Constitutional Crisis

Failure of the MOJ to respond to s 24(1), the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Since Parliament is the only Court of competent jurisdiction to remove a judge or check the powers of the Judiciary as a whole through legislation I requested Parliament hear the matter.

The Notice was properly served upon the Deputy AG’s Office in accordance with the published requirements including registered mail and was duly signed but no responses ever received.

I wrote to the PM’s Office which did result in a response from the MOJ David Lametti but unfortunately he attempted to mislead Canadians as to his duties and refused to respond again which led the PM’s Office to forward the matter to Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino in an acknowledgement of the Public Safety concern. But no further responses were received despite further letters to PM’s Office and informing the House of Commons - Speaker, PROC, NSICOP, and Legal and Human Rights Committees and the Senate.

I informed Parliament in the Spring of 2023 that I would be serving every MP with the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter to ensure that they comply with their Oath of Office and Protect the integrity of our governing constitutional document and the safety of all Canadians. Just waiting now for the right timing.

The consequences of a government breaching its constitution can vary depending on the specific circumstances and the legal and political systems in place.

1. Legal Challenges: Breaching the constitution can lead to legal challenges by individuals, organizations, or other levels of government. The affected parties can seek judicial remedies or constitutional remedies, such as constitutional references or lawsuits, to challenge the actions of the government. If a court finds that the government has indeed breached the constitution, it can declare the actions invalid or unconstitutional, potentially nullifying the government's decisions or legislation.

2. Erosion of Public Trust: Constitutional breaches can undermine public trust in the government and the democratic process. When the government fails to uphold the constitution, it may lead to a loss of confidence among the public, diminishing their trust in the government's ability to protect their rights and act in their best interests. This erosion of trust can have long-term consequences for the legitimacy and stability of the government.

3. Political Consequences: Constitutional breaches can have significant political repercussions. Opposition parties, civil society organizations, and the media may scrutinize the government's actions, highlighting the breach as evidence of incompetence, disregard for the rule of law, or an abuse of power. This can lead to public backlash, decreased support for the government, and potential political consequences, such as electoral losses or a loss of political credibility.

4. Constitutional Crisis: In extreme cases, constitutional breaches can trigger a constitutional crisis. This occurs when there is a fundamental breakdown in the constitutional order, leading to a state of uncertainty, instability, or a deadlock in the functioning of government. Constitutional crises can result in a loss of governance, institutional conflicts, or the need for intervention by constitutional authorities, such as the judiciary or the head of state, to restore constitutional order.

5. International Repercussions: Breaching the constitution can have international repercussions, particularly if it violates international agreements or obligations. Other nations, international organizations, or human rights bodies may condemn the breach and exert pressure on the government to rectify the situation. In extreme cases, international sanctions or diplomatic consequences may be imposed on the breaching government.

The consequences of constitutional breaches can vary depending on the specific legal and political context, the severity of the breach, and the mechanisms available for accountability and redress.

Legitimacy and illegitimacy in government represent contrasting concepts regarding the perceived authority and moral rightness of a governing body. Let's explore the differences between the two:

1. Legitimacy:

- Legitimacy refers to the widely recognized and accepted authority of a government or governing body to exercise power and make decisions on behalf of the people.

- Legitimate governments derive their authority from various sources, such as constitutional frameworks, democratic processes, popular consent, or historical traditions.

- Legitimate governments typically enjoy the support and trust of their citizens, as they are seen as upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and working in the best interests of the governed.

- Legitimate governments are often characterized by stability, effectiveness, and accountability, as they operate within established legal frameworks and maintain the social contract between the government and the governed.

2. Illegitimacy:

- Illegitimacy, on the other hand, refers to the lack of recognized authority or moral rightness of a government or governing body.

- Illegitimate governments may arise through various circumstances, such as corruption, authoritarian rule, unconstitutional actions, fraudulent elections, or denial of basic human rights.

- Illegitimate governments often face challenges to their authority and may be viewed as oppressive, undemocratic, or unrepresentative of the will of the people.

- Illegitimate governments can lead to social unrest, political instability, and a breakdown of trust between the government and the governed.

It's important to note that the determination of legitimacy or illegitimacy is often subjective and can be influenced by different perspectives, ideologies, and societal norms. Legitimacy is not solely based on legal or formal processes but also on the perception and acceptance of the governed. Governments that are considered legitimate generally strive to maintain the consent and support of their citizens through transparency, accountability, and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.

Legitimacy is associated with the recognized and accepted authority of a government, while illegitimacy denotes the lack of such authority or moral rightness. Legitimate governments derive their power from various sources and operate within legal frameworks, while illegitimate governments often face challenges to their authority and lack the trust and consent of the governed.