I Have an Idea...

Why does it not surprise me that Planet Hamilton MP Toni Valeri, insists that the Conservative motion to hold a confidence vote by May 18 even though it was approved by the House of Commons yesterday is "simply a procedural matter that has no binding effect on the government" because "there is no non-confidence motion".

Sections 48 and in particular 49 of the Constitution Act, 1867 allows the speaker to have a vote if the Majority of Voices other than the speakers are equal on a question arising in the House of Commons. The Speaker endorsed the Conservative motion, which calls on the government to resign yet Mr. Valeri lets us know "this is merely an instruction to a committee." Instruction to a committee? It's the bloody Parliament of Canada! Leave it to a Hamiltonian to disobey his own Constitution, the 'supreme law of Canada'.

There is enough evidence from the sponsorship commission to show that s. 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is in contempt. If anyone has read Part IV of the Criminal Code of Canada, they may have noticed s. 126 Disobeying a Statute/ Attorney General of Canada may act.

126 (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by willfully doing anything that it forbids or by willfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government. R.S., c. C-34, s. 115; 1974-75-76, c. 93, s. 4

Annotations from page 242 of Martin's Criminal Code, 2003 that "an accused's mistaken belief [concerning subsection (1)] as to his legal obligations as imposed by the Act of Parliament does not constitute a lawful excuse within the meaning of this subsection. R. v. Parrot [1919], 51 C.C.C. (2d) 539, 27 O.R. (2d) 333 (C.A.), leave to appeal S.C.C refused loc. cit. C.C.C"

Annotations for subsection (2) "is intra vires (within the powers) Parliament: R. v. Parrot, supra. [Also see notes under definition of "Attorney General" in s. 2]"

So this is my idea. Since the Constitution Acts 1867-1982 are Acts of Parliament, in particular they are Acts of federal parliament, it seems to me that s. 54 of the Constitution Act was in breach - "disobeyed" because the Liberal Party did not lawfully pass through the House of Commons a bill, vote, resolution or address Parliament for the appropriation of public revenue to use for its sponsorship purposes.

My suggestion is to take a copy of the ss. 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, a downloaded copy of Part IV of the Criminal Code of Canada and if possible, a copy of ss. 2, 118 and 126 of Martin's Criminal Code or some other commentary on the C.C.C and bring it to your local justice of the peace and ask to lay charges against the Liberal Party.

If they look at you with that 'deer in the headlights look', remind them that the Constitution is the 'supreme law of Canada' and it says so under Part VII s. 52 (1) and that an information can be laid under Part IV of the C.C.C without material evidence. Although material evidence can also be a statute, commissioned report or publication of the government for example.

I am curious to know what the response will be...