NON-CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

November 11, 2025 To: All Members of Parliament

On this Day of Remembrance, when the country honours those who died defending law over force, we face the question of whether law still governs here.

They deserve better than a government operating in manifest illegality, documented Criminal Code violations, systematic obstruction of constitutional accountability, and active lawfare against citizens who challenge judicial misconduct.

Parliament cannot lawfully extend confidence to a government engaged in manifest illegality. Your vote does not authorize fiscal policy. Your vote makes you accessories to documented Criminal Code violations. When you fund obstruction of justice, breach of trust, and intimidation of justice system participants, you become complicit in those crimes.

You don’t have discretion here.

THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR VOTE

Your confidence vote funds Criminal Code violations and authorizes theft from Canadians.

When the government operates outside constitutional constraints, every dollar it spends is literally stolen money. The government has no authority to tax or spend when operating void of constitutional authority. Your confidence vote doesn’t just fund obstruction, it makes you accessories to theft from every Canadian taxpayer.

Your confidence vote also funds the operational government policy of retribution against citizens who report constitutional violations. When I reported national security breaches to the RCMP with complete evidence, the response was institutional silence followed by detention. When I informed the courts, the response was dismissal and imprisonment. When I contacted Parliament, the response was prorogation. Canadians are not being protected from breaches of fair trial rights.

Government policy appears to be that the reporting of constitutional violations directly leads to coordinated state retribution and silence.

Your vote funds that policy. You fund the RCMP, refusing to investigate constitutional violations while threatening to destroy evidence. You fund Ministers invoking emergency powers while knowing Charter protections are suspended. You fund courts incarcerating citizens who present proof of judicial misconduct. You fund Parliament proroguing itself to avoid constitutional accountability.

You fund the systematic destruction of every peaceful channel for constitutional remedy.

Criminal Code Section 139(2) - Obstruction of Justice

The government prorogued Parliament on January 6, 2025, to eliminate accountability mechanisms that would investigate their conduct. Prime Minister Trudeau advised prorogation knowing it would erase Larry Brock’s contempt motion from the order paper, prevent Parliament from exercising Section 99 authority to investigate judicial misconduct, and disable the only constitutional forum with jurisdiction to adjudicate executive and judicial accountability.

The Supreme Court in R v Boulanger (2006 SCC 32) established that obstruction requires intentional conduct defeating justice processes—the 77-day suspension, timed to eliminate three simultaneous accountability mechanisms, satisfies this test. That obstruction is ongoing. Your confidence vote funds its continuation, making you accessories after the fact.

Criminal Code Section 122 - Breach of Trust

Justice Minister David Lametti refused to respond to properly served Charter section 24(1) enforcement procedures, made demonstrably false statements about their constitutional authority to evade statutory duties, and refused to act as institutional bridge between judiciary and Parliament as required to properly exercise his discretion in good faith.

Prime Minister Carney continues this breach by hiring Lametti as Principal Secretary—rewarding the architect of constitutional obstruction with the most powerful position in government while publicly claiming to defend Charter rights.

The Boulanger test requires conduct representing a serious and marked departure from standards expected of public officers, systematic refusal to fulfill mandatory constitutional duties while making false statements about legal authority satisfies this test. Your confidence vote funds breach of trust as ongoing government policy.

Criminal Code Section 423.1 - Intimidation of Justice System Participants

The government incarcerated me following constitutional challenges, removed my passport and driver’s license to restrict mobility, coordinated with family courts to undermine custody relationships, and prorogued Parliament to prevent my evidence from reaching you, creating a documented pattern of state retaliation against a citizen who properly invoked Charter enforcement procedures and reported Criminal Code violations to appropriate authorities.

Section 423.1 makes it an indictable offence to use violence, threats, or other intimidation to impede justice system participants. When the state responds to constitutional complaints with incarceration, when it strips rights to movement and family relationships, when it suspends democracy itself to prevent evidence from reaching Parliament, that is systematic intimidation designed to deter others from challenging institutional power. That intimidation continues as government policy, your confidence vote funds it.

Parliamentary privilege does not shield from being an accessory to Criminal Code violations. Your immunity protects parliamentary speech and procedure. It does not protect funding for documented criminality. If you vote in confidence knowing the government operates in manifest illegality, you cross from political decision to criminal complicity.

Your oath of office requires you to uphold the Constitution. You cannot defend the Constitution while funding a government that systematically violates it. Your vote either upholds your oath or breaks it.

The evidence is before you. The law is clear. Your vote will be recorded. History will judge whether you upheld the oath you swore or chose complicity in its violation.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY YOU WERE ELECTED TO PERFORM

The Constitution does not exist to organize government. It exists to prevent the government from destroying the trust that prevents rebellion.

THE constitutional imperative.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble, states the principle explicitly:

“Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”

When the rule of law collapses, rebellion becomes inevitable. Not because citizens are violent. Because the government has destroyed every peaceful alternative.

Your constitutional duty is to maintain the trust that prevents this outcome.

When judges ignore transcripts to protect fraud by lawyer, trust in justice dies. When Ministers refuse constitutional enforcement procedures, trust in remedies dies. When the Police ignore national security warnings about Charter violations, trust in law enforcement dies. When Parliament is prorogued to avoid accountability, the people have no voice. When the newly annointed Prime Minister continues identical obstruction while publicly claiming to defend the rights they violate, trust dies. If every Member of Parliament ignores a formal written notice of a constitutional crisis, there are no more options.

When trust dies, violence follows. The government itself destroyed every constitutional mechanism designed to prevent it.

Your vote is not about budgets or fiscal policy. Your vote is about whether you will restore the trust required for peaceful governance, or whether you will fund the systematic destruction of that trust until violence becomes the only recourse citizens have left.

Your constitutional duty is to provide peace, order and good government. You must maintain the trust that prevents rebellion.

That duty is not discretionary. It is mandatory. It is why you were elected. It is what you swore to uphold.

INSTITUTIONAL SILENCE

On September 9, 2024, I wrote to every Member of Parliament with comprehensive evidence of institutional failure culminating in complete constitutional breakdown. Judges claiming absolute discretion beyond any review. Attorney General refuses constitutional procedures. RCMP threatening to destroy evidence of judicial corruption. Every mechanism designed to protect citizens turned inward to defend itself.

I didn’t just document failures. I proposed remedies:

• Requested an audit of the Canadian Judicial Council to ensure compliance with the Judges Act

• Proposed specific mechanisms to restore trust in the Judiciary

• Reported documented judicial misconduct, requesting an investigation

• Offered constructive pathways to constitutional restoration

Response to both problems AND solutions: Complete silence. Not one Member of Parliament, not one, responded to acknowledge receipt, investigate the evidence, or discharge the constitutional duty that Charter section 24(1) and Constitution Act section 99 impose when judicial misconduct is documented.

On December 12, 2024 Conservative MP Larry Brock filed a contempt motion against the Attorney General for refusing to provide the legal opinion justifying the Emergencies Act. Parliamentary accountability was engaged.

Government’s response: Prorogation on January 6, 2025.

On March 26, 2025, I wrote to Prime Minister Mark Carney immediately after he assumed office, forwarding all evidence and constitutional arguments, explicitly informing him that the duty to protect Canadians “becomes yours to protect Canadians and ensure that the constitutional imperative of peace, order and good government is maintained.”

On May 22, 2025, I wrote to Governor General Mary Simon, requesting that she examine the constitutional crisis before King Charles III opened Parliament on May 27, referencing previous communications from October 26, 2021, and May 7, 2022.

On May 22, 2025 I wrote to His Majesty King Charles III of Canada before opening Parliament, providing evidence that the Crown’s institutions, Judiciary, executive, Parliament had systematically failed their constitutional duties.

On May 24, 2025, I wrote to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights requesting a formal study into whether the Canadian Judicial Council complies with the Judges Act and Charter obligations. I also wrote multiple letters to the Minister of Justice proposing specific mechanisms to restore trust in the Judiciary, offering constructive solutions rather than just documenting problems.

Throughout 2022-2025: Multiple communications to Minister of Justice, Prime Minister’s Office, RCMP, Public Prosecution Service, and Parliamentary Committees some requesting constitutional enforcement procedures the law mandates, others proposing constructive solutions to restore institutional trust, all offering pathways to resolution.

The response across every institution, to both complaints and proposed solutions was complete silence.

“I’m not upset that you lied to me; I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS: MANIFEST ILLEGALITY

Canada’s constitutional crisis stems from the failure to maintain the separation of powers. When the roles of Attorney General and Minister of Justice are combined, ministers protect judges, who in turn protect ministers. When Chief Justice Wagner co-chairs committees with Justice Minister Lametti, the Judiciary coordinates with the Executive. When Parliament defers to courts and the Attorney General rather than exercising Section 99 authority, oversight disappears.

December 4, 2020: I reported this national security matter to the RCMP, highlighting the systematic Charter violations by the Judiciary that affect every Canadian’s right to a fair trial.

December 30, 2021: I reported directly to the RCMP National Division that Minister Lametti refused to comply with Charter section 24(1) enforcement procedures. The RCMP told me they would destroy any further evidence I submitted rather than investigate it.

February 14, 2022: Lametti invoked the Emergencies Act, knowing Charter protections were suspended, knowing the RCMP had been notified, knowing every Freedom Convoy defendant would be denied a fair trial.

January 23, 2024: Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court ruled that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was “unreasonable, illegal and unconstitutional.” The government announced its intention to appeal within 14 minutes, institutional protection rather than principled argument.

The Criminal Code violations continue:

Section 139(2) - Obstruction of Justice:

On January 6, 2025—Prime Minister Trudeau prorogued Parliament to eliminate three accountability mechanisms. Larry Brock’s contempt motion demanding the Emergencies Act legal opinion. My interventions in the Federal Court of Appeal presented evidence of systematic judicial misconduct. Parliamentary investigation of Charter section 24(1) enforcement failures. All three threatened to expose coordinated institutional protection of judicial misconduct. Prorogation eliminated them all.

Section 122 - Breach of Trust by Public Officers:

Justice Ministers David Lametti refused to respond to properly served Charter section 24(1) enforcement procedure. The Minister of Justice has a mandatory ministerial duty to uphold the Constitution. Systematic refusal is a breach of trust.

Section 423.1 - Intimidation of Justice System Participants:

The government incarcerated me, removed my passport and driver’s license, coordinated with family courts to undermine custody, and prorogued Parliament to prevent my evidence from reaching you.

I notified everyone. RCMP on December 4, 2020, with attached United Nations complaint, and the Justice Ministers multiple times. The Prime Minister’s Office. The Governor General. His Majesty King Charles III. Every Member of Parliament. Parliamentary committees. The entire government was aware. They arrested Freedom Convoy protesters anyway. Crown prosecutors charged them knowing fair trials were not guaranteed because the judiciary is biased.

“An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes.”
Sun Tzu

CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP, NO CHANGE IN CONDUCT

January 7, 2025: Trudeau steps down. Mark Carney assumes power. The protection of judicial misconduct from parliamentary oversight was Trudeau’s final act.

I wrote to Prime Minister Carney on March 26, 2025, forwarding all evidence and constitutional arguments, explicitly informing him that the constitutional duty to protect Canadians “becomes yours.”

No acknowledgment. No investigation. No remedy. The pattern of institutional silence continued under new leadership.

April 15, 2025: Prime Minister Carney states publicly: “We have a Charter of Rights and fundamental Freedoms in this country, and it’s the responsibility...of the prime minister...to defend...those fundamental rights.”

Beautiful constitutional principle. Zero operational compliance. The government continues to refuse disclosure of the legal opinion that justified invoking the Emergencies Act, despite Justice Mosley’s Federal Court finding on January 23, 2024, that the invocation was “unreasonable, illegal and unconstitutional.” When a court declares your conduct unlawful, withholding the legal reasoning that supposedly authorized that conduct is evidence of bad faith.

June 2, 2025: Federal Attorney General’s Office files government response to my Federal Court of Appeal intervention, calling my evidence of constitutional violations “spurious allegations” that would not serve the “interests of justice.” The Attorney General’s position is that courts should review the legality of prorogation but they sought to deny that evidence.

June 24, 2025: Federal Court of Appeal dismisses my intervention with a single-page order providing no reasons. No analysis of evidence. No engagement with constitutional questions. Perfect procedural exclusion.

July 10, 2025: Carney announces his first primary appointment, David Lametti to become Principal Secretary, on July 14, 2025.

REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS

The test for reasonable apprehension of bias is, “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically—and having thought the matter through—conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.”

Justice Lyster heard a mandamus against Minister Lametti, who appointed her months earlier with a request for a court order to compel his compliance with the constitutional duty to respond to the Enforcement Procedure of the Charter, section 24(1) to bring accountability of the Federal Judiciary to Parliament. Reasonable apprehension of bias speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitur.

When judges appointed by a Minister refuse to compel that Minister’s constitutional accountability, when that same judge fails to appear on the day the minister invokes emergency powers, and when every judge refuses to address constitutional violations by the profession that controls their appointments, a reasonable apprehension of bias is not merely present. It is structurally unavoidable.

Void Ab Initio - Invalid From the Beginning

The Blackstonian principle foundational to constitutional law: invalid government actions are void ab initio, invalid from the outset. Not voidable. Not subject to remedy. Void.

When Justice Lyster failed to appear on February 14, 2022, for a constitutionally mandated decision, every government action that day occurred in the absence of a judicial check on ministerial accountability. The Emergencies Act invoked that day, invoked by the Minister whose accountability that hearing would have compelled was void ab initio.

Actions taken under void authority produce void results. The government acting beyond constitutional authority acts without authority. Where there is no authority, there is no law. Where there is no law, there is no legitimacy.

Re Manitoba Language Rights establishes this principle clearly: laws inconsistent with the Constitution are “of no force or effect,” meaning void and inoperative from the beginning. Not from the moment courts declare them void. From the moment they were enacted.

Justice Lyster’s failure to appear meant ministerial accountability was never compelled. The invocation of the Emergencies Act, in that accountability vacuum, was void. Every action taken under that void authority including arrests, prosecutions, bank freezings are void ab initio.

Incapacity to Lawfully Enforce

When the government operates beyond constitutional authority, it loses the capacity for lawful enforcement.

Police cannot lawfully arrest under void authority. Prosecutors cannot lawfully charge. Courts cannot lawfully convict. Not because they choose not to. Because the authority they invoke does not exist.

Every Freedom Convoy prosecution occurred under the Emergencies Act, which was invoked the day Justice Lyster failed to compel ministerial accountability. Void authority produces void prosecutions. The convictions are void. The imprisonment is void. The state violence deployed was unauthorized violence by actors claiming authority they did not possess.

FAILURE OF LEGITIMACY

Legitimacy is not consent. Legitimacy is lawful authority to govern.

A government operating beyond its constitutional limits lacks legitimacy. Not an unpopular government. Not a controversial government. Illegitimate government.

When Justice Lyster heard mandamus to compel Minister Lametti’s constitutional accountability, reasonable apprehension of bias made that proceeding void ab initio. When she failed to appear on February 14, 2022, and Minister Lametti invoked the Emergencies Act the same day, the Act was invoked in a constitutional vacuum where judicial checks on ministerial accountability had been eliminated through judicial absence.

Void proceeding produces a void outcome. Void outcome produces void authority. Void authority produces a void government.

The government you are being asked to fund lacks constitutional authority to enforce the law. Because constitutional principles of reasonable apprehension of bias, void ab initio, and lawful capacity to enforce demonstrate that a government operating in these circumstances cannot possess legitimate authority.

When you vote in confidence, you fund a government operating void of constitutional authority. You fund enforcement actions that are void ab initio. You fund violence deployed by state actors claiming authority that does not exist.

Your vote funds an illegitimate government pretending to be legitimate through force. A de facto government. One that governs through fraud over the people.

CANADA’S BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
A NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS

This is Canada’s international legitimacy collapsing in real time.

Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1976, creating binding international obligations enforceable through UN Human Rights Committee review:

Article 14: “Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

Canada violates this daily. Judges claim discretion to reject official transcripts. Courts protect lawyer fraud. No competent, independent, or impartial tribunal exists when judges protect judges who, in turn, protect lawyers.

Article 2: States must “take steps to give effect to rights guaranteed” and “provide effective remedy.”

Canada systematically refuses. Attorney General refuses Charter enforcement procedures. The Canadian Judicial Council dismisses complaints without investigation. Parliament prorogues rather than provide a remedy. Police threaten to destroy evidence rather than conduct an investigation.

August 7, 2020: I filed a comprehensive application with the United Nations Human Rights Committee documenting the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Every accountability mechanism was tested. Every mechanism failed, violations affecting the fundamental rights of every Canadian.

A matter of national security. When a state cannot protect its constitutional order, systematically violates international treaty commitments, and all three branches coordinate to suppress evidence and punish citizens who report violations, international legitimacy is compromised.

Canada claims to be a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law. International documentation now proves otherwise. Every dollar Parliament votes to this government, every confidence motion supporting Ministers who violate international law, further erodes Canada’s standing in the community of nations.

Your vote doesn’t just fund domestic criminality. Your vote funds a government operating in breach of binding international legal obligations, while the world watches as evidence accumulates in forums beyond Canadian institutional control.

When international legitimacy fails, national security is compromised absolutely. Foreign powers see constitutional chaos. International partners lose trust. Canada’s ability to enforce its borders, treaties, and trade agreements—all of which depend on a global perception that Canada is a legitimate constitutional democracy.

That perception is dying. Your vote accelerates its death or begins its restoration.

“Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt.”
Mahatma Gandhi

When a government operates without constitutional authority, obedience to that government becomes complicity in illegitimacy. Your constitutional duty is to refuse confidence.

YOUR JOB AS MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Canada’s constitutional crisis stems from Parliament’s failure to fulfill its oversight function. When the roles of Attorney General and Minister of Justice are combined, ministers protect judges, who in turn protect ministers which results in perfect institutional capture. When Chief Justice Wagner co-chairs committees with Justice Minister Lametti (May 2020-2024+), the Judiciary coordinates with the Executive, violating the separation of powers. When Parliament defers to courts and AG rather than exercising Section 99 authority, the final check on judicial power disappears.

The result: operational government policy of retribution against citizens who report constitutional violations.

Constitution Act, 1867, Section 99: Judges hold office “during good behaviour” but are removable by the Governor General on Address of the Senate and House of Commons. When a citizen’s Charter rights are violated by judicial misconduct, Parliament is the court of competent jurisdiction under Section 24(1) of the Charter.

You cannot delegate this duty away. The Attorney General is supposed to serve as an institutional bridge, bringing matters requiring parliamentary attention to Parliament. When the Attorney General refuses, your duty does not disappear. Parliament checks the conduct of the Minister of Justice.

Your actual constitutional function is to check the Executive and the Judicial exercise of power. To protect citizens from institutional abuse. Maintain the separation of powers that prevents tyranny.

I served the enforcement procedure of the Charter on the Deputy AG on March 9, 2020, invoking your mandatory constitutional duty under both Charter section 24(1) and Constitution Act section 99. I wrote to every Member of Parliament on September 9, 2024, providing comprehensive evidence that requires parliamentary action under the same constitutional provisions. When Larry Brock filed a contempt motion on December 12, 2024, Members’ collective duty to investigate government criminality was formally engaged.

Silence. Then prorogation. Then continued silence under the new Prime Minister.

You cannot prorogue to avoid it. You cannot claim it’s not your jurisdiction. You cannot hide behind the Canadian Judicial Council or the courts. This is your constitutional function, to maintain the trust that prevents citizens from being compelled to rebellion.

That is your actual constitutional duty. The primary purpose of parliamentary oversight is to prevent the erosion of trust that can lead to violence.

THE “GOOD BEHAVIOR” REQUIREMENT OF THE JUDICIARY

The Judiciary has failed the “good behaviour” standard. When judges ignore transcripts to accept verbal testimony, create arbitrary justice that violates Charter section 7’s fundamental justice, and the Canadian Judicial Council labels complaints as “abusive” instead of investigating, that constitutes a failure of good behaviour. Trust in courts dies.

The Department of Justice’s own discussion paper on the Judges Act admits that “lodging a complaint does not create a legal dispute between the complainant and the judge” and that “the role of a complainant is best limited to that of a witness who provides information”, an explicit acknowledgment that the Canadian Judicial Council process provides no remedy to citizens. When I sought remedy through courts instead, I was assaulted and incarcerated, hardly the “fair and impartial tribunal” guaranteed by Charter section 7’s fundamental justice. Judge Shaw retired following my complaint, eliminating their jurisdiction, leaving me without remedy while the system claims authority to ignore all evidence and deny any problem exists. Manifestly abusive.

Chief Justice Richard Wagner himself warned in May 2022, “In situations where democracy and the rule of law are under threat, judges have a duty to speak out in defence of the constitutional order and the restoration of democracy.”

Yet when citizens document that threat, when the very judges Wagner leads systematically violate fundamental justice, when the CJC he chairs refuses to investigate documented Charter breaches, and when a reasonable apprehension of bias becomes structurally unavoidable. The Judiciary remained silent. The same Wagner who co-chaired the “Action Committee on Court Operations” with Justice Minister Lametti, thereby violating the separation of powers while claiming to defend constitutional independence. Democracy and the rule of law do not die from external threats, but from judicial coordination with the Executive branch that appointed them.

The Federal Court of Appeal in Cosgrove v. Canadian Judicial Council (2007 FCA 103) established the principle:

“Judicial independence does not require that the conduct of judges be immune from scrutiny by the legislative and executive branches of government. On the contrary, an appropriate regime for the review of judicial conduct is essential to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary.”

The court itself admits, judicial accountability is essential to maintain public confidence, not a threat to independence. Yet the CJC operates in complete defiance of this principle. It dismisses complaints without investigation, conducts screening in secret, provides no formal right of review or remedy, and refuses to engage when credible Charter violations are documented.

The Judiciary’s own Federal Court of Appeal demonstrates that it understands accountability is essential for maintaining public confidence. Their conduct proves they refuse to provide it.

The Executive has failed its constitutional duty. Lametti refused to respond to properly served enforcement procedures, made false statements about his duty, and refused to act in the public interest as an institutional bridge to Parliament. Lametti invoked the Emergencies Act knowing Charter protections were suspended. Carney then hired Lametti as Principal Secretary, proving the government rewards obstruction rather than corrects it. Trust in the Executive dies.

The Police have failed their duty to protect Canadians. As documented, on December 4, 2020, the RCMP issued a formal notification with a UN complaint attached, warning that the Canadian Judiciary was violating Charter rights and that fair trials were impossible. This was a national security matter affecting every Canadian’s fundamental rights. Complete evidence provided. Proper procedures followed. Zero response. Later, the RCMP told me they would destroy any further evidence I submitted rather than investigate constitutional violations. When Police threaten to destroy evidence of government criminality rather than investigate it, when they arrest citizens knowing Charter protections are suspended, when they enforce void authority knowing it’s void, that’s not law enforcement. That’s state violence in service of institutional protection. Trust in police protection dies.

The Governor General and Crown failed their constitutional duty. Multiple communications informed the administration that it was not in compliance with the law, requesting enforcement of the Constitution rather than accepting Prime Ministerial advice that itself violates constitutional principles. No response. Trust in the Crown as constitutional guardian dies.

Parliament has failed its duty to protect Canadians. Every Member received evidence in September 2024, and the Standing Committee received a formal investigation request in May 2025. Complete institutional silence before prorogation. Continued silence after. Trust in Parliament as a check on executive power dies.

When trust dies across every institution simultaneously, violence becomes inevitable. The government systematically eliminated every alternative.

Your constitutional duty is to prevent this outcome. That duty supersedes party loyalty. It supersedes fiscal policy. It supersedes political calculation.

When you vote on the budget, you either restore that trust by forcing accountability, or you fund its continued destruction until rebellion becomes the only recourse citizens have left.

THE LAMETTI APPOINTMENT: PROOF OF BAD FAITH

David Lametti refused to respond to Charter enforcement procedure, made false statements about constitutional duties, invoked the Emergencies Act knowing Charter protections were suspended, systematically obstructed constitutional accountability for years was hired by Carney as Principal Secretary on July 10, 2025.

Hiring the architect of constitutional obstruction announces obstruction continues. Hiring the man who violated Charter rights as the person responsible for defending them announces that the violation continues. Hiring the man who systematically refused to fulfill constitutional duties as your most powerful adviser is a refusal that continues.

Clear evidence that the Carney government operates in bad faith.

No one commits to constitutional reform while hiring the chief obstructor to run their office. No one commits to defending Charter rights while hiring their chief violator as gatekeeper. No one commits to restoring trust while hiring the architect of its destruction as their principal secretary.

The Lametti appointment is proof. The government examined systematic constitutional violations, emergency powers invoked while rights were suspended, and coordination with the Judiciary to block accountability, and concluded, this man should run our government.

That tells you everything you need to know about whether confidence can be justified.

“We need leaders not in love with money but in love with justice. Not in love with publicity but in love with humanity.”
Martin Luther King Jr.

This is not about fiscal policy. This is about whether Canadians can trust their government with their money and authority itself. When the government operates in manifest illegality, when Ministers systematically breach public trust, when evidence of Criminal Code violations is documented and ignored, the government is stealing from Canadians. Your confidence vote authorizes that theft. You’re not approving spending priorities, you’re funding criminals who are stealing public money while violating the Constitution that constrains how that money can be used.

Every dollar this government spends while operating outside constitutional constraints is a form of theft. When you vote with confidence, knowing the government refuses to hold itself accountable, you become an accessory to that theft.

If you vote Confidence, you authorize:

• Ongoing obstruction of justice allowing prorogation to eliminate accountability

• Continued breach of trust by public officers with Ministers refusing constitutional duties

• Systematic intimidation of justice system participants of anyone challenging this government

• Active warfare against Canadian citizens, demanding that Charter rights be respected

• Government operating outside the law, rewarding those who obstruct it

• Destruction of the trust required for peaceful governance

You also become:

• Accessories after the fact to documented Criminal Code violations

• Complicit in ongoing criminality your confidence vote funds

• Violators of your oath of office to uphold the Constitution

• Responsible for the violence that becomes inevitable when trust dies

If you vote Non-Confidence, you:

• Uphold your oath of office

• Defend the Rule of Law

• Protect the constitutional principles that those we remember today died defending

• Force this government to answer for documented criminality before receiving public funds

• Begin restoring the trust required to prevent rebellion

Parliamentary privilege does not shield you from being an accessory to Criminal Code violations. Your immunity protects parliamentary speech, not funding documented criminality. Your oath requires you to uphold the Constitution, not fund its systematic violation.

The legal ramifications are clear: When you vote in confidence knowing the government operates in manifest illegality, you become complicit in that illegality. Accessories after the fact. Enablers of ongoing crime. Violators of your constitutional oath.

When you vote in confidence despite formal written notice that government conduct is eroding the trust required for peaceful governance, you make violence inevitable.

You cannot support the Constitution while funding a government that systematically violates it. You cannot respect the Charter while funding Ministers who refuse to enforce it. You cannot honour democratic principles while financing a government that prorogues Parliament to avoid accountability,

You cannot maintain the trust required for peaceful governance while funding its systematic destruction.

That is your constitutional duty. Maintain trust. Prevent the collapse that makes violence inevitable.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had a functional Parliament that could check executive power. We don’t. Parliament prorogued itself to avoid accountability. The new Prime Minister continues the same obstruction while claiming to defend Charter rights. Members of Parliament ignore formal notice of constitutional crisis.

However, in 1789, during the French Revolution, citizens faced a system where all institutions coordinated against them, where legal channels were systematically closed, where good faith was demonstrably absent, and where trust was lost across every institution simultaneously.

That is Canada today.

Every legal channel exhausted, every institution coordinating against citizens, trust dying across every branch simultaneously. When institutional capture is this complete, when the government prorogues Parliament to prevent accountability and then continues identical obstruction under new leadership, when every Member of Parliament ignores formal written notice of a constitutional crisis. What constitutional remedy remains?

None. Every peaceful channel was systematically closed. Trust is destroyed across every institution. Violence becomes inevitable. The government eliminated every alternative.

That is what your vote will either prevent or complete.

THE GOVERNMENT IS INCITING ARMED REBELLION

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble:

“Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”

When the government responds to constitutional complaints with retribution rather than remedy, it creates conditions where citizens have no peaceful recourse.

On December 4, 2020, I reported a national security breach to the RCMP, a judicial violation of Charter rights that rendered fair trials impossible. The response: Institutional silence.

On December 30, 2021, I reported Lametti’s refusal to comply with Charter enforcement to the RCMP National Division.

February 14, 2022: Presented evidence to courts. The response: Incarceration.

Parliament is scheduled to debate judicial misconduct. The response: Prorogation.

That is operational government policy. Retribution for reporting constitutional violations. When every peaceful channel responds with punishment rather than remedy, violence becomes inevitable. The government created that inevitability.

When the government operates in manifest illegality, systematically closes all legal channels for redress, intimidates justice system participants, rewards officials who obstruct constitutional accountability, uses prorogation to prevent parliamentary oversight, Arrests and prosecute political opponents, knowing that Charter protections are suspended, Continues identical conduct under new leadership, claiming to defend Charter rights, ignores formal written notice from citizens invoking constitutional duties, maintains complete institutional silence across every branch of government and destroys trust across every institution simultaneously

It creates conditions where citizens have no peaceful recourse. Rebellion becomes inevitable.

The Freedom Convoy exercised their right to peaceful protest against the government in breach of the law. Police arrested them, knowing the Charter protections were inoperative. Prosecutors charged them knowing the same. Defence lawyers have failed to argue the defence that the Attorney General’s failed to disclose. The constitutional breach in the Charter.

Every Freedom Convoy defendant denied a fair trial by a coordinated system operating in bad faith.

“Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege.”
Tommy Douglas

The Carney government, despite stating that defending Charter rights is the Prime Minister’s responsibility, continues to obstruct, while their Attorney General labels my evidence as “spurious” and hiring David Lametti as the most powerful person in the PMO.

Every Member of Parliament was formally notified on September 9, 2024, that this constitutional crisis existed and required parliamentary action. Everyone chose silence.

A FAILURE OF PEACE, ORDER, AND GOOD GOVERNMENT

The Constitution Act, 1867 establishes Parliament’s authority to make laws for “Peace, Order, and good Government.”

This government provides none:

Not Peace: Waging war against citizens challenging judicial misconduct, intimidating justice system participants, arresting protesters knowing Charter rights suspended, continuing identical conduct under new leadership claiming to defend rights they actively violate. Peace requires trust. This government destroys it.

Not Order: Systematic refusal to comply with constitutional enforcement procedures, prorogation to avoid accountability, coordination across institutions to obstruct Rule of Law, hiring chief obstructors as Principal Secretaries, calling documented evidence “spurious,” complete institutional silence despite formal written notice to all branches of government. Order requires law. This government operates outside it.

Not Good Government: Manifest illegality, demonstrated bad faith, unprecedented ethics conflicts, rewarding obstruction with diplomatic appointments and top PMO positions, complete silence in response to constitutional enforcement procedures. Good government requires trust. This government systematically destroys it.

By definition, this government cannot command the confidence of Parliament.

This government actively destroys the trust required for peaceful governance. Creation of conditions making violence inevitable.

Your constitutional duty is to prevent that outcome. Your vote in seven days determines whether you uphold that duty or complete the destruction this government has begun.

Complete Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

I served the enforcement procedure of the Charter. Notified Police. Wrote to Ministers. Applied to Parliament. Filed complaints with CJC. Went to court. Filed interventions in the Federal Court of Appeal. Submitted to parliamentary committees. Contacted UN. Wrote to the Governor General (October 26, 2021; May 7, 2022; May 22, 2025). Wrote to His Majesty King Charles III prior to the opening of Parliament. I wrote to the new Prime Minister explicitly informing him of his constitutional duty. I wrote to every Member of Parliament on September 9, 2024, with comprehensive evidence that requires parliamentary action.

Every single step: blocked, dismissed, ignored, defamed, incarcerated.

As documented comprehensively above, there is complete institutional silence across every branch of government regarding both documented problems and proposed solutions.

The Trudeau government prorogued Parliament to prevent you from hearing evidence. The Carney government continues to exhibit identical obstruction—zero response to constitutional duties, hiring the chief obstructor as Principal Secretary, labelling my evidence “spurious” in court filings, and maintaining unprecedented ethics conflicts while claiming to defend Charter rights.

This government is not providing peace, order, and good government and is operating in manifest illegality and waging war against citizens demanding that Charter rights be respected; instead, they are intimidating justice system participants and systematically obstructing every constitutional accountability mechanism. Doing so under new leadership that publicly claims to defend the very rights it actively violates. Destroying the trust required for peaceful governance.

By constitutional definition, this government cannot command your confidence.

Your constitutional duty requires you to vote on a motion of no confidence. Not fiscal policy. Maintaining trust that prevents rebellion is your primary constitutional obligation. The government systematically destroys that trust despite formal written notice. Your duty requires you to stop funding that destruction.

The budget vote is not about money. It’s about whether you will uphold the constitutional duty you were elected to perform—preventing the collapse of trust that makes violence inevitable.

Members of Parliament: Vote non-confidence. Restore trust. Prevent rebellion.

This is what you were elected for:

Not to manage budgets. Not to defer to courts. Not to accept Attorney General refusals. To check the Executive and the Judicial power. To protect Canadians from institutional abuse. To maintain the separation of powers that prevents tyranny.

When the roles of Attorney General and Minister of Justice are combined, ministers protect judges, who in turn protect ministers. When the Chief Justice coordinates with the Justice Minister, the separation of powers dies. When Parliament defers to courts rather than exercising Section 99 authority, the final constitutional check disappears.

When all three branches coordinate to suppress evidence and punish citizens who report constitutional violations, you get an operational government policy of retribution instead of remedy.

Your constitutional duty is to restore the separation of powers—exercise Section 99 authority. Stop deferring to institutions that have captured each other. Speak for Canadians. Protect them from abuses of power by the Executive and the Judiciary.

That is what you were elected for. That is what you swore to uphold. That is what those we honour today died defending.

History will record your choice. The violence that follows or doesn’t follow will prove whether you upheld your oath or betrayed it.

I am willing to work with any of you to restore trust in our democratic institutions.
First step: admit we have a constitutional crisis.
Second step: hold this government accountable.
Third step: restore the constitutional mechanisms designed to maintain trust.

Alternatively, the government continues to create conditions that make violent conflict inevitable.

September 9, 2024. Formal written notice to every Member of Parliament. Comprehensive evidence. Constitutional duty explicitly invoked. Silence.

I have provided Parliament with every notification, every refusal, every coordination, and every obstruction. The Mark Carney government’s continued identical conduct, despite publicly claiming to defend Charter rights. The systematic destruction of trust across every institution.

The practice of denial is not in the best interest of Canada or Justice. It only serves to protect politicians, lawyers, and judges who obstruct justice. A failure of the constitutional principle of the Rule of Law.

Vote non-confidence. Restore trust. Prevent rebellion. Your constitutional duty.

Submitted this Remembrance Day, November 11, 2025

If you wish to receive the evidence package or to discuss this issue you can contact me at fundamentaljustice@gmail.com

I am available to assist in any capacity to restore the integrity of Parliament and the Justice system and prevent the violence that becomes inevitable when trust dies.

This needs to be addressed urgently.

“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”
John Diefenbaker, 13th Prime Minister of Canada

Your vote determines whether that heritage will survive or perish.

On this Remembrance Day, we honour the dead who cannot speak, who died to protect these values.

EVIDENCE PACKAGE AVAILABLE ON REQUEST

Prior Communications Establishing Pattern of Institutional Silence:

• Letter to All Members of Parliament (September 9, 2024)

• Letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney (March 26, 2025)

• Letters to Governor General Mary Simon (October 26, 2021; May 7, 2022; May 22, 2025)

• Letter to His Majesty King Charles III of Canada (May 22, 2025)

• Letter to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (May 24, 2025)

Evidence of Systematic Charter Violations:

• UN Human Rights Committee Application (August 7, 2020) - Complete documentation of exhausted domestic remedies, systematic violations of ICCPR Articles 2 & 14, Canada’s breach of binding international treaty obligations

• RCMP Notification of UN Application on December 4, 2020

• UN Human Rights Committee Application of 2025 and subsequent request for structural protections when David Lametti announced as Canada’s Ambassador.

• Federal Court of Appeal Intervener application on the Prorogation which also contains my intervention at the court on the enforcement of the Emergencies Act.