle civil disobedience using the laws they have available to them rather than invoking emergency legislation whose criteria they do not meet and which has a dark history of abuse.

 

Additionally, the government will need to defend that the emergency measures they enacted were compliant with the Charter. There has been much punditry about the fact that the Emergencies Act is subject to the Charter. Which is, of course, true. All statutes, orders and regulations are subject to Canada’s Constitution. However, this does not mean that the government always acts in a way that is compliant with the Charter. In this case, the emergency measures violated the right to free assembly, the right to be free from unreasonable search, and the right to liberty. These violations are not minimally impairing and are not justified infringements, especially given that they have are continued even after the protests have cleared.

 

The interpretation of the Emergencies Act by the courts will be historic, and the declaration of a public order emergency will be seen as a grave mistake that should never be repeated again.

 

Special to National Post

Christine Van Geyn is the Litigation Director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), one of the organizations challenging Prime Minister Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act. Sujit Choudhry is a constitutional lawyer and scholar, and Janani Shanmuganathan is a criminal defence lawyer, and they are representing the CCF in this case.

Feb 222022
 

Protesters Sue For Gov’t Files

A band of Freedom Convoy protesters is in Federal Court demanding cabinet disclose documents justifying Emergencies Act police powers. The crackdown including the freezing of trucking companies’ bank accounts was politically motivated, lawyers wrote the Court: “There is no national emergency.”

Feb 222022
 

Western Standard

A total 208 accounts worth $3.8 million have been frozen under an Emergencies Act order, by official estimate.

The Liberals say their freezing of bank accounts of some Freedom Convoy supporters is justified because they are narrow and focused,” says Blacklock’s Reporter. But one Liberal-appointed senator, a former banker, complained the

Feb 222022
 

Eight days ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau employed the never-before-used Emergencies Act to crackdown on peaceful protesters in Ottawa who were in Canada’s capital for nearly four weeks as part of a nationwide convoy movement in opposition to remaining COVID-19 restrictions.

The Act gives the government extraordinary powers to arrest demonstrators and seize assets, trucks, and bank accounts of those involved in anti-government protests.

The plan to distract from the Emergencies Act, first reported by Blacklock’s Reporter Monday morning, coincided with mainstream media skepticism of the Trudeau Liberals’ use of the Act.

The scheme involves a payment of $36,000 to a U.S. consultant S-3 Group LLC of Cortland, New York to “design a strategy” to promote Canada on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. The firm must “enhance the public profile of the work done at the Embassy of Canada and consulates in various territories across the United States.”

S-3 Group LLC has its work cut out for them.

Nearly 300 peaceful protesters were arrested and two people were trampled on Friday night as riot control horses rode into a crowd of demonstrators, breaking the collarbone of a Mohawk elder who was using a walker.

At least two journalists — Alexa Lavoie and Guillaume Roy, both of Rebel News — were pepper-sprayed by police as the weeks-long protest was euthanized by the authorities.

Alexa was also shot at point-blank range by a riot control gun and struck three times with a baton by police Saturday morning. Her assault was caught in her livestream broadcast to Twitter and watched by hundreds of thousands of people.

Rebel News is helping Alexa sue the Ottawa police for her assault.

Feb 222022
 

by Canadian Press

Saskatchewan is considering a legal challenge of the federal government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to try to end blockades in Ottawa protesting COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other pandemic restrictions.

A spokeswoman for Premier Scott Moe says in a statement that the province has not ruled out legal recourse.  . . .

The Saskatchewan Party government says it is evaluating what effects the Emergencies Act could have in the province.

Moe has been opposed to the law since provincial leaders were consulted about it last week.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has said his United Conservative government will file a court challenge of the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act.

The Government of Saskatchewan shares the position of other provinces that the criteria to enact the federal Emergencies Act has not been met,” Julie Leggott, press secretary to Moe, said in the statement.

“Saskatchewan is carefully evaluating the impact of the unilateral invocation of the Emergencies Act, despite the province’s clear opposition to its application in Saskatchewan during consultation.

“At this time, legal recourse is under consideration and has not been ruled out.”

Feb 222022
 

TWO REPORTS, AUSTRALIA & CANADA

1.

2.21M subscribers
The Premier of Canadian province of Alberta – Jason Kenney – has announced his government is filing a court challenge against Justin Trudeau for invoking the “unjustified” Emergencies Act last week. Mr Kenney released a video to his Twitter account where he argued the act wasn’t designed for situations like the Freedom Convoy protest. “The federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act is an unnecessary and disproportionate measure that can violate civil liberties, invades provincial jurisdiction and creates a very precedent for the future,” he said.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2.   Global News, Canada

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney tweeted Saturday the province will file a court challenge of the federal government’s Emergencies Act in the wake of convoy protests in Ottawa.

In the posted video, he said invoking the act is “an unnecessary and disproportionate measure that can violate civil liberties, invades provincial jurisdiction and creates a very dangerous precedent for the future.”   . . .

Kenney added his government “may also intervene in support of other court challenges,” including those of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation.  . . .

(Trudeau previously said the “scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address,” noting it does not include calling in the military or overriding Charter rights.)

Feb 212022
 

Jordan Peterson, Brian Peckford and the Charter

It’s a bit choppy in the introduction, but the interview proper begins at about the 12 or so minute mark
Jordan Peterson interviews Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland (1979 – 1989), who helped draft Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1981-82). He is suing the Federal Government under Justin Trudeau for violating this charter, in particular the following provisions:
From the Charter:

“Mobility of citizens

  • 6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
  • Marginal note:Rights to move and gain livelihood(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
    • (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
    • (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.”

 

Feb 212022
 
The liberties guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution are now subject to his veto. 

 

King Charles ignored constitutional limits on his power and thereby ignited a civil war that cost him his life and put England under a military dictatorship for more than a decade. The profound constitutionalist John Selden reflected on this shortly after the king’s execution and before the eventual restoration of the constitution after Oliver Cromwell’s death:

There is no stretching of power; it is a good rule — eat within your stomach, act within your commission.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau certainly is acting like someone who has eaten more than his stomach can hold, as well as far exceeding his commission.

Brian Peckford, former premier of Newfoundland, certainly feels so and had begun taking action even before the truckers began their now-famous protests in Ottawa, at the Ambassador Bridge, and at other places throughout Canada.

Peckford was one of the authors of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada’s equivalent of the Bill of Rights, which was joined to the Canadian Constitution in 1982. He is the leading spokesman of a group filing suit in Canada against one of the many acts of constitutional overreach: the severe restrictions the Trudeau minority government imposed on travel.

The charter states in section 6:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right to move to and take up residence in any province…

The Canadian Constitution does provide ways that its Parliament or its provincial legislatures can specifically override this. Peckford argues, however, that no such niceties were observed and that therefore the regulations imposed are invalid, unconstitutional infringements of Canadians’ liberties.

Overreaching governments often respond by claiming that their unique knowledge and capabilities are sufficient justification for their actions. They seek not only ratification of their actions from those whose powers they have taken, but to establish a precedent — the constitution will no longer bind them from any exercise of power it deems appropriate and necessary.

The result of this is clear. The liberties guaranteed by a constitution are now subject to the government’s veto. Effectively, the subjects (no longer citizens) now have only such rights as the government chooses to allow them. This means that government is no longer by the consent of the governed. To the contrary: individual rights are by the consent of a government answerable only to its own conception of its power.

Peckford was one of the political elite, but one who was and is dedicated to the principles of Western democracy. He is forceful and eloquent; hear him out in a brilliant interview with the incandescent Jordan Peterson (start listening just shy of minute 11).

But as we have seen in the past few weeks, the peaceful protests against overreach and the trampling of liberties have burst out among the not-so-elite. Not the kings of the keyboards, not the members of the chattering class, but the people who make the country work, led by the truckers.

Something about this assertion of rights has offended Trudeau. His personality does not seem up to the task that he campaigned for and won. He looks like someone not quite adult, knowing it, and overcompensating. Watching him always gave the feeling of watching someone trying too hard to be someone other than he is.

That was when all he faced was the normal polite opposition offered in Canadian politics. Respect for the law comes naturally in a nation whose founders descended from United Empire Loyalists — those who maintained their allegiance to the British crown while America asserted its independence. Canadians achieved their own independence in a different, slower, more orderly and peaceful way, and all those qualities of peacefulness, order, and respect for law are part of the civilizational sparkle of the land of the loon and the maple leaf.

But the oppressive overreach of Trudeau’s COVID restrictions, far exceeding anything justified by the data and the science, went too far and continued too long to be mistaken by a large part of the regular working people of Canada as anything other than an assault on their rights and thus of their human dignity. They rose up peacefully, and, emulating Martin Luther King Jr.’s method of resisting unconstitutional restrictive laws, practiced non-violent civil disobedience in a way that awoke widespread support and international attention.

Trudeau began his version of respectful dialogue with his aggrieved subjects by labeling their views, without exception, as “unacceptable.” Of course, anyone, who opposes the Great Leader must be on the fringe, with no right to petition and be heard. In the prime minister’s own words, they are “very often misogynistic, racist, women-haters, science-deniers, the fringe.” He let that stand as his only characterization of the protesters. A promising invitation to a national dialogue.

Trudeau then disappeared from view, perhaps believing that the fundamental laws of reality had been so deeply breached by the protest that some natural cataclysm was in order. Perhaps the earth would open and swallow the protesters like it had swallowed up Korach and his crew of dissidents in the Bible.

As followers of Trudeau’s dad might have said — wow! Even Richard Nixon made his way out of the White House to speak to protesters and hear them out. Trudeau seems to fall short of Nixon — with all his paranoia and tics, a most modest measure to fall short of. Not content with the infringements of liberties he has already imposed, Trudeau doubled down and imposed emergency powers intended for times of war, insurrection, or an equivalent existential threat. He threatened seizure of the truckers’ livelihood, imprisonment, and barring them from their chosen work.

The posturing of Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator is coming to mind. But Trudeau knows how to spin things when an unpleasant truth is starting to come out: he projects the fascist mindset he has embraced onto those who oppose him politically (see Hillary Clinton’s similar response to the Durham filing for another classic example of this). Not once does he speak of any of the protesters as anything other than swastika-bearing enemies of all that is good, utterly to be excluded from any meaningful political rights. His power, his actions state, is not at the service of the people; the people can be utterly excluded as he sees fit. All Nazis.

Trudeau took this a little further last week. On the floor during a session of the House of Commons, a Jewish Member of Parliament, Melissa Lantsman, a member of the Conservative opposition, sharply criticized Trudeau’s invocation of unprecedented emergency powers. The grim prime minister replied: “Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas, they can stand with people who wave the Confederate flag.”

He was met with outraged shouts of “Shame!” Lantsman stood to take formal exception to Trudeau’s remarks as a breach of order and demanded an apology:

I am a strong Jewish woman and a member of this House and a descendant of Holocaust survivors and … it’s never been singled out, and I’ve never been made to feel less except for today, when the prime minister accused me of standing with swastikas. I think he owes me an apology. I’d like an apology and I think he owes an apology to all members of this House.

But Trudeau had already left the House. Why does anyone who is so completely right and who holds the highest power have to listen to criticism? They are the Nazis! He probably believes that he believes it — except that every act of petulance, contempt, and overreach shows him to be just a very small man who prefers power to responsibility.

He has eaten more than his belly can contain, Selden would say.

There are a lot of Canadians who will now have their say. A fresh wind is blowing from the north and it is reminding people all over the world of just how precious liberty is. The people will have their say and it can’t come too soon.

Feb 212022
 

This article was published more than 4 years ago. Some information may no longer be current.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with the Aga Khan on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on May 17, 2016. Federal ethics commissioner Mary Dawson has concluded that Trudeau violated conflict of interest rules when he vacationed last Christmas at the private Bahamian island owned by the Aga Khan.Sean Kilpatrick/The Globe and Mail