Connie Brauer and Victor Harris
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Canada
Phone and Fax: 902.798.5267
To fax, call first or let ring to set up.
Email: cbrauer@lincsat.com
July 11, 2007
Why are we paying child
support for an adult male, indefinitely
Dear Prime Minister Stephen Harper and family,
We have been paying child support for our nearly, twenty-one year old son, for 20+ years now. He is able bodied and mentally fit so why are we still paying child support to his mother, Paulette Harris of Halifax
We have been before 10 judges to terminate child support for an over the age of majority son, who should have been terminated from support at 19. At 17 , William Harris was working and living on his own in his own apartment, but we were still ordered to pay adult support. He quit school at 15 and refused to go back. He works only when he wants to.
Now he is not working and we are still ordered to pay support to his mother. Neither he nor his mother have ever showed any appreciation or respect despite having supported the whole family in the amount of one million dollars since the marriage and most of it on a meager pension income.
During the marriage, the father, Victor Harris was the sole provider. After divorce, Victor Harris was ordered to pay exorbitant child support payments for three children whom he was seldom allowed to see. A non custodial parent in Canada is stripped of all human and parental rights as soon as a judge declares him a non custodial parent. All benefits go to the custodial parent.
Over the years we have paid for our children’s trips around the world, extended holidays in foreign countries, three apartments for three adults long after they stopped attending schools, one university education, one year living abroad, one 15 year old drop out who quit school and refused to work and two young adults who enrolled in the most expensive boarding school in Canada and then didn’t bother attending it, all by court order of the judges. We have had no rights or freedoms and no parental influence in any of these decisions. They were all decided by many, many judges. Judges have completely interfered in all parental decisions for the last 12 years of our lives.
We finally arrived at the time when the youngest man, who had dropped out of school, was over the age of majority and should finally have child support terminated.
But it wasn’t to be.
A single judge declared that he was mentally retarded, without any mental assessment from a mental health specialist. Instead he relied on the false allegations and testimony of the mother, Paulette Harris who has been using the mental illness excuse to gain all control and financial benefit for herself.
Ten judges later,
we are still paying $3,600 per year in child
support for an undiagnosed
and fraudulent mental illness.
Eight judges have never laid eyes on William Harris, our mentally capable son.
They all followed the same court orders as the previous judges.
Two judges denied our application for an independent psychological assessment, under Civil Procedure Rules 22.01.
(1) Where the physical or mental condition of a party is in issue, the court may, at any time on the application of an opposing party or on its own motion, order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a qualified medical practitioner.
Three appeals court judges, found the judge made no error by declaring a grown man mentally incompetent without seeing him and without a mental assessment of any kind proving mental illness. Since when can judges practice psychology from the bench
One judge ordered the mother to pay child support to the young adult, in the amount of $3,600 but made no provisions for her to do so. She makes far more money than we do.
The only one who is actually paying child support is the father.
One Federal court Prothonotary determined that this matter was not a constitutional matter and sent us back to the Supreme Court where we get no positive results and no justice.
Four judges ordered us to pay costs for seeking justice. It is our constitutional right to terminate child support when the child is a man, however, if we go back to court we are ordered to pay costs to the mother. The only way to terminate child support is to go back to court. We were ordered to pay costs four times. Too high a price for no justice.
One judge dismissed our lawsuit against Paulette Harris, for medical fraud and child support fraud entirely. What else is this but medical fraud and a child support scam
Two judges dismissed the testimony of William’s doctor, stating that he didn’t know anything about any mental disabilities.
Seven times we subpoenaed our son William to appear in court and he failed to appear.
At no time was he ever arrested or ordered to appear. At no time was he ever ordered to get a job or even get treatment for this alleged mental incompetence. He is an adult.
He is on a never ending holiday at our expense. To date we have been forced to pay in excess of $21,000 for a man who won’t get out of bed until mid afternoon to look for employment.
The Canadian Judicial Counsel found absolutely nothing wrong with multiple judges denying us our constitutional rights. Judges practicing psychology from the bench, without a license and without a patient was no cause for concern.
Each judge violated our parental rights and our Charter Rights but there is no way out of this child support scam. It is endorsed by the judges for the benefit of the mother, Paulette Harris. It does nothing but harm and destruction to William Harris.
We are the only ones who want our son to be financially independent. William, his mother Paulette Harris and the judicial industry are quite content to have us pay child support forever!
Prime Minister, what are you doing about it How can this happen in Canada What have you done to repair the judicial injustice What would you do if this happened to your family?
We demand an immediate and full investigation into this matter.
We demand an end to torture and terrorism and judicial abuse.
We demand our full constitutional rights.
We demand financial compensation.
We demand child support terminated, retroactively to age 19.
Slaves of the child support scam industry,
Connie Brauer and Victor Harris
Parents with no constitutional rights in Canada
P.S.
We just received our court order in the mail. Over one month later.
Attached copy of court order.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Warning! Nova Scotia is not Safe for Families!
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
Dear Editor,
"What part of we want a public inquiry into the
Finck/VandenElsen case do you not understand, AG Murray
Scott?"
Why are you continuing the evil, cover up of
corruption in Nova Scotia? It is your job to see that
justice is done for the people. So do it! Nothing has changed.
This case is not going away. There are too many unresolved
issues and you along with the previous AG, Michael Baker
have left Nova Scotia wide open for the continued corruption
against families. Every single family in Nova Scotia is at
risk.
Michael Baker is more concerned with his now exposed,
non payment of license and fees for a vacation property than
he was with the unconstitutional, full force police attack and
apprehension of a newborn baby girl in May/04.
Now we have news that the Halifax Regional Police did
nothing wrong in the armed and dangerous, EMT, midnight
battering ram attack of a
family to forcefully remove their newborn child, resulting
in a three day standoff. This resulted in a dead grandmother,
tasered and arrested parents and the permanent apprehension,
(theft) of their child.
Let's go back to the beginning shall we?
These are points that the public may not know and why we
MUST have a public inquiry.
First of all, Dr. Dawn Edger violated her patient's privacy
privileges when she informed the Halifax Children's Aid,
that she was treating Ms. VandenElsen during her pregnancy
and that she was concerned for the coming baby. She based this
opinion solely on the hearsay news that Carline was being
charged with kidnapping her three children from a previous
marriage. She obviously ignored the part that Carline felt
she had to take them out of necessity as the judge in that
case was denying her parental rights and constitutional
rights regarding her raising her triplets. All charges were
later stayed.
The Halifax Children's Aid Society immediately went on the
attack and applied for and received an apprehension order
from the Supreme Court Judge, Debra Smith.
No evidence of criminal behaviour or neglect of any kind
were brought into evidence. There was none. Not one of the
Family and Children's Services apprehension conditions applied.
So why did Debra Smith issue an apprehension order that
violated the family's constitutional and parental rights?
How does this happen in Nova Scotia? Since when do judges
make their own rules?
The mandate of the Children's Aid is to keep families together. They did no
investigation, no in house visit and no consultation with
the family. They just stole their child.
Why did the IWK not issue a birth certificate stating
Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck were the natural
parents? What is their role in this? Since when can a children's
hospital fail to file legal and statistical information about newborns?
It's their job.
Why has the Dept. of Community Services not investigated the
Halifax Children's Aid Society? It's their job.
How is it possible that a charity organization can hold so
much power over individual people? Who gave them this power?
Who are they? They evolved as an offshoot of the Social Prevention
of Cruelty to Animal. The SPCA.
How can they flaunt all parents' rights and constitutional
rights without any criminal charges laid against them?
Why are taxpayers footing the bill to the tune of over
$600,000 per year for the Halifax Children's Aid legal
bills alone?
Why has the Halifax police failed to follow up on any of our
complaints into the mistreatment of this family? What about
all the other families destroyed by this unconstitutional
and corrupt apprehension and adoption industry? It is
supposed to be monitored by the Minister of Community
Services, who used to be David Morse. It was his job. He did squat!
Why hasn't Community Services Minister Judy Streatch called for an
investigation? It's her job.
Why is the adoption industry such a closed and secret
society? Why can't people apply for the adoption of any
child they want like we wanted to? We applied for custody and
adoption of Mona-Clare. Why is it the Children's Aid who
decides who can adopt whom? Why can the Children's Aid
Society ( society means charity) use public funding to
prevent all contact with them other than their high priced
lawyers like Elizabeth Whelton of Blois, Nickerson and
Bryson? Do all adoptive parents know they may be adopting a
non consensual parent's child? A child who was most
likely stolen from his/her own parents? Where is
Mona-Clare? What happened to her? How many people got paid
when she was stolen? I'll tell you. 28 different groups of people got paid.
Why did Justice Ferguson refuse to give us custody of this
child but left her in the care of the Halifax Children's
Aid Society who destroyed her at birth? She was in clear and
present danger as soon as the CAS preyed upon her. She has
still not been returned to her rightful parents. Profits became more
important than a baby.
Why hasn't the Human Rights Commission investigated as per
our insistence? Why are they completely impotent to
investigate this?
Why hasn't the Ombudsman investigated? Why is he completely
impotent?
I'll tell you why. They are not allowed to investigate the
executive counsel of Nova Scotia, so what good are they?
Why is there no funding for qualified and expert legal
counsel to bring suit against the government of Nova Scotia
for failing to uphold fundamental freedoms and the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms? How long can this go on?
Why has neither Rodney McDonald or the previous Premier of NS, John Hamm,
been held to account for allowing this on their watch? It's their job.
Why haven't 52 of Nova Scotia's MLA' s insisted on justice being done?
It's their job.
Why has no one except the victims been arrested?
Why is Chief Beazley getting a new contract for another term when he swept the
whole issue under the rug? It's his job to protect the people of Halifax.
It's his job. Who protected this family?
Why do we have a government that is systematically covering up
the crime and corruption of the violation of most basic human rights that
are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
How do I know all this? I went to the trial and I read all
the court documents. I have been a civil rights activist for
this family and other families for a long time.
I personally know the family. I applied for the care and custody of Mona-Clare.
I wanted to adopt her and raise her in our loving family.
I was denied.
Bring on the Public Inquiry! Bring home Mona-Clare now!
Live Free,
Connie Brauer
Family Rights Activist
Live Free,
Connie Brauer
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Canada
Phone and Fax: 902.798.5267 (Office hours 9-8 AT)
Email: cbrauer@lincsat.com
Yahoo IM= libertyprofits
MSN IM= Connie Brauer
Skype Me = connieandvic
www.skype.com
=============================================
Sign the Petition for Canadian Family Law Reform
Stop Judicial Abuse in Canada's Family Law Courts Now!
http://www.gopetition.com/online/13444.html
Your children's future is at stake.
===============================================
Friday, July 20, 2007
Letter to PM Stephen Harper
Media Release- For Immediate Release Open Letter to Prime Minister Harper and Family
Connie Brauer and Victor Harris
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Canada
Phone and Fax: 902.798.5267
To fax, call first or let ring to set up.
Email: cbrauer@lincsat.com
Vic Harris and Connie Brauer
You tube message to PM Harper
http://stopchildsupportscams.blogspot.com/
Family Law Reform Petition: http://www.gopetition.com/online/13444.html
July 11, 2007
Why are we paying child
support for an adult male, indefinitely?
Dear Prime Minister Stephen Harper and family,
We have been paying child support for our nearly, twenty-one year old son, for 20+ years now. He is able bodied and mentally fit so why are we still paying child support to his mother, Paulette Harris of Halifax?
We have been before 10 judges to terminate child support for an over the age of majority son, who should have been terminated from support at 19. At 17 , William Harris was working and living on his own in his own apartment, but we were still ordered to pay adult support. He quit school at 15 and refused to go back. He works only when he wants to.
Now he is not working and we are still ordered to pay support to his mother. Neither he nor his mother have ever showed any appreciation or respect despite having supported the whole family in the amount of one million dollars since the marriage and most of it on a meager pension income.
During the marriage, the father, Victor Harris was the sole provider. After divorce, Victor Harris was ordered to pay exorbitant child support payments for three children whom he was seldom allowed to see. A non custodial parent in Canada is stripped of all human and parental rights as soon as a judge declares him a non custodial parent. All benefits go to the custodial parent.
Over the years we have paid for our children’s trips around the world, extended holidays in foreign countries, three apartments for three adults long after they stopped attending schools, one university education, one year living abroad, one 15 year old drop out who quit school and refused to work and two young adults who enrolled in the most expensive boarding school in Canada and then didn’t bother attending it, all by court order of the judges. We have had no rights or freedoms and no parental influence in any of these decisions. They were all decided by many, many judges. Judges have completely interfered in all parental decisions for the last 12 years of our lives.
We finally arrived at the time when the youngest man, who had dropped out of school, was over the age of majority and should finally have child support terminated.
But it wasn’t to be.
● A single judge declared that he was mentally retarded, without any mental assessment from a mental health specialist. Instead he relied on the false allegations and testimony of the mother, Paulette Harris who has been using the mental illness excuse to gain all control and financial benefit for herself.
●Ten judges later,
we are still paying $3,600 per year in child
support for an undiagnosed
and fraudulent mental illness.
● Eight judges have never laid eyes on William Harris, our mentally capable son.
● They all followed the same court orders as the previous judges.
● Two judges denied our application for an independent psychological assessment, under Civil Procedure Rules 22.01.
● (1) Where the physical or mental condition of a party is in issue, the court may, at any time on the application of an opposing party or on its own motion, order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a qualified medical practitioner.
● Three appeals court judges, found the judge made no error by declaring a grown man mentally incompetent without seeing him and without a mental assessment of any kind proving mental illness. Since when can judges practice psychology from the bench?
● One judge ordered the mother to pay child support to the young adult, in the amount of $3,600 but made no provisions for her to do so. She makes far more money than we do.
● The only one who is actually paying child support is the father.
● One Federal court Prothonotary determined that this matter was not a constitutional matter and sent us back to the Supreme Court where we get no positive results and no justice.
● Four judges ordered us to pay costs for seeking justice. It is our constitutional right to terminate child support when the child is a man, however, if we go back to court we are ordered to pay costs to the mother. The only way to terminate child support is to go back to court. We were ordered to pay costs four times. Too high a price for no justice.
● One judge dismissed our lawsuit against Paulette Harris, for medical fraud and child support fraud entirely. What else is this but medical fraud and a child support scam?
● Two judges dismissed the testimony of William’s doctor, stating that he didn’t know anything about any mental disabilities.
● Seven times we subpoenaed our son William to appear in court and he failed to appear.
● At no time was he ever arrested or ordered to appear. At no time was he ever ordered to get a job or even get treatment for this alleged mental incompetence. He is an adult.
● He is on a never ending holiday at our expense. To date we have been forced to pay in excess of $21,000 for a man who won’t get out of bed until mid afternoon to look for employment.
●The Canadian Judicial Counsel found absolutely nothing wrong with multiple judges denying us our constitutional rights. Judges practicing psychology from the bench, without a license and without a patient was no cause for concern.
●Each judge violated our parental rights and our Charter Rights but there is no way out of this child support scam. It is endorsed by the judges for the benefit of the mother, Paulette Harris. It does nothing but harm and destruction to William Harris.
●We are the only ones who want our son to be financially independent. William, his mother Paulette Harris and the judicial industry are quite content to have us pay child support forever!
Prime Minister, what are you doing about it? How can this happen in Canada? What have you done to repair the judicial injustice? What would you do if this happened to your family?
We demand an immediate and full investigation into this matter.
We demand an end to torture and terrorism and judicial abuse.
We demand our full constitutional rights.
We demand financial compensation.
We demand child support terminated, retroactively to age 19.
Slaves of the child support scam industry,
Connie Brauer and Victor Harris
Parents with no constitutional rights in Canada
Sign Petition for Family Law Reform
http://www.gopetition.com/online/13444.html
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Nine Judges in a row order child support for 20 year old son
No Jusice in Canada!
It has now been nine judges who have ordered the continued child support of our 20 year old son.
The reason stated is that the son is "mentally disabled and unable to sustain the necessities of life"
However, no mental assessment is required, no doctor's report, no job search is ordered.
It is all hearsay. Hearsay rules in Canada. Unsubstantiated hearsay is what judges make their civil decisions by. Nothing has to be true or accurate.
We are the parents and we know that there is nothing wrong with our son, except he is extremely lazy and really doesn't want to work.
Justice is a myth in Canada.
Our judicial system is completely corrupt and barbaric.
Does anyone else have this problem?
It has now been nine judges who have ordered the continued child support of our 20 year old son.
The reason stated is that the son is "mentally disabled and unable to sustain the necessities of life"
However, no mental assessment is required, no doctor's report, no job search is ordered.
It is all hearsay. Hearsay rules in Canada. Unsubstantiated hearsay is what judges make their civil decisions by. Nothing has to be true or accurate.
We are the parents and we know that there is nothing wrong with our son, except he is extremely lazy and really doesn't want to work.
Justice is a myth in Canada.
Our judicial system is completely corrupt and barbaric.
Does anyone else have this problem?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Child Support Scam Video
Why Are these parents paying child support for
20 year old man, not to him, but his mother???
Because 6 judges ordered it so and the mother and son
are collaberating in a bizarre child support scam.
Watch the video, now.
Judges Implement Never Ending Child Support Scam
20 Year Old, Capable Man, William Harris, stays in bed all day and his mother, Paulette Harris -Teacher, collects $4,000 per year in child support from Dad (tax free) and has done so for the last 6 years.
● Mother /teacher allows Will to stay home, in bed all day.
● He gets up mid afternoon.
● He doesn’t work or look for work.
● He doesn’t go to school.
● He doesn’t do chores.
● He does only what he wants.
● Judges continue to order child support from pensioner, Dad and teacher-Mom.
● Dad’s, (Victor Harris) payment goes to mom, mom’s payment goes to mom. Tax Free!
● Dad can’t get William Harris up and out working by long distance.
● Mother sabotages every attempt to get Will off child support.
● His own Doctor testifies there are no mental disabilities.
● Mother claims Will is mentally disabled- Provides no proof! No medical intervention.
● Will has above average intelligence.
● Will has no physical handicaps.
● Will has been allowed to do whatever he wants since he was 14.
● Mom/Teacher allows kid to drop out of school at 14 and do absolutely nothing.
● Will lies to Dad about taking classes, going to work and job hunting.
● Will fails to respond to any attempt to get him working full time.
● Dad as gone before 6 judges to terminate child support of adult!
● Mother continues to give hearsay testimony of mental illness. We don’t want to pay child support for an able bodied man for the rest of our lives.
● Mother wants to collect child support forever.
● We need your help!
● We are launching a Legal Defence Fund to terminate child support for an able bodied and mentally fit adult, who refuses to look for employment.
● Pensioner Dad has paid $24,000 to date, by court order, for man to do nothing,!!!
● Would you allow your children to do this?
“Help Get 20 Year Old William Harris Off Child Support”
Donate to: Brauer and Harris
1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth,
NS B0P 1L0
Phone 902.798.5267
Paypal Donations = cbrauer@lincsat.com
HELP STOP CHILD SUPPORT EXTORTION SCAM!
Sunday, March 04, 2007
VandenElsen sent back to prison; McDonald's restaurant killer gets passes
Hi All:
Here is an article that Rick Howe wrote in the Daily News:
|
One Care: free Trial Version Today!
Board denies VandenElsen parole again
10:20 AM 2/28/2007
Board denies VandenElsen parole again
Woman convicted in standoff improving but still deemed a risk
By MARY ELLEN MacINTYRE Truro Bureau
TRURO — Carline VandenElsen has done so well in prison she’s on early release at a Halifax halfway house but she hasn’t done well enough to get full parole.
"The risk is not manageable — application denied," Pat O’Brien of the National Parole Board said during a hearing at Nova Institution for Women on Tuesday.
Ms. VandenElsen has been a prisoner at the institution since her conviction in June 2005 on charges from a highly publicized three-day standoff with Halifax police in 2004.
The standoff began when police officers attempted to carry out a child apprehension order for her five-month-old daughter. Ms. VandenElsen’s husband, Larry Finck, was also sentenced to prison for his part in what has been called a bizarre and tragic situation.
After holding police at bay for three days, the couple left the home carrying Mr. Finck’s dead mother on an improvised stretcher, a shotgun and the baby.
Ms. VandenElsen was convicted of careless use of a shotgun, using a shotgun while committing an indictable offence and threatening to use a shotgun in committing an assault on police.
They were both convicted of abducting the baby in contravention of a child custody order, obstructing a police officer, possessing an unregistered shotgun and possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace.
Mr. Finck is being held at the Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B., and is scheduled for release in March.
Ms. VandenElsen struggled to hold back tears when she heard the news Tuesday morning.
Corrections staff had recommended the 43-year-old gain full parole.
"She never picked up one charge here and never gave us any indication she was a risk," said her caseworker, Rod MacDonald.
"But she does have a difficult time trusting authority figures."
The caseworker said Ms. VandenElsen seemed to have a lot of sympathetic supporters and she planned to eventually live in the Annapolis Valley with a couple who have taken up her cause.
For the past month, she has been on what’s called a 60-day unescorted temporary absence, living at a halfway house in Halifax and volunteering at local churches. When she walked into the institution Tuesday morning, inmates hollered out to her, offering her good luck on her application.
Ms. VandenElsen was composed, well-spoken and agreeable during the hearing.
However, when a member of the board asked what she would do differently if she could go back to the time of the standoff, Ms. VandenElsen was unable to single out any one thing.
"It was the most harrowing, horrifying and traumatic experience in my life," she said of the event.
"Had I known this would transpire, I wouldn’t have had a baby," she said.
Mr. O’Brien told Ms. VandenElsen she is one of a kind.
"I’ve never seen a standoff with such drama — you’re unique," he said.
"I know what happens to children in foster care — I didn’t want a child of mine in foster care," she responded.
"I had a baby. I wanted to keep it and it was just a miserable, tragic situation all around," she said.
Asked what she wanted to do in the future, Ms. VandenElsen said she wanted to get on with her life.
"Just collect all these little bits and pieces of my life — I would like to reunite with my family — it’s a very primal feeling."
In delivering the board’s decision, Mr. O’Brien said members were not convinced Ms. VandenElsen understands what she did wrong.
"We never got the sense that at a fundamental level you think you ever did anything wrong."
( mmacintyre@herald.ca)
Board denies VandenElsen parole again
Woman convicted in standoff improving but still deemed a risk
By MARY ELLEN MacINTYRE Truro Bureau
TRURO — Carline VandenElsen has done so well in prison she’s on early release at a Halifax halfway house but she hasn’t done well enough to get full parole.
"The risk is not manageable — application denied," Pat O’Brien of the National Parole Board said during a hearing at Nova Institution for Women on Tuesday.
Ms. VandenElsen has been a prisoner at the institution since her conviction in June 2005 on charges from a highly publicized three-day standoff with Halifax police in 2004.
The standoff began when police officers attempted to carry out a child apprehension order for her five-month-old daughter. Ms. VandenElsen’s husband, Larry Finck, was also sentenced to prison for his part in what has been called a bizarre and tragic situation.
After holding police at bay for three days, the couple left the home carrying Mr. Finck’s dead mother on an improvised stretcher, a shotgun and the baby.
Ms. VandenElsen was convicted of careless use of a shotgun, using a shotgun while committing an indictable offence and threatening to use a shotgun in committing an assault on police.
They were both convicted of abducting the baby in contravention of a child custody order, obstructing a police officer, possessing an unregistered shotgun and possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace.
Mr. Finck is being held at the Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B., and is scheduled for release in March.
Ms. VandenElsen struggled to hold back tears when she heard the news Tuesday morning.
Corrections staff had recommended the 43-year-old gain full parole.
"She never picked up one charge here and never gave us any indication she was a risk," said her caseworker, Rod MacDonald.
"But she does have a difficult time trusting authority figures."
The caseworker said Ms. VandenElsen seemed to have a lot of sympathetic supporters and she planned to eventually live in the Annapolis Valley with a couple who have taken up her cause.
For the past month, she has been on what’s called a 60-day unescorted temporary absence, living at a halfway house in Halifax and volunteering at local churches. When she walked into the institution Tuesday morning, inmates hollered out to her, offering her good luck on her application.
Ms. VandenElsen was composed, well-spoken and agreeable during the hearing.
However, when a member of the board asked what she would do differently if she could go back to the time of the standoff, Ms. VandenElsen was unable to single out any one thing.
"It was the most harrowing, horrifying and traumatic experience in my life," she said of the event.
"Had I known this would transpire, I wouldn’t have had a baby," she said.
Mr. O’Brien told Ms. VandenElsen she is one of a kind.
"I’ve never seen a standoff with such drama — you’re unique," he said.
"I know what happens to children in foster care — I didn’t want a child of mine in foster care," she responded.
"I had a baby. I wanted to keep it and it was just a miserable, tragic situation all around," she said.
Asked what she wanted to do in the future, Ms. VandenElsen said she wanted to get on with her life.
"Just collect all these little bits and pieces of my life — I would like to reunite with my family — it’s a very primal feeling."
In delivering the board’s decision, Mr. O’Brien said members were not convinced Ms. VandenElsen understands what she did wrong.
"We never got the sense that at a fundamental level you think you ever did anything wrong."
( mmacintyre@herald.ca)
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Stop the Rigged Elections in the Liberal Party
Dear Editor,
Stephane Dion's campaign to take "extraordinary measures" to boost the ranks of
women candidates in the next election, including barring men from seeking
nominations in some ridings is unconstitutional and barbaric!
Doesn't anyone read the The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Section 28 guarantees equal rights to both men and women. In order to make
a particular section of the Charter, exempt it has to be passed by Parliament or a legislature.
However, a law that limits Charter Rights under the notwithstanding clause
expires after five years. This clause is used very rarely.
How can he even think that running women only elections campaigns is OK?
Section 3 of the Charter guarantees all citizens the right to run for office.
How many more of our Charter Rights do we have to lose in this country?
Already, they are being violated by all governents, every day!
People, don't accept government intrusion into your lives.
We deserve freedom and liberty and it is guaranteed in
our Charter of Rights.
Kick Dion out now! The only election is a fair election.
I have 1000 Charter books and will share them with anyone who wants one.
Just call 902.798.5267
Live Free!
Sincerely,
Connie Brauer
Connie Brauer
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Larry Finck denied parole for second time in '06.
Finck denied parole for second time in ’06
By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter
http://herald.ca/Search/546650.html
Larry Finck has been denied parole again.
The National Parole Board held a hearing Monday at Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B., for Mr. Finck, the father at the centre of a 2004 police standoff in Halifax over his infant daughter.
The parole board found Mr. Finck unfit to release on either day or full parole, but the reasons for the decision weren’t available Monday. A written report is expected to be released today.
Monday’s hearing was scheduled after Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Charles Haliburton ordered that it be held in response to a court application by Mr. Finck.
The National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada applied on Dec. 5 for a stay of proceedings to postpone the judge-ordered parole hearing until their appeal could be heard.
Justice Thomas Cromwell of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the application at a Dec. 7 hearing at the Halifax Law Courts. He said the applicants didn’t file notice in time and arrangements weren’t made to bring Mr. Finck from northern New Brunswick for the hearing. Also, Justice Cromwell wrote, even if "the judge may have erred in making the order he did," the applicants would suffer no irreparable harm if the hearing went ahead as scheduled.
This is the second time this year that Mr. Finck, serving a 4½-year sentence for his role in a 67-hour standoff and another four months for assaulting a fellow patient at a Dartmouth hospital, was denied parole.
In March, The Chronicle Herald reported that he was refused because he didn’t "acknowledge his crimes, did not have an acceptable release plan, did not take psychiatric counselling and refused to take courses that would improve his conflict resolution skills."
The May 2004 standoff began when police came to his mother’s Shirley Street house with a court order to remove his baby daughter from the house. The longest standoff in Halifax history ended when Mr. Finck and his wife, Carline VandenElsen, with their daughter strapped to her chest, walked out of the house carrying his dead mother on a stretcher. Mona Finck had died of natural causes. The baby was immediately seized by authorities.
Ms. VandenElsen, who is serving a 3½-year sentence at the Nova Institution for Women in Truro, was also denied parole earlier this year.
Friday, June 16, 2006
NO JUSTICE- NO VOTES!
MEDIA RELEASE, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NO JUSTICE=NO VOTES!
World Ambassadors for Parents’ Civil Rights
Canadian Civil Rights Association
1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0 Canada
http://www.stopthetorture.info
Call Now. 902.798.5267
or email us at cbrauer@lincsat.com
Mona-Clare Finck/VandenElsen, 5 mo old, breast feeding
infant seized by armed force from her anguished parents.
Campaign For Justice!
Falmouth, NS. May 25, 2006. Husband and wife team, Connie Brauer and Vic Harris, civil rights activists for justice for families, are launching a campaign for justice just in time for the NS Election candidates. Will they stand up for truth and justice or won’t they? Are there any honest people left in Canada? No Justice = No Votes, has launched today.
May 21, 2006 was the two year anniversary of the worst case of Charter violations and persecution in NS history, for a Nova Scotia family, by the Nova Scotia Government.
2 years ago, The Halifax Children’s Aid, with the assistance of the riot gear, machine gun toting police, abducted a nursing infant baby girl from her parents, at gun point, in what was known as the Halifax Standoff. The approval for this monstrous act of inhumanity came from the Supreme Court of NS. No proof of criminal negligence was ever presented to the judge, Debra Smith. She approved the apprehension application, anyway. Why? How is it possible that the very court that is mandated to uphold The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the ultimate law of the land, can steadfastly violate those very Charter Rights and issue an apprehension order, without any criminal evidence or charges of any kind? How can this happen?
To date, no one has been arrested for this criminal atrocity, except the parents who did everything they could to protect their baby from abduction. This family did what any normal family would do under the circumstances. They refused to give up their baby! They defended themselves. What happened to the right to defend your family in clear and present danger? Someone fired a warning shot into the air. For that the parents were arrested and incarcerated for 4 years.. The Gestapo stole Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck’s baby and they get arrested! How is that possible? The government of NS took their child, their home, lost their grandmother to an early death during the standoff, incarcerated them, refused bail, refused parole, denied their appeal to get their baby back and still claims unaccountability! What Charter Rights?
No public inquiry, no police inquiry and no Halifax Children’s Aid investigation has been done. The CAS have unlimited and unreasonable powers to invade a private home and seize children. No evidence required. CAS is a registered CHARITY and government AGENCY. How can a charity and a government funded agency have so much power? No birth certificate was ever prepared by the IWK. Why? Folks, these people are funded by our tax dollars! Are we going to allow this? We demand full disclosure now! We want justice!
Brauer and Harris have created a list of 100 reasons for a public inquiry. The politicians are covering this up. Paid by our tax dollars. Why? The Charter violations are too numerous to ignore. How? No Charter Rights here! The arrogance and indifference of the past and present government officials is astounding! The ex NS Premier, John Hamm and the new Premier, Rodney MacDonald have refused to investigate. Why? People need to die in NS. before a public inquiry is called. Where is the new Justice Minister, Murray Scott? Continuing the cover up, that’s where. Why? We asked them. No positive response. No public inquiry. Why? 52 NS MLA’s who are now seeking your votes, people, have not demanded a public inquiry. Why? No one has resigned. Why? Not one person has been charged for the forceful abduction and horrendous child abuse of this innocent little baby. Why? What hell is she living through now? Where is she? Where? The Halifax CAS has completely destroyed this family and this baby girl. She will never know her parents, her grandmother, her siblings and other relatives. She is traumatized for life. She is facing endless years of therapy. How can we keep such an agency open? Why isn’t this agency shut down?
We demand a full public inquiry into not only this government child abduction and the court process which allowed this to happen, but all the children who were abducted from their parents in NS. Every last one of them and there are many.
The Minister of Community Services, David Morse hasn’t resigned or been fired. Why? Why isn’t he in jail? It’s his Dept. that allowed this to happen. Why are tax payer’s paying for child abductions? Since when is government endorsed child abduction acceptable in court? This political cover up isn’t going away. It stank two years ago and it still stinks today and will continue to stink until we get answers and justice!
Why haven’t there been any arrests? Why aren’t Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen free? Why was Carline VandenElsen denied parole on May 24,06 two years after her child was abducted? What do they expect from this mother? What more can she give up? What more can they take from her? Real criminals serve less time in prison. Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck are victims of a huge political coverup. They have lost everything! They have absolutely nothing left. Where is the baby? How many other children have been abducted from their families by Children’s Aid? We need answers! We need a free (no fee) and accessible Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We have the right to know. No more cover ups! We demand justice! Join us! Now! Your child could be next! Then what would you do? Who you gonna call? Where are you pretty baby? We want you home. Now! We want Larry and Carline home, now. Reunited with their baby!
What are you doing about this, Mr. and Ms. Candidate? Don’t just blather during an election, Stand up for justice, like a real man or woman. What are you doing about this, Mr. Prime Minister? You are responsible too.
Pay attention. We the people, will no longer vote in any election where Justice and Charter Rights are not the #1 Priority. If NS and Canada is to be safe, then they must stand up for Justice and the Charter Rights that all people in Canada are supposed to have under The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Show me!
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
NO JUSTICE=NO VOTES!
World Ambassadors for Parents’ Civil Rights
Canadian Civil Rights Association
1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0 Canada
http://www.stopthetorture.info
Call Now. 902.798.5267 (9-8 AST)
or email us at cbrauer@lincsat.com
Donations for Justice accepted.
Carline VandenElsen, Larry Finck, siege, children's aid, Halifax,NS, Halifax standoff, human rights, constitutional rights, charter rights, police force, excessive police force, ns government, parents, child abduction, children and babies, civil rights violations,
CAS, Dept of Community Services, David Morse, John Hamm, Rodney MacDonald, Murray Scott, Attorney General of NS, Elizabeth Whelton, Barbara McPherson, Canadian Civil Rights Association, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Connie Brauer and Vic Harris, criminals, crimes against humanity, no justice, No votes
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Siege of Shirley Street: two years later, still no answers
seige, children's aid, halifax, standoff, human rights, constitutional rights, charter rights,
police force, excessive force, ns government, parents, child abduction, children and babies,
seige, children's aid, halifax, standoff, human rights, constitutional rights, charter rights,
police force, excessive force, ns government, parents, child abduction, children and babies,
police force, excessive force, ns government, parents, child abduction, children and babies,
| Siege of Shirley Street: two years later, still no answers By HEATHER LASKEY- Chronicle Herald, May 5/06 Two years have passed since Halifax’s "siege of Shirley Street." Two years this month since the police seizure of a five-month-old infant, the death of her grandmother, and the arrest of her parents. Since that time, there has been a plethora of court proceedings – criminal trials, family court hearings, decisions and appeals. The parents are in prison and the toddler – as far as we know – is still in the custody of the Children’s Aid Society. It was the parents’ refusal to relinquish her to the CAS shortly after her birth which had led to the police action. There is still unease among many people in this area about the use of a militarized police/SWAT team during the May 2004 events in what appeared to be a convenient opportunity to rehearse for a possible terrorist strike on the city. Many of us are also uneasy about the opaque powers of the CAS. The CAS is a quasi-private, government-funded, not-for-profit organization which, though well-intentioned, is in effect answerable only to its board. This absence of public accountability is a comment you will hear even from other social workers. No formal explanation has been given to the public for why the CAS wanted the baby removed from her parents: "Client confidentiality" is the mantra used to hide behind this wall of silence. As far as can be established, the apparent reason the newborn baby came to CAS attention was that her parents, Carline Vanden Elsen and Larry Finck, had previously run afoul of the legal system in Ontario by abducting children of their previous relationships. Neither had been accused of neglecting or abusing these children, and there was no suggestion before or after she was seized that the five-month-old nursing infant had been neglected or abused. But it was clear that her parents had antagonized authorities by dissing the legal system and the CAS in Ontario, as they were to do here in Nova Scotia. Their behaviour may have been intensely annoying, block-headed and eccentric. It was, however, no justification for the state to condemn their baby to the damaging uncertainties of a childhood in the foster-care system. (One year ago, at the age of 17 months, she was already in her second placement, and it was officially recorded that she had been upset by her move, at the age of 12 months, from her first placement. We do not know what her present situation is). As for the siege itself – the violent means employed to seize the baby were profoundly inappropriate. They could easily have resulted in her being injured or killed. They did lead to the death from heart failure of her grandmother, Mona Finck. The weaponry with which the Halifax police and the RCMP (according to their own testimony) were armed included semi-automatic sub-machine guns, and Taser guns. There was also the battering ram used in the middle of the night in a residential street against the home containing the five-month-old baby, her parents and frail grandmother. When the couple emerged after nearly three days with the body of Mrs. Finck on a stretcher, there was a melee in which a knife was used to cut a Snugli – with the infant in it! – from off the mother. Then a Taser gun was used to force her to remove her arms from under her body when she was lying on the sidewalk. It would have seemed reasonable if the people responsible for ordering the attack had been charged with endangering life, but even calls for a public inquiry were ignored by the minister of justice. The Halifax police promised that there would be a formal review of the events. Two years on, and despite questions from Mayor Peter Kelly, there is still silence. There is a similar silence from the Mounties. These are not healthy signs in a democracy. Last summer, a group of people, who wanted the whole business exposed to the air, got together to push for the inquiry. We wanted the public to be told what evidence of actual or potential harm had been presented to the Family Court to justify ordering the baby be taken from her parents, and why massive force had been used. The informal group included five independent and experienced journalists (Stephen Kimber, Kim Kierans, Ian Porter, Dulcie Conrad and myself) as well as Ray Kuszelewski, who had been Larry Finck’s Legal Aid lawyer; Joyce Dempsey, a neighbour of the Fincks; and Susan Stuttard, a retired professional. We have been supported in our demands by a wider group of citizens, from engineers, nurses and lawyers to professors and social workers, all of them equally disturbed by the behaviour of police and government-associated agencies in these events. To quote a letter to this newspaper from Winifred Milne, the retired director of social services for the Nova Scotia Hospital, "a climate has been created which may put subsequent vulnerable children and families at further risk." None of us should forget a lesson of both Mount Cashell and the Indian residential schools: You cannot always trust the state to protect children; sometimes it can be the instrument of their destruction. It’s time we had a careful look at how we are dealing with our children deemed in need of state protection, and ask how we could do it better. One major step forward would be the creation of the post of an independent children’s advocate, a suggestion made to government by a group including Mrs. Milne – in the early 1960s! It’s not too late to call or write to MLAs or to the minister of justice, requesting that a public inquiry be set up into the events around that baby’s seizure in May 2004 by the RCMP and Halifax police. And residents of HRM could write to or call their councillors, requesting that they push for the release of the police report. It’s the very least that is owed to the late Mona Finck, to her little granddaughter, and to all the children who may be taken into care. Heather Laskey’s book The Children of the Poor Clares: The Story of an Irish Orphanage, published in Ireland in 1985, was the first to expose the abuse of children in church-run institutions. She also wrote and broadcast about the child immigration movement from Britain to Canada. |  |
 |  |
seige, children's aid, halifax, standoff, human rights, constitutional rights, charter rights,
police force, excessive force, ns government, parents, child abduction, children and babies,
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#I
SCHEDULE B
| | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Rights and freedoms in Canada | 1. | The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Fundamental freedoms | 2. | Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Democratic rights of citizens | 3. | Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Maximum duration of legislative bodies | 4. | (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members. (80) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Continuation in special circumstances | (2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be. (81) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Annual sitting of legislative bodies | 5. | There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months. (82)
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Mobility of citizens | 6. | (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Rights to move and gain livelihood | (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Limitation | (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Affirmative action programs | (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Life, liberty and security of person | 7. | Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Search or seizure | 8. | Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Detention or imprisonment | 9. | Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Arrest or detention | 10. | Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Proceedings in criminal and penal matters | 11. | Any person charged with an offence has the right
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Treatment or punishment | 12. | Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Self-crimination | 13. | A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Interpreter | 14. | A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law | 15. | (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Affirmative action programs | (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (83)
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Official languages of Canada | 16. | (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Official languages of New Brunswick | (2) English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Advancement of status and use | (3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French. | |||||||||||||||||||
| English and French linguistic communities in New Brunswick | 16.1. | (1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick | (2) The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed. (83.1) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Proceedings of Parliament | 17. | (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament. (84) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature | (2) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick. (85) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Parliamentary statutes and records | 18. | (1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (86) | ||||||||||||||||||
| New Brunswick statutes and records | (2) The statutes, records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (87) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Proceedings in courts established by Parliament | 19. | (1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by Parliament. (88) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Proceedings in New Brunswick courts | (2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick. (89) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Communications by public with federal institutions | 20. | (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions | (2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Continuation of existing constitutional provisions | 21. | Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada. (90) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Rights and privileges preserved | 22. | Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French.
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Language of instruction | 23. | (1) Citizens of Canada
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Continuity of language instruction | (2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Application where numbers warrant | (3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms | 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. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute | (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter | 25. | The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter | 26. | The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Multicultural heritage | 27. | This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes | 28. | Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Rights respecting certain schools preserved | 29. | Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools. (93) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Application to territories and territorial authorities | 30. | A reference in this Charter to a Province or to the legislative assembly or legislature of a province shall be deemed to include a reference to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate legislative authority thereof, as the case may be. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Legislative powers not extended | 31. | Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Application of Charter | 32. | (1)This Charter applies
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Exception | (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Exception where express declaration | 33. | (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Operation of exception | (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Five year limitation | (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Re-enactment | (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). | |||||||||||||||||||
| Five year limitation | (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Citation | 34. | This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
PART II | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights | 35. | (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada" | (2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Land claims agreements | (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Aboriginal and treaty rights are guaranteed equally to both sexes | (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. (94) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Commitment to participation in constitutional conference | 35.1 | The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
PART III | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Commitment to promote equal opportunities | 36. | (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Commitment respecting public services | (2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. (96) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
PART IV | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 37. | (97) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
PART IV.I | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 37.1 | (98) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
PART V | ||||||||||||||||||||
| General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada | 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
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Majority of members | (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1). | |||||||||||||||||||
| Expression of dissent | (3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Revocation of dissent | (4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Restriction on proclamation | 39. | (1) A proclamation shall not be issued under subsection 38(1) before the expiration of one year from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure thereunder, unless the legislative assembly of each province has previously adopted a resolution of assent or dissent. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Idem | (2) A proclamation shall not be issued under subsection 38(1) after the expiration of three years from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure thereunder. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Compensation | 40. | Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers provincial legislative powers relating to education or other cultural matters from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Amendment by unanimous consent | 41. | An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Amendment by general procedure | 42. | (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Exception | (2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1). | |||||||||||||||||||
| Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces | 43. | An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including
may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Amendments by Parliament | 44. | Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Amendments by provincial legislatures | 45. | Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Initiation of amendment procedures | 46. | (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Revocation of authorization | (2) A resolution of assent made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Amendments without Senate resolution | 47. | (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Computation of period | (2) Any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the one hundred and eighty day period referred to in subsection (1). | |||||||||||||||||||
| Advice to issue proclamation | 48. | The Queen's Privy Council for Canada shall advise the Governor General to issue a proclamation under this Part forthwith on the adoption of the resolutions required for an amendment made by proclamation under this Part. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Constitutional conference | 49. | A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within fifteen years after this Part comes into force to review the provisions of this Part. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
PART VI | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 50. | (100) | |||||||||||||||||||
| 51. | (101) | |||||||||||||||||||
|
PART VII | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Primacy of Constitution of Canada | 52. | (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Constitution of Canada | (2) The Constitution of Canada includes
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Amendments to Constitution of Canada | (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Repeals and new names | 53. | (1) The enactments referred to in Column I of the schedule are hereby repealed or amended to the extent indicated in Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall continue as law in Canada under the names set out in Column III thereof. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Consequential amendments | (2) Every enactment, except the Canada Act 1982, that refers to an enactment referred to in the schedule by the name in Column I thereof is hereby amended by substituting for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in the schedule may be cited as the Constitution Actfollowed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Repeal and consequential amendments | 54. | Part IV is repealed on the day that is one year after this Part comes into force and this section may be repealed and this Act renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of Part IV and this section, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. (102) | ||||||||||||||||||
| [Repealed] | 54.1 | (103) | ||||||||||||||||||
| French version of Constitution of Canada | 55. | A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in the schedule shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada. | ||||||||||||||||||
| English and French versions of certain constitutional texts | 56. | Where any portion of the Constitution of Canada has been or is enacted in English and French or where a French version of any portion of the Constitution is enacted pursuant to section 55, the English and French versions of that portion of the Constitution are equally authoritative. | ||||||||||||||||||
| English and French versions of this Act | 57. | The English and French versions of this Act are equally authoritative. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Commencement | 58. | Subject to section 59, this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. (104) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Commencement of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec | 59. | (1) Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Authorization of Quebec | (2) A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be issued only where authorized by the legislative assembly or government of Quebec. (105) | |||||||||||||||||||
| Repeal of this section | (3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Short title and citations | 60. | This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982. | ||||||||||||||||||
| References | 61. | A reference to the "Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982" shall be deemed to include a reference to the "Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983". (106) | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)