Oct 26, 2021, 5:14 PM to Governor-General of Canada by email from [email protected]
I watched the signing-in ceremony with great interest this year and noted that Minister of Justice David Lametti retains his position within the Executive of Government. This presents a problem in the administration of Justice and presents a problem for the Governor-General when the Government is acting contrary to the Constitution.
I wrote to your office a year ago about the problem of the Canadian Judicial Council claiming judges have the discretion to reject the transcript if they want. Thank you for your return correspondence at that time.
Since that time I have served the Minister of Justice, David Lametti through the Deputy Attorney General’s office with a Charter complaint to bring Parliament to the attention of the matter of the Judiciary claiming a power that is unconstitutional.
The Judiciary is bound by the Charter of Rights to provide fundamental justice, and fair and impartial trials in criminal matters and guaranteed in the bill of rights s 2 e) “the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice….” This is obviously not happening if judges can disregard the best evidence that any Canadian could provide.
Unfortunately, David Lametti has refused to respond to the Charter complaint.
I attended court and presented the Attorney General’s office with a Notice of Constitutional Question in this regard and they refused to respond.
This is an obstruction of Justice at the highest levels.
I made a complaint to the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner, which I attach for your information. Unfortunately, it appears that they have no duty to make their report public and I have heard nothing more since they accepted the complaint.
My understanding is that through the Constitution Act 1867 The Governor General has the following responsibilities, amongst others.
- The Governor-General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon and call together the House of Commons.
- It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor-General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
- Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s Assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to the provisions of this Act and to her Majesty’s Instructions, either that he assets thereto in the Queen’s Name, or that he withholds the Queen’s Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for Signification of the Queen’s Pleasure.
I am suggesting that because the Liberal Party has a minority Government the Governor General should parogue Parliament and compel the Minister of Justice to present the Charter complaint to Parliament. Failing to do so is contrary to the Charter and thus unconstitutional. The Governor General should refuse assent to any law until this matter is resolved. It is in your power to enforce the Constitution.
I quote from Constitutional Law of Canada by Peter Hogg. I am sure there are other perspectives to consider but this is one.
“9.6 The Office of the Governor General’s personal prerogatives
(a) The principle
The Governor General has certain “personal prerogatives” or “reserve powers” which he or she may exercise upon his or her own personal discretion. Whereas in the exercise of governmental powers generally the Governor General must act in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister or cabinet, there are some occasions on which he or she may act without advice, or even contrary to advice.
The definition of those occasions when the Governor General may exercise an independent discretion has caused much constitutional and political debate. But it is submitted that the basic premise of responsible government supplies the answer: so long as the cabinet enjoys the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons, the Governor General is always obliged to follow lawful and constitutional advice which is tendered by the Cabinet.
But there are occasions, as we have seen, when a government continues in office after it has lost the confidence of the House of Commons, or after the House of Commons has been dissolved. There are also occasions, for example, after a very close election, or after a schism in a political party, where for a period it is difficult to determine whether or not the government does enjoy the confidence of a majority in the House of Commons. In all these situations it is submitted that the Governor General has a discretion to refuse to follow advice which is tendered by the ministry in office.
When a government is in office without the support of the House of Commons, there are the makings of a constitutional crisis: not only can the government not secure the passage of any legislation, it cannot even secure parliamentary approval of supply to meet government expenditures. The crisis can be resolved or averted by a new election or by the resignation or dismissal of the Ministry. But the ministry in office which lacks the support of the House of Commons and which stands to lose most by the resolution of the crisis, is not the fittest group to determine the mode of resolution of the crisis. It is true of course that the Governor General has even less of a political base than the ministry in office, but it is for this very reason that the Governor General may reasonably be trusted to set aside partisan considerations and act impartially in the interests of the country as a whole. In this situation the role of Governor General is somewhat akin to that of a judge – another non-elected official to whom we readily entrust large powers in the expectation that they will be exercised impartially.
Dismissal of Prime Minister
the second reserve power of the Governor General is the power to dismiss the Prime Minister. The dismissal of a prime minister automatically involves the dismissal of the entire ministry.”
“When does the power of dismissal arise?…..Could the Governor General dismiss a ministry because he or she believed its policies to be illegal?
I communicate with you with respect for the powers of your office to compel a Government to operate within the rule of law and the constitution. I should not have to have taken this message this far, but I will go further if necessary.
I remain bound to the Charter as a citizen of Canada.
more information is available at www.fundamentaljustice.com
I attached the communications that I had with the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner’s office regarding David Lametti.
The reminder email sent March 7th, 2022
I know that your office has been extremely busy however I sent this email on October 26th, 2021 and your website says to expect a reply within 3 weeks and now it is now 4 months. This is a very very important issue that requires resolution in accordance to the law. Part of this matter is before the courts at this time and causing a general collapse of law and order. Leadership at the highest level is required at this time. I hope that the Prime Minister has disclosed these events to her Majesty the Queen in his recent visit. If he has not I would expect that it would be relevant for your office to inform the Queen of these events and ensure that your office is in agreement with her office in accordance with the law. To complete the communication it would be important that I am informed of the communications. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Are we able to start a class action suit to stop the deleting of Canadian history at library and archive Canada. Trudeau has ordered this and it must be stopped. These archives belong to the people of Canada not the politicians
I hear you. pretty sure it wouldnt have to be a class action since there is no individual “class” or group of people affected, just the entire country of Canada. But call them up and find out what the library suggests, maybe they are backing it up first. I’m sure they dont want to do it either, but they are getting paid. Otherwise some kind of court action to put an injunction on it.