Question about enacting clauses

[LesActive]

I like to read statutes for fun (ok not really for fun) and I've noticed that MOST of the statutes are bereft of preambles and enacting clauses. Scanning through the Acts beginning with "a" I noticed that out of 30 of them only 12 had enacting clauses. I wasn't about to go through all 638 Acts just yet. I was just wondering if such omissions could be seen as making those particular statutes non-enforcable. The Interpretation Act requires that all Acts shall have an enacting clause whether there is a preamble or not. Anybody know anything about this?

[jbg]

That's a very good question. We have no such rule here. Is that based on the unwritten "Constitution"?

[LesActive]

Well, we have a written constitution but I'm not a signatory to it. The question stems from the following:

CANADIAN CONSTITUTION: IV. LEGISLATIVE POWER

17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.

55. Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen's Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty's Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen's Name, or that he withholds the Queen's Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen's Pleasure.

and

INTERPRETATION ACT

ENACTING CLAUSE OF ACTS

Enacting clause

4. (1) The enacting clause of an Act may be in the following form:

“Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:”.

Order of clauses

(2) The enacting clause of an Act shall follow the preamble, if any, and the various provisions within the purview or body of the Act shall follow in a concise and enunciative form.R.S., c. I-23, s. 4.

I'm not a lawyer (whew!) nor a master of this language but it seems there is an obligation to have the Queen or her representative ok the deal through the enacting clause. That there are so many Acts in "force" seemingly without it is bothering me. At the very least the clause isn't shown for some reason not in evidence which leads me to then ask why would some display it and not others? Are there two levels of 'law' in effect?

[jbg]

I'm not a lawyer (whew!) nor a master of this language but it seems there is an obligation to have the Queen or her representative ok the deal through the enacting clause. That there are so many Acts in "force" seemingly without it is bothering me. At the very least the clause isn't shown for some reason not in evidence which leads me to then ask why would some display it and not others? Are there two levels of 'law' in effect?

I'm not a Canadian and know very little about Canada. I am a lawyer.

It would seem to me that Royal Assent by the GG (or Queen when she's in Canada) would do the trick. I would disobey at your peril a law that you didn't deem to be clerically in proper form.

[LesActive]

I assure you that I have no intention of disobeying any law that is obligatory upon me, however, I think it's my duty to question the authority on which these statutes are based, how they are administered and to whom or what they will eventually apply. My starting point in this particular exercise is how a statute can be lawfully enforced while circumventing the constitutional requirement for royal assent. To me it's kinda like saying, "well, we enacted it so we don't need the enacting clause". Very much like the private policies of a private corporation that are to be adhered to through a contract of some sort. If it's not enacted then to whom does it apply?

All this started when I was approached by a by-law officer for not having a licence on my dog. He claimed authority to impose a fee for a service I didn't want. I questioned his authority and he failed to answer some very basic questions and yet still proceeded to cite. I was threatened then coerced into a contract with a private corporation hired by another calling itself the Corporation of the City of London. All I wanted to know were the facts and he gave me non-responsive replies.

Some of the discussion went basically as follows:

Q: Where do you get your authority to cite?

A: City of London.

Q:Factually, what is the City of London?

A: You're in it.

Q: Is the City of London the ground then?

A: You're within the boundaries of the City.

Q: You get your authority from the ground?

A: (change of subject)

Q: Is the City of London actually a corporation?

A: (looks at citation, in bold at the top, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON)

Q: Did I sign anything that holds me liable to these by-laws?

A: You live here, you're a resident, you don't get to sign.

Q: Do you know for a fact that I'm a resident?

A: None.

The conversation lasted a good 20 minutes in the same vein. His view based on presumption of facts not in evidence and mine on sticking with only the facts and asking for definitions. At one point he claimed a municipal statute was the law, threatened to call an armed person to compel me to give my name and that if I didn't he could seize my dog and fine me. I restrictively endorsed his citation and am now in discussion with this private corporation by mail.

It may cost me, it may not. Either way, the amount wouldn't be much and the experience will be educational. I do feel that if they can't answer my questions and provide a basis in law for it and they still proceed that they would be in dishonour, no? Aren't rules in place for a reason?

Thank you for the warning though. I appreciate the intent.

Tidbit of what I found in definitions:

owner: a person in care and control of an animal

person: not defined in the by-law

person in the municipal act is defined as: a municipality

When a term is not defined we turn to the Interpretation Act, considered the final word on the application of terminology, which defines person: or any term descriptive of a person includes a corporation.

I don't know about you but I certainly don't see myself as a corporation. I'll need proof of that as well.