May 15, 2015

Richmond Hill city council fears "O Canada" might be unconstitutional

Brian LilleyArchive

It hasn't taken long for the Supreme Court's dumb ruling banning prayer at city council meetings to trickle down to municipalities across Canada.

The Richmond Hill, Ontario city council has now decided that they won't sing "O Canada." 


Their lawyers told them the lyrics could be deemed unconstitutional because they include the word "God."

JOIN for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

READ Brian Lilley's book CBC Exposed -- It's been called "the political book of the year."

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-05-20 11:54:57 -0400
There are intellectual people that are really dumb in reality! Life is just so simple, people!!!!
commented 2015-05-19 23:55:23 -0400
Ps..but Brian, Quebec won’t have to worry about God or Canada being in the national anthem because they’ll soon have their own with Pierre Peladeau. Imagine him and Justin Trubama in both driver’s seats! Where can I move to? Cuba’s sounding mighty nice. I could live without electricity (soon will be with Kathleen Wynne’s hand on the light switch).
commented 2015-05-19 23:34:52 -0400
Beverley McLachlan is Canada’s Queen, dictator and empress. She, along with her ‘yes Ma’am’ judges have demonstrated they are ruling Canada, the government (Conservatives) and Canadian physicians. The SCC has simply created a power struggle, disruption and disharmony among Canadians.
These judges should be in these positions for a specified period rather than being able to take ownership of these positions, positions designed to reflect knowledge, intelligence and wisdom. Instead, they simply want to make their names known in Canada’s history books for the bizarre changes they made in Canadian law.
commented 2015-05-19 18:42:08 -0400
Let the lawyers take them to court. The God reference is in the constitution and as long as it remains there no one is going to get in trouble. I’d rather go down fighting. As someone once wisely said if you stand for something you’ll fall for everything.
commented 2015-05-17 18:21:45 -0400
Anonymous. Raoul Castro was so impressed with the knowledge and wisdom of Pope Francis he is considering allowing religion in Cuba. What God? You’ll find out soon enough then we’ll see who’s stupid
commented 2015-05-17 02:19:10 -0400
It’s an idiotic argument that’s been brought up time and again. 1. Canada was founded on Christian principles and I feel that’s a part of our cultural identity that we should not be expected to surrender any more than we would ask anyone else to surrender theirs. 2. “God” is and English word that may refer to a deity or deities that anyone may or may not choose to worship, not necessarily Jehovah.
Personally, I feel that we are all worshiping the same God, regardless of how we choose to worship or by what name we use.
Faith is an important part of our sense of well being and the cornerstone to our sense of morality.

Let’s bring faith back into our schools, our lives in general and most of all, wherever politicians lurk, they need it most of all.
commented 2015-05-16 20:29:27 -0400
Anonymous probably represents many people in this country. At one time it seem everyone believed in God. It was a given. As time marched on “enlightened” scholars decided there was no God. Most non Mohammedans in this country would tell you god is just a fairy and a figment of the imagination of superstitious people. That’s is my opinion and it is my opinion God is real. However since most “Canadians” don’t believe in God it is only a matter of time before the words to the anthem are revised.
commented 2015-05-16 19:10:36 -0400
City Councilors. One of the lower forms of animal life on this planet. Bunch of Wing Nuts.
commented 2015-05-16 18:41:29 -0400
God ? ….which god ? …god of what ? ….god where ? ….why god ?
GOD damn !!, ….. some people are stupid !!!!
commented 2015-05-16 17:14:44 -0400
Peter only those individuals who are dedicated to elected service would run. The MP/MPP would need to support themselves. Parliament and Legislators don’t sit every day. So the person would have a job in the local community and go to the capital when required. Employers would be required to give time off work. Regarding your point that only the rich would be candidates the individual still has to get elected plus the person needs to be dedicated to serving the community. Not all rich folk would be up to this challenge. I am suggesting this model as I have observed it working elsewhere in the past. How would a party fund itself? We would get back to the time when candidates came and spoke at small gatherings and took questions and convinced the electorate in person that they should be an MP/MPP. I have also suggested a qualified franchise to make sure those voting understand the issues at hand. None of this is likely to happen which is too bad as our democracy is heading to what James Madison feared “the tyranny of the majority”. I would appreciate any other thought you might have.
commented 2015-05-16 15:13:19 -0400
“Their lawyers told them the lyrics could be deemed unconstitutional "

But of course the SCOC in their haste to bash christians never considered such a result. Mr. Lille, the SCOC decision wasn’t dumb. It was deliberately malicious.
commented 2015-05-16 10:18:45 -0400
Ron Zager – “Maurice I would suggest going back to the days when elected officials received no remuneration at all.”

You wouldn’t want the elected representatives to be paid? How would they support themselves? Wouldn’t that mean only the rich who could live off their assets could be an mp/mpp?

Ron – " I would also outlaw donations of any kind to political parties or the candidates and the sitting lawmaker."

How would the political party campaign without funds?
commented 2015-05-16 03:42:40 -0400
Singing Canada’s National Anthem is unconstitutional. That is actually quite funny.

Well ,I for one am going to sing Oh Canada whenever I want and where ever I want. I will sing it louder than ever and make sure I stress the God parts. Then I will sing GOD Save the Queen, just for good measure. I’ll sing Oh Canada all over the local university cmpass, just for the fun of it.
commented 2015-05-16 01:13:25 -0400
We keep bending over , we are going to keep getting ………………………………………
We can’t say we can’t sing, we are expected to embrace everyone and give over everything close to our hearts.

Maurice, I am glad you posted that again, a lot of really good ideas.
commented 2015-05-16 01:11:40 -0400
Gees, I thought we had it all covered by the Charter that Crazy Pierre imposed on us. I guess not. The preambles states “The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions”. I guess the lie-yer group is out to replace the supremacy of this document with a UN document.
When will someone have the essentials to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Even better, rescind the charter (it’s only a federal law), reinstate the Bill of Rights with its right to private property provision and return legislative authority back to elected officials.
commented 2015-05-16 00:11:12 -0400
When will Canada stop bending over? Tired of young people,not liking what life deals them,so they change things
to suit themselves! :-(
commented 2015-05-15 22:28:10 -0400
Good suggestions, Ron. Elected SC Judges with term limits is also a good idea. Elected Officials receiving no salary, but only covering living expenses is also a good idea as long as there are very strict, audited guidelines for what standard of living the tax payers are willing to pay for. When George Washington became the first US President, he refused a salary and asked that the people just cover his living expenses. This seemed like such a magnanimous gesture, and it was agreed. However, in his second term it was insisted that he receive a salary because his living expenses were so outrageous.
commented 2015-05-15 22:09:29 -0400
Maurice I would suggest going back to the days when elected officials received no remuneration at all. I would also outlaw donations of any kind to political parties or the candidates and the sitting lawmaker.
commented 2015-05-15 22:03:49 -0400
OK, I tried to put this in a link, but didn’t works. I don’t want to take up too much of your time or space here, but I’ll post this below. It’s self explanatory. Read it and comment on it if you like, or just ignore it and go on to the next post:


1) TERM LIMITS FOR ALL POLITICIANS, FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL: Limit all MP, MLA, MPP and Senate seats to two terms maximum, with a mandatory hiatus of at least one term before running again. Politics should be viewed as a service, not a career.

2) MANDATORY EXPERIENCE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR: Politicians who have never built a business or had to hold down a full-time job that actually contributed to the infrastructure or material needs of society should not be considered qualified to tell the rest of us how that society should be built or run. (length and type of experience to be determined)

3) ALL ELECTORAL DISTRICTS SHOULD REPRESENTS THE SAME NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS: Each electoral district should represent, as nearly as possible, exactly the same population. That would mean that electoral boundaries would have to be very fluid, and may fluctuate from one election to the next, depending on shifting populations.

4) DIVIDE PARLIAMENT IN TWO: I propose that a more democratic parliament would see half the seats filled by the winning candidates in each electoral district, and the other half filled by party representation in direct relationship to the popular vote. In other words, half of the seats would be filled by appointment. The number of appointed seats allotted to each political party would depend on that party’s percentage of the popular vote. If a party received 30% of the popular vote, they would receive 30% of the appointed seats. That way, in ridings that were very close in the election, the second place candidate may still get a seat in parliament. Also, seats allotted in that manner would more closely represent the actual will of the people.(total number of parliamentary seats to be determined)

5) A NON-PARTISAN ELECTED SENATE BY REGION, WITH LOCAL VETO POWERS: The Senate should be elected, with the same term limits as those of Parliament. Senate seats should be distributed, not by population, but by Senatorial Districts within Provinces, defined by geographic, commercial and socio/cultural communities (geographic area to be defined). All Senate seats should be non-partisan, with Senators owing no allegiance to any political party, but solely to their district constituents. The function of the Senate should be, in some ways similar to the current function – sober second thought, but their allegiance must be first and foremost to their Senatorial District and those they represent. To that end, each Senator should have the power to veto the implementation of any legislation within the confines of his or her Senatorial District, but only when given a mandate through referendum to do so by their electorate. Cost of the referendum to be borne solely and completely by the Senatorial District. This veto power must be limited, in that the courts and/or an appointed committee of provincial and federal representatives must have the authority to overrule the veto and develop alternatives that address and resolve by negotiation the issue(s) that triggered the veto. But this power to overrule must also be limited. The specific conditions under which the veto may be overruled are: a) if failure to implement said legislation within the specified Senatorial District is deemed to be detrimental to the National interest, or b) it was determined that failure to implement would adversely affect neighboring Senatorial Districts. (number of Senatorial Districts to be determined)

6) SUPREME COURT DECISIONS MAY BE OVER-RULED BY ELECTED BODIES: Where the Supreme Court declares that legislation, passed through both the Parliament and the Senate, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and strikes down the law, a combined vote of both the Parliament and Senate will have the power to over-rule the Supreme Court by a vote of 50% plus one. The final word on legislation must be in the hands of the elected bodies, not the unelected body.
commented 2015-05-15 21:55:35 -0400
I tried to insert in a zip file a document I wrote (Formula For Fair Government). I guess it didn’t work.
commented 2015-05-15 21:47:10 -0400
I agree with those who suggest SC Judges be elected for a short term, I believe it has merit. Also, are not Supreme Court Judges in the U.S. appointed? However, if it is an American system, it seems to me, Liberals are copy catting the Democrat play book anyway.
commented 2015-05-15 21:43:11 -0400
Rick just thinking out load here but a qualified franchise could require:-
1. proficiency in one of the two official languages (many pass the citizenship test but are not really proficient in language skills)
2. new citizens would have to wait a set period of time before being able to vote
3. minimum property owned
4. minimum period resident in the country (for instance a citizen would be required to have spent so many days in Canada during a set period)
5. having filed the latest income tax return
commented 2015-05-15 21:35:47 -0400
It’s too bad that the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada mistakenly think “Supreme” means supreme beings when they have nothing to do with justice or supreme beings. No one has cause to be offended by “God” in our National Anthem but many people are offended by our Charter of Rights being abused by unpatriotic bigots.
commented 2015-05-15 21:32:01 -0400
Ron Zager commented 7 mins ago: · Flag
“Maurice I am not against a qualified franchise. It works and would save us from total disaster. Remember one of the American founding fathers, James Madison was terrified of what might happen if all and sundry could select the leaders of the new born nation.” Curious. Certainly worth some debate for current times as to praticable applications…….. Our futures, personally, and as a society may depend on it.
commented 2015-05-15 21:21:52 -0400
Maurice I am not against a qualified franchise. It works and would save us from total disaster. Remember one of the American founding fathers, James Madison was terrified of what might happen if all and sundry could select the leaders of the new born nation.
commented 2015-05-15 21:11:37 -0400
Even if we had a perfect system of Government (Formula For Fair Government) that was perfectly designed to be as fair and democratic as possible, it would still fail as long as there were stupid people in positions of authority, and stupid people still had the right to vote. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t have it any other way, and I don’t think anyone reading this would want it any other way either. So I guess we’re stuck with the mess that comes from dealing with very flawed, imperfect human beings, in other words stupid people in positions of power and authority, and their stupid supporters.
commented 2015-05-15 20:41:58 -0400
commented 2015-05-15 20:33:11 -0400
Rick Plesnik – "We are not being well served under the current arrangement! "

Well, you are if you are a left wing.
commented 2015-05-15 20:32:26 -0400
Didn’t Jerry Rawlings when he took over Ghana have all the Supreme Court justices executed for doing a bad job? Our Supreme Court is doing a good job for the atheists, Liberals and their fellow travellers. If we get Sharia Law they won’t have much to do. Oh I forgot Islam is under reformation as their members are given the latest gizmos.