3. Notes that on the one hand citizens are portrayed as having an essential role in ensuring compliance with EU law on the ground , whilst on the other – in EU Pilot – they are even further excluded from any subsequent procedure; considers that this is not in line with the Treaties' solemn declarations that ‘decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen’ (Article 1 TEU), that ‘the Union institutions .shall conduct their work as openly as possible’ (Article 15 TFEU) and that ‘[I]n all its activiti ...[+++]es, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions’ (Article 9 TEU);

Concerning the “Maximum amount of financial security” in subclause 24(3) and in paragraph (a) of clause 66, the CNA believes there ought to be more flexibility permitted in providing the financial security referred to in subclause 24(1).

Even the minister's presentation to his own cabinet, as I've pointed out before, assured the cabinet I think by way of defusing the opposition and resistance they anticipated that to give further assurance, the proposed legislation does contain a declaratory non-derogation provision.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the principles clearly stated by the law professor from the University of Ottawa, Professor Chartrand, and also by the Regroupement des centres d'amitié du Québec des Cris et des Naskapis, it is preferable in our view that a fourth subsection be added to clause 4 which would provide the First Nations with this type of guarantee that Bill C-7 is not an end in itself, that Bill C-7 is like the plumbing in a much larger and nobler building, which is called full self-government for nations which must be considered as such with respect and dignity, and that, once the federal government and the First Nations have n ...[+++]egotiated the exercise of that inherent right to self-determination, the provisions of Bill C-7 concerning them will be brought, even if the ink has scarcely dried on the three codes, which, by obligation and forcing, as it were, have been imposed on them under Bill C-7.

Others with greater legal expertise than the CLC have argued that the provisions of Bill C-17 violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protections against unreasonable search and seizure, which is provided for in section 8 of the charter, and the right to be protected against self-incrimination, which is provided in section 7 of the charter.

In the advisory opinion, number five, the court established that a comparison of Article 13 of the American convention with each of the foregoing provisions shows " the extremely high value that the convention places on freedom of expression" and that " the guarantees contained in the American convention regarding freedom of expression were designed to be more generous and to reduce to a bare minimum restrictions impeding the free circulation of ideas" .