The British BNA Act (copy of the actual Act) was assented to by the British House of Commons on March 29, 1867. It was effective in Canada July 1, 1867 to 1930.
The British BNA Act was an Act of Britain by which they legalized everything they had done by authority of their act and put a starting and an ending date.
The wording of the Act combines three separate colonies which were all located in the British part of North America. They were the Provinces of Canada.(what are now the two provinces of Quebec and Ontario) and the colonies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick., making three. So they were: Quebec and Ontario as one back then and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Originally known as 'Canada' they were divided into Upper and Lower Canada, the Upper being Ontario and the Lower being Quebec.
What was used in the governing of the day to day affairs of the country was this BNA Act, with its central government and its provincial legislative assemblies, often then referred to as a 'constitution', as Canada had nothing else then, and even though Canada today thinks they have Trudeau's constitution, Canada really, so far, has no true constitution at all.
Britain's hope for a coast to coast united British North America was helped by her BNA Act in 1867 when the area known as Canada became a dominion.of Britain.having colonies (what colonies?) comprising what was called the Dominion of Canada.
BNA Act: No Signed Certified Copy
Ever Brought To Canada.
Repatriation was just a word to former prime minister Trudeau and his Liberal Party, a word to use in their snow job plans.
Dr. Beauchesne, K.C., CMC., LL.D., Clerk of the House of Commons to the vault under the Senate Chamber in Ottawa, assured the researcher that the.BNA Act had never been presented to the Senate or to Parliament in Canada.
Dr. Arthur Beauchesne.was the foremost constitutional authority in Canada and author of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms by which all members of the Commons and Senate are governed in their conduct, their deliberations and speeches.
Both.Dr. Beauchesne.and the researcher Roger Smith agreed that.no copy of the BNA Act was ever brought to Canada and that none of the Provinces, not even.the startup four Provinces.had an original or a copy with signatures.
Contacting London, England for a photocopy of the BNA Act, finally one was received. It was a copy of a copy. How difficult would it have been to have a photographer take a picture of the original, if it indeed did exist?
This means that.after a hundred years we can't get a copy of an original document that is supposed to have created a Confederation of the Provinces. Strange, don't you think?. If.there has been a confederation in Canada, each Province which was a party to the agreement should have a certified copy.
a Private British Bill.
Private.bills are first introduced into the House of Lords and after being passed are referred to the House of Commons where they may be amended, but for the purposes of the bill are not discussed or debated. That's the domain of the House of Lords.
Public.bills are first introduced into the House of Commons and then to the House of Lords to be acted upon in the same way a private bill goes from the House of Lords to the Commons.
The House of Commons is the source of all political power, as it directs the policy of the country.
A Bill is a draft of a proposed law presented for approval to a legislative body and also the law enacted from such a draft (examples: a Bottle Bill in effect in three American states; the GI Bill)
The BNA Act could not have been used for a confederation
of the Provinces in Canada as it is in no way a reproduction of the Quebec
Resolutions and it is diametrically
opposed to any self government whatsoever. The.Quebec
by stating:."The best
interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will
be promoted by a Federal Union."
Excerpts from this meeting of 35 men on this committee, are taken from the evidence of:
Dr. W. P. M. Kennedy, Professor of Law, University of Toronto.
Dr. Maurice Ollivier, K.C, Joint Law Clerk, House of Commons.
Dr. O. D. Skelton, Under Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Dr. Norman McL. Rogers, Professor of Political Science, Queens University.
Dr. Arthur Beauchesne, K.C.,
CMC., LL.D., Clerk of the House of Commons.
Question by Mr. Cowan:."You
get back to this; your start is another interprovincial Conference?"
There was no confederation!. The British Government was the source by which the Dominion of Canada was governed until 1931.
The Provinces had not, after this time, reached an agreement whereby the necessary power arising from "the unrestrained ownership of land".(*), given to them by the Statute of Westminster as sovereign, free and independent states, can be transferred to a federal union (government) of their creation (as the United States.and others had properly done).
Whatever location the Provinces decide to be the location of the federal government of their creation is the right one; Winnipeg would be a good choice to consider.
Dr. Beauchesne, Clerk of the House of Commons:"It is quite true that if we apply to the British North America Act the principles followed in the Interpretation of Statutes, it is not a.compact.(agreement, covenant, combine, consolidate).between the Provinces; it is an Act of.(British).Parliament, which does not even embody all the resolutions passed in Canada and in London.(where the Canadian delegation went with their papers and hopes).prior to its passage in the British Parliament, where certain.clauses that had not been recommended by the Canadian Provinces were added..(Britain had the control, a page disappears and clauses added, and then rewordings to what we have today.(*)
"The Statute of Westminster has altered our
Status.(*).What we want is a new Constitution.
"The new Constitution must leave nobody with a grievance.(*).(*). A spirit of conciliation should predominate. For these reasons, the task must be entrusted to an independent body, in which all the elements of the country will be represented.
"I want the assembly to sit in a City in the West. It would not be necessary for a delegate to be a Member of Parliament or a Provincial Legislature. I would suggest that the assembly do not sit in Ottawa, in order that it may not have the appearance of being dominated, or even influenced by the Dominion power; and, as the Western Provinces are of such paramount importance in the country, I suggest the best City for the representatives to gather in would be Winnipeg.
"Whether our country should be changed from a Dominion to Kingdom is also a subject which might be discussed. Perhaps it could be called 'The Federated States of Canada' (FSA), or whatever the Provinces together decide.
"There have been many disputes about Provincial rights since 1867 and it seems certain that when a new Constitution is drawn up the distribution of Federal and Provincial powers will have to be modified.
"I submit that appeals to the Privy Council should be dealt with by our Constitution. This method would preserve the principle of taking our case to the highest tribunal without going out of our own country.
"If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I will just make another suggestion: if we have a constituent assembly and if we discuss the making of a new constitution, I think it is an anomaly that Dominion affairs should, to a certain extent, be subject to Provincial authority. I would suggest that we have a Federal District, taking in about 25 square miles on each side of the Ottawa River.
"I would not have any minority rights discussed. There is nothing more dangerous in Canada than a discussion of minority rights. A discussion of them would wreck the whole Constituent Assembly...."
The BNA Act is inadequate for the sovereign provinces of Canada to use, apart from being accessed as a guide in the creation of a proper federal union.
Why did Dr. Beauchesne, eminent constitutional authority in Canada, say this? Why did he say."taking in about 25 square miles on each side of the Ottawa River"? Why would this be important?
Because, he knew there could not be any sovereignty without the ownership of land. Those who own the land make the law of the land; a principle all through history, a principle to which Britain.(*), as well as other modern nations, heartily ascribed, as it was Britain's raison d'être for might.(*).
It was the Letters Patent that.gave authority to the Governor General and not the.BNA Act, which dealt with his authority and strengthened it.
Eternal Keys site