B N A  A c t


N o t e s
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 and in spite of the ruling of the Statute of Westminister, the criminal elite in Canada, the politicians and other corporate leaders, simply carried on with their scam ripping off the Canadian people. 

This obviously even started before 1867, with corrupt Britain along with equally corrupt Canadian politicians, having schemed to place the BNA Act over Canadians. In this way the cabal.surreptitiously gained control in Canada.

Canada was part of the United States before this deceitfulness by the British. The cabal was also in process of taking over the United States in 1871, unbeknownst to the people of Canada and also the people of the United States. 

The BNA Act was placed upon asleep Canadians by the British and corrupt Canadian politicians. At this time, as today, many Canadian politicians were part of the cabal's evil control plan. The same thing happened in the United States. 

The British BNA Act was an Act of Britain by which they legalized everything they had done by authority of their act. They put a starting date on their Act for Canada and an ending date many years in the future. The whole mess in Canada was completely unlike the United States Constitution, which originally ensured We the People had absolute control over any and all things affecting them, that is until the cabal wiped the original constitution away with their 1871 hijacked version of it, which few true American patriots noticed.
 
The wording of the BNA 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 disregarded the request by Canadians for a federal union until the times leading.to.Statute of Westminster, December 11, 1931.

    Because.Britain had the control, Canada could only.suggest.what its desires were.
.
Once it's understood what the BNA Act was, the farce of repatriation will be clearly seen. 
    Canadians can do a constitution right. They just need to understand what has been lacking.
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. None do!
______________
.
The BNA Act (British North America Act) was
a Private British Bill.
.
All.legislation in British Parliament.going before either the House of Commons or the House of Lords in Britain is called a bill before it is enacted into law. 
    A.Private Bill.is one that affects only a part of the British Empire and does not affect any other part.
    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) 
______________
BNA Act was opposed to the idea of self government

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 Resolutions.opens by stating:."The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal Union."
 
.
Special Committee convened to investigate the British North America Act at the House of Commons, Ottawa, February 26, 1935. F. W. Turnbull, Chairman
(in Hansard)

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. 

Dr. Kennedy, Professor of Law, University of Toronto:
"I think we have got to get away from the idea that the British North America Act is a "Contract" or "treaty". I do not want to go into that, but it is true neither in history nor in law. The British North America Act is a Statute and has always been interpreted as a Statute. 
    "Suppose now we assume that it is necessary to have constituent powers in Canada, powers to change the Constitution, I approach that problem from two angles .... First of all, I want to break the British North America Act up. We have got to ask ourselves, is the.dead hand of the past.to be constantly laid with numbing effect on the body politic. That is really what it amounts to.... If we, in Canada, are not capable of interpreting our own Constitution, we should not have a Legislature at all."

Dr. Ollivier, Joint Law Clerk of the House of Commons:
"Further, our constitution is a law adopted by the British Parliament exercising its incontestable right of sovereignty toward its Colonies. This explains the fact that the British North America Act is.not a reproduction of the Quebec Resolutions ...England was free to agree to the resolutions or to disregard them entirely.".(Dr. Ollivier's other statements)

Dr. Skelton, Under Secretary of State for External Affairs:
"Now it might be said, why not trust to growth of convention or custom for the necessary changes in our Constitution? The obvious answer, I think, is that the process is too slow, and is applicable only in cases where unanimity has been reached..No other country in the world looks to the Parliament of another country for the shaping of its constitution..This solution could only be supported if we believe that Canadians are the only people so incompetent that they cannot work out a solution of their constitutional problem, and so biased that they alone among the peoples of the world cannot be trusted to deal fairly with the various domestic interests concerned. 
    "It is not safe to leave the question open and ambiguous indefinitely, for at any time a dispute on a concrete issue may arise. To retain permanently the intervention of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is either superfluous or dangerous."

Dr. Rogers, Professor of Political Science, Queens University  :
"I am thoroughly convinced that the British North America Act is not a pact or contract either in the historical or legal sense...There was.no confederation."

Question by Mr. Cowan:."You get back to this; your start is another interprovincial Conference?"
Answer:."I am afraid it is. I see no feasible alternative"
Hon. Mr. Lapointe:."There is no doubt about it."

______________
N o t e s
Dr. Beauchesne is saying the BNA Act is just that.–.an Act. In no way was it a constitution, nor ever intended by Britain to be or become one.
.
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.
.
Index of Canadian political history

Eternal Keys site

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.