In September 1981 The Supreme Court of Canada ruled it unconstitutional for the Federal Government of Canada To Unilaterally Patriate the Constitution. Such action would affect Provincial Powers and needed by Constitutional Convention the approval of a substantial number of Provinces.
“SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753
Date: 1981-09-28
IV—Conclusion
We have reached the conclusion that the agreement of the provinces of Canada, no views being expressed as to its quantification, is constitutionally required for the passing of the “Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada” and that the passing of this Resolution without such agreement would be unconstitutional in the conventional sense.”
Presently the Federal Government of Canada is indicating that it intends to sign the World Health Amended Regulations and Health Treaty which provides for The WHO to have powers over health matters in this country.
As the Supreme Court said in 1981 matters that affect Provincial powers need Provincial agreement .
In the subsequent Constitutional Act of 1982 the Amending formula Section 38 the Charter states:
“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.”
Does the Federal Government’s power over the signing of International Treaties override the sovereignty of provincial powers under the Constitution?
In a document entitled “ Canada’s Approach To The Treaty Making Process “ that I found in The Library of Parliament the following is stated :
“4.3 Cooperation with the Provinces
No discussion of Canada’s compliance with its international treaty obligations is complete without an examination of the role of the provinces. Although the federal government has sole authority to negotiate, sign and ratify international treaties, many treaties nonetheless deal with matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. In Canada, Parliament and the provincial legislative assemblies may pass legislation in areas where they have jurisdiction under the Constitution of Canada. This division of legislative powers is provided for mainly in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
While provincial consent is not required for ratification, the federal government nonetheless has a policy of consulting with the provinces before signing treaties that touch on matters of provincial jurisdiction.
As well, although the federal government is the only level of government responsible to the international community for compliance with the treaties that it signs, it cannot enforce compliance with international treaties in areas beyond its jurisdiction. In the 1937 Labour Conventions case,50 the British Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that the federal government cannot use the need to comply with international treaties as justification for encroaching on areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Whenever a treaty concerns an area of provincial jurisdiction, the relevant provisions may be implemented only by the provincial legislative assemblies. Thus, treaty implementation and compliance are an area of federal, provincial and territorial responsibility.”
Have I missed something?
Has the Federal Government consulted the Provinces and have their agreement for implementation in areas of Provincial responsibility?
I doubt whether many people in Canada know of any such consultation if it occurred. And one would think that such a monumental decision of transferring powers from our country to a unelected international organization deserves extensive debate by the legislatures and people of this country.
Honourable A. Brian Peckford PC
peckford42 
Totally illegal, I would say. Provinces will be up in arms. Actually if the WHO treaty is approved and they come up with blanket mandates, I would expect some Provinces to legitimately refuse to follow the directives, unless they feel they are beneficial for their own province. One caveat — and this happened during COVID — the Federal government (under Liberals) seems to have had no qualms about bribing provinces. I believe at least some of the provinces went along with lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates because the Feds threatened to withhold funds i (that everyone else would get) if they did not comply. I believe Christine Elliot has a very good view of what went on. Eventually it was more than she could stomach. I hope she writes a book about her experience.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The provinces and territories should have already stepped up to the plate and put an end to this nonsense. Isn’t that why we elected them??? To take care of things for us? They seem to be trusting(? I use that word cautiously) our federal government to do the right thing when all they have to do is glance back over the past 8 or so years to see what the feds have done to our once great country.
Is every provincial and territorial government member bought and paid for by the feds?
WHAT is wrong with them. Are they (and we) really going to lie back and play dead while the feds walk all over us? Surely we are stronger than that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We have to resist this abdication of our sovereignty to the WHO and their unelected, Marxist minions. Liberty: If it is to be; it is up to me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No. However as the plan encapsulates #Genocide, #UNAgenda2030 “Sustainability Goals” + #WHO “One Health” are part and parcel .
LikeLiked by 3 people
We can only hope that Alberta objects. I don’t see any of the other provinces standing up to the federal government.
Check provincial politicians for WEF affiliation, our former premier, John Horgan, had his WEF page memory-holed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Alberta just signed a big deal with Feds whereby the feds are giving th
LikeLike
“Constitutional”. What is the meaning and why is it meaningful.
The most consequential law in the history of humanity. Good consequences. This law enabled people from all ethnic backgrounds to coexist peacefully and very productively where they existed in constant sectarian violence before.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Largely emulated by Section 2 in Canada’s own Charter.
There’s indeed universal principles of truth and morality (epistemology and ethics) that are knowable for all (a valid philosophy), but this knowledge had to be discovered after a lot of trial and error. Contrary to popular belief, these were never ‘self evident’ nor do these originate from any ancient Biblical scripture.
These were discovered by the application of Aristotelean doctrine and method, not Platonic (Judaeo-Christian) doctrine. A doctrine summarized by…MORALITY IS TO TEACH YOU, not to suffer and die, but TO ENJOY YOURSELF AND LIVE. The morality of rational egoism. The integration of your mind with your own values that you yourself chooses.
RIGHTS MAKE MIGHT by protecting the human mind (the ability to reason). The human mind cannot function under coercion of any kind, including threats of violence or damnation. It’s really as simple as that. Rights serve as the bridge between the realm of chosen values (morality) and Politics (the organization of society).
RIGHTS MAKE MIGHT by prioritizing the Rights respecting individual. This in contrast to our ancient traditions that promote “might makes right”.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The premiers are sitting with their thumbs up their collective asses on this. They are only in it for the income and pensions in my humble opinion. Incompetent, uncaring, self serving leeches.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem is that they’re not self serving but self sacrificing. Power-lust requires one to sacrifice one’s own self interests (the selling of one’s soul) for the sake of having power over other men, women, and children.
A rationally self-interested politician would want hisher constituents to have power over their own lives, not power over other people. The purpose of govt is to protect Individual Rights. Nothing more and nothing less.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is/was a major accomplishment. In spite of the misapprehensions of what a Constitution actually means, the current form put a foot in the door towards re-enlightenment (the formalized recognition of the Rights respecting Canadian as the sovereign to be served by the govt).
In order to realize a Laissez-Faire Capitalist (i.e. Rightist) society in Canada, the following Constitutional amendments are required. A Rightist society is the only properly ethical society there is. Anything else is totalitarian rule of the “deer leederz” and/or rule of the mob.
2) Eliminate any possibility of revocation.
3) Articulate the rights of the child (post fetus) defining default natural guardianship, and qualifications of guardianship.
4) Proclaim that the existing Section 2 rights can only be implemented by
a) Property Rights: the right to keep, use, and dispose of any property created, produced, and earned.
b) Self Defence Rights: the right for law abiding Canadians to keep and bear arms.
LikeLike