Canada's Birthday
(Get the overview on these 3 pages; takes about 10 or so minutes to read each.
Suggested: to not click on links the first time through)
.
I would like to celebrate Canada's birthday!
 

Well one might say, just wait till July 1 and you can celebrateCanada day Canada Day, birthday number 153 in 2020 and you can sing a happy birthday to Canada!

I would ask 'Are we really sure about Canada's birthday'?

Canada Day was about the original four provinces in the Dominion of Canada and would more correctly be called 'Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Day'. Nova Scotia however, did not want any part of it.

Canadian children were taught about it in school and isn't it an accepted fact of Canadian history, that Canada's birthday is based upon her confederation in the year 1867?

Sorry folks! There is no historic fact, nor any law, nor any agreement to support the fairy tale of confederation in Canada. 

Constitutional experts, parliamentarians, legists and Parliamentary documentation supports information herein.

One may even think that Canada's constitution is an extrapolation of it's confederation, a constitution and confederation all done neat, tidy and legal. One may think Ottawa is there legally. One may also think that Canada's Governor General is legal. And one may think the federal government in Ottawa has power and control over the Provinces, what with the constitution that former Prime Minister Trudeau repatriated in 1982, incorporating documents forming our 'constitution', documents such as the Magna Carta, BNA Act, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.(that incorporated his language legislation and an amending formula that made.his.constitution almost unamendable).including an Amending Formula, a 'constitution' claimed repatriated by the said Prime Minister. 

How, indeed can something be repatriated that never originated? To restore or return to the country of birth, citizenship or origin, a constitution must have initially existed therein and in Canada only the BNA Act (British North America Act) had been extant and it wasn't a constitution as we comprehend a constitution to be. What was it then?

One may say, surely after all this time if something was wrong with the whole setup, which it was, then constitutional experts, professors in various universities and legists would have had something to say.

And I would say that you would be correct. And they had much to say!

"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. ...Peter F. Drucker, 1909-2005, Austrian born Management Consultant and Author.

It boils down to.government assuming power without decent and proper (legal) ratification by the people. Historically, Canadian governments have said one thing and done another.(*).and have concocted much to keep citizens busy, broke and therefore quiet. Canadian citizens now have the opportunity to come out of the political.dark ages as compared to real governments in other nations?

Truly, Canada is a great country in the eyes of the world. The men and women of the nation like it! It has so many good things for everyone and does continue to improve. It's by custom, convention and tradition Canada has grown to become what it today is.

Why 'governments' in Canada (provincial and national) have had to rule by custom, convention and tradition, that is, by consensus of a geographical expression accepted by default and not like other properly formulated governments.

The reason Canadians have not created a proper federal union is because their rights have been purposely kept from them.(*), as you will see as you read through.
   Canadians need to have new vision, one that takes them beyond Canada's deceitfully corrupt short and long term past and they must make a proper constitution for themselves ..."While it is true that without a vision the people perish, it is doubly true that without action, the people and their vision perish, as well." ...Johnetta Betsch Cole
  "The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities." ...John F. Kennedy

Many Canadians.think.that the repatriated BNA Act (British North America Act) forms the basis of the Constitution of Canada, that's the one former Prime Minister Trudeau brought to pass when he.'repatriated' the 'constitution', as he referred to the BNA Act (altered and now called 'The Constitution Act').

Have you ever wondered where it is the central (federal) government gets its authority to act from and, who gave it to them?

A constitution is supposed to constitute the majority will of people affected by it. If this be the proper approach, any burden of policies affecting citizens will be that which they have decided to be bound to by decision, not default.

No other constitution in the world allows what has gone on in Canada by the previous federal governments. I mean really, just what is Canada constitutionally? Questions: Just what documents support a position of governing over Canadians? And, who really owns the land in Canada? To understand, we need to know what Eminent Domain is. And we need to be aware of the meaning of what former Prime Minister Trudeau referred to as the repatriation of the constitution.

Citizens caring about Canada felt bypassed.(and surely were bypassed.*) in the haste by Ottawa under Trudeau to get this repatriation thing done.

Haste by Ottawa. Haste by England. In cons, there's always haste,.'get it done before someone notices the details and figures out where it's all headed'.

The brilliant Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau inveigled nine Provincial Premiers to agree to what he was doing, even though none of them had been authorized by an election to do this, not debated in the legislatures of the provinces. It turned out to be a snow-job, smoke and mirrors in the eyes and ears of all Canadians.

It was.his.constitution (called.his because the people of the country really had nothing to do with it, especially when consideration is toward how constitutions were formulated and implemented in other countries).

Trudeau figured, that if he can pull this off, the advantages to Ottawa of continued central control over all Canadians would be dyed even more in the minds of the populace. 

The 'constitution' was never ratified by the people of the Provinces. This particular constitution has no legal basis according to British law.

"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default; by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." ...Ayn Rand..So, you see folks of Canada, the well meaning attempt at giving Canadians some kind of a constitution obviously didn't mean much to most of the people of the country, so they were effectively left out of it. Did they deserve a proper constitution? If they did, they failed to show it by any actions on their part. So, they have what they have.
It's been the same throughout history whenever the people have no effective say in matters that affect or will affect them.

At any rate,.off Trudeau flew to.Great Britain.to get.approval of the British Parliament.(was he really nuts; going to.another.country for approval of a constitution the people in.his.country had nothing to do with, but could have been created by them without need of anything from Britain at all? Well, at least it was something. Trudeau cared more than most Canadians to at least have a document that appeared constitutional).for ideas disguised.as a constitution for Canadians, but it appeared to be an unnecessary and unfounded 'smoke and mirrors' ploy.

As it played out it kept Canadians far away from the wonderful rights conferred upon the Provinces by the Statute of Westminster; rights, that should have been made known to Canadians; rights not made known to any degree of effectiveness to the public and ended up being of continued great advantage to those wishing the status quo central control of the country by Ottawa continue.

What the prime ministers, Trudeau, Bennett and King wanted, was to make if look like the BNA Act was a continuing act, with Trudeau hailing it as at least something Canadians could have to be proud about; but not many cared. All of these Canadian prime ministers began referring to the BNA Act as Canada's constitution, as they all wanted it to look as if it was more than just a British Act of Parliament, which it most assuredly was not.

Trudeau, obviously understanding little about Canadian constitutional history, or perhaps knew it better than many and could see the implications if the truth were known, spent taxpayers money to create a so-called Canadian constitution, a 'constitution' that constituted ideas gleaned from the BNA act, lacked effective public input (had nine people agree to it, of which, as it appears, most of whom had no idea what was.really.going on), reflected few if any of the desires of the people or the concerns of businesses in the Provinces; made sure, by the haste, a lack of effective public meetings about it occurred, attached other documents to the defunct British designed BNA Act and off he went to England to 'repatriate' what he thought Canadians would accept as being.their.constitution. He never told Canadians exactly what Britain said regarding all this. What did Britain think of it all?

Trudeau made sure the rusty 'ol nullified BNA Act (1867-1930), (never designed to be a compact.(*).formed the basis of this 1982 'constitution' and nobody seemed to effectively question it. Perhaps it was because Canada is really a parliamentary dictatorship with individual party members commanded to vote on platforms the party wants to push upon the Canadian people; push means, without their permission. Why would party members question it? They were in power and all members knew they were to conform to the doctrines and rules of the party they were in. Never mind the wishes of the people in Canada regarding concocted policies. Elected representatives' oaths of allegiance are to the crown, not to the people of Canada who elected them. What does that tell? 

Trudeau knew the BNA Act was designed to maintain central Canadian control in the hands of a few, over all the Provinces; maintain control in the hands of the Governor General and those.(in the Ottawa administration of government of course).around to "aid and advise" him and he knew this was turned around by fabricated documents done by previous prime ministers. How nice it would have been if these three politicians were open and honest with the Canadian public, but again, who cared? How nice it would have been they had been honorable and really did good for Canada by telling Canadians of their true status.(*). We would be so much better off today.

It was the use of 'smoke and mirrors' to make it look on the surface as though everything at the top was hunky dory. In practice, however, Ottawa was appointing (say controlling) the Governor General.(*).instead of the other way around (the other way around was how it was under the BNA Act.when it was in force).

It was a surreptitious twist that has served Ottawa well in its course of interaction with the Provinces. Their self-setup privileged ways of managing the country supplies oligarchical policies. Perhaps they have had advisers like this ... and hopefully that's not the case at the present.

Trudeau flew to a far off foreign land (England) and unnecessarily (unnecessary because Canadians could have designed their own constitution) presented.his.'constitution', ideas of his and his and all without authority, as this matter of importance for all Canadians was.not even debated in the Provincial Legislatures (so.very unlike the others.of Britain's former Dominions), therefore it didn't constitute anything but a snow-job; and one the provinces were complicit in.

It was a wrong way to have anything to do with even the hint of a constitution. It included nothing of what people in Canada may have wanted, as they were.not involved in its formulation, mostly because they cared little if at all, being somewhat content with things as they were. Maybe the people knew this. If that be the case, the people of the land are much wiser than we give them credit to be.

In addition, no availability was made for.at least two.widespread voting opportunities for Canadians.(critical when an important document such as a constitution is being set up, wouldn't you think?).on formulation of ideas toward a constitution.

No other country in the world looks.to the Parliament.of another country for the shaping of its constitution.(but yes, do look at other nations.(*) constitutional.wordings.when designing your own). No other democratically inclined country has done what has been done in Canada, bypassing her people in matters of.such.great import to them.(*), but again, what did they care? At least this way Canadians didn't have to wrack their brains to come up with a constitution of their own.

In this effort to provide some kind of a constitution, it was seriously inept in understanding facts from legal documents, such as.Letters Patent, the Statute of Westminster.(meaning of 'statute') and BNA Act.

Was it not known what a Special Committee convened to investigate the British North America Act at the House of Commons, Ottawa, February 26, 1935 discovered? The BNA Act was not a reproduction of the Quebec Resolutions.at all

Trudeau had many fellow lawyers and advisors who should have had access to these documents. How must they have advised him? Could they see the possibility Eastern central control of Canada would erode if the truth were widely known? Is this what spurred this haphazard so-called constitutional effort onward?

Mr. Roger Smith.who was a member of the Native Sons of Canada, prepared the first Resolution presented by Mackenzie King at the 1926 Imperial Conference. He said in 1965."For many years I have had much to do with the question of the right of Canada to self-government. I drafted this Resolution.(*).for the 1926 Imperial Conference, the original of which is in the Parliamentary Library in Ottawa.

This Resolution, the first to come to the attention of the.Imperial Conference, in 1926, was presented by the Rt. Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, without amendment or alteration and after being seconded by Premier Hertzog of South Africa. It was unanimously adopted by the assembled delegates from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.

This Resolution, together with another short Resolution presented to the 1930 Conference by the Rt. Hon. Richard B. Bennett, Prime Minister of Canada, to the effect that the "British North America Act should be retained by Canada," was drafted by the Parliamentary Secretary and the law officers of Parliament into legal terms in the sections of a Bill.(meaning of a 'bill').to be assented to Parliament. When enacted, the Bill was entitled "The Statute of Westminster" (December 11, 1931).

"In the years that have gone by, the feeling of satisfaction which I experienced that all sections of the Resolution were incorporated into the statute has been replaced by a sensation of profound regret that Canada, has not taken advantage of her enhanced position.(remember this is.1965.when R. Smith said this). It is evident that either the Statute has not been correctly interpreted or that it has been purposely pigeonholed."

The BNA Act (British North America Act) was written by the Colonial Department in Great Britain (drafted by, authored by) using the results of discussions in Charlottetown, 1864 and the Quebec Conference of 1864, and refers to the Union of the North American Provinces and not the "Federation" or "Confederation" of Canada as Canadians have been led to believe..(the difference in the words?).(Charlottetown Accord, 1992)

Annexation by the Americans was in the works. And, Britain supported the Confederacy and was at the point of declaring war on the US unless an apology was forthcoming within 24 hours for the Trent Affair. So as brothers always do, they vie back and forth. 

The US and Britain (stemming from two brothers back in Old Testament times; two brothers called Ephraim and Manasseh) had a long altercation history (don't all brothers fight once in a while as they grow up?). See an encyclopedia for War of 1812, etc.. 

The United States at this time, was itself an imperial power competing with Britain and also very upset. The US was upset at what Britain had done and was demanding reparation.

Among many British rulers it was felt that the American Revolution resulted from Britain permitting independence.(*).in the 13 American colonies, and they must have thought.'not another war with the US.(they had a war some 50 years earlier, the war of 1812),.we've been too soft; in this BNA Act, we had better tighten up the things which led to this earlier American independence'..Thus Britain desired to bind British North Americans more securely to Great Britain. Britain wanted to unite the provinces in Canada, at this time being Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick under a Corporate Sole (the Governor General), providing thereby a framework within which other colonies (provinces) could be be included, as well as to further strengthen Britain's presence against the US in discussions that were forthcoming in 1870.

The US had plans to make Canada part of the US. Today, it's all corporate, with Canada a sub corporation of the US, not the United States of America, but the US. 

American Representative Banks designed a.bill.for annexation of Canada, dated July 2, 1866, and presented it to the American House (here it is). Ten thousand American troops were encamped in Buffalo, ready to move across Lake Ontario and another 180,000 braced for action in case Britain refused to submit their differences to an impartial Tribunal of Arbitration. 1,500 of the Buffalo contingent did invade Ontario under Colonel John O'Neil. The next day Britain agreed to arbitration. Some permanent solution had to be found. Britain compromised and paid the US, making great concessions in the process in order to keep Canada a colony of Britain.

Britain was not about to leave the colonies comprising Canada on their own to some sort of, what they viewed at this time, 'cockeyed confederation plan' shoving Britain 'right out of everything'. Britain did not want to lose her colonies in Canada and worse yet, if she lost them, they may become part of the United States. 
    War with the US was imminent and would mean Canada would either become independent or a part of the US.

During the American Civil War (1861-1865) communications declined between the United States and Canada because the British assisted the Confederacy. Even though Canadians did not favor the Confederacy being under British control, this led to the U.S. government developing forceful anti British feelings toward Britain's colonies in Canada. The United States decided to terminate the.Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, a treaty that promoted trade between the British Colonies in what was then called Canada. As a result, the survival of the British North American colonies was at stake. The impetus to unite Canada was fueled even more.

The solution to this British dilemma was to enact the BNA Act in order to keep Canada.(what was Canada back then?).as one colony of Great Britain (a 'Dominion' of Canada, as opposed to individual colonies of Britain, so that any bargaining for colonies in the area of Canada would be rendered more difficult, as Canada would appear be a cohesive unit) and then appoint representatives instructed to reach an agreement with the US, which they did when they.talked Sir John A. Macdonald into shelving his dream.for a united Canada until these talks were completed.

Sir John pretty well gave up on his dream for a confederated Canada, realizing that in his lifetime he would always be a 'British subject'. Meeting in England in 1884, when he was 69, he took part in negotiations with the British government regarding the independent status for Canada he was still seeking. This was 17 years after a supposed confederation had already taken place of Canada in 1867. The myth of a confederation for Canada has been represented since 1931 by various Ottawa federal governments, in attempts to smother the impact to all Canadians of the Statute of Westminster. Sir John declared in one of his last speeches that "A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die". He came to realize that a true Canadian federation, what he had always wanted, was just not going to come about in his time. Sir John passed 7 years later at the age of 76 in 1891. He was a very good Scotsman who had a very fine mother. He was born in Glasgow, Scotland. John came to Canada with his parents at age 5. Through the perseverance of his mother John received a good education and became a lawyer. His dad was in manufacturing. John worked diligently over many decades for the benefit of all Canadians. ...comprised with Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Sir John A. Macdonald received his title from Britain appointing him to the Privy Council, and thus made him a member of the British Government.(he was not in any way a "father of some sort of a Canadian confederation" as Canadians have been led to believe). Sir John made a speech in the House Of Commons February 24th 1871 clearly showing he was no "father of confederation of any Provinces of Canada".

Sir John played an important part in the settlement reached between Great Britain and the United States after the civil war in the U.S. Sir John was commissioned as an envoy to assist in establishing the Washington Treaty of 1871 which averted U.S. plans to annex Canada.(mostly because, in the treaty, the US got all it wanted in the deal).and stopping the Fenian Raids

Canadians always wanted a proper federal union. The Right Honorable Sir John A. Macdonald wished it had been different than Britain having total control. On his own copy of the Act he wrote notes which said."Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick have expressed their desire to form a Federal Union for the purpose of government and legislation based on the principles of the British Constitution.(*).and ...etc.".He wanted control taken from Britain and placed under a 'hoped for' formation of a new Canadian government. People in this country, even before this, at the time of the Quebec Resolutions, wanted to form a legal nation.

Under the BNA Act the Governor General is constituted as the sole government of Canada by Sessional Papers 18. This is recognized by the Governor General's Act, Chapter 85 R.S. The Governor General was in this position all during the period of the 1867 BNA Act, until the British document, the Statute of Westminster, December 11, 1931 changed.everything.for the people of Canada.

Overall on the BNA Act, assented to by the British House of Commons March 29, 1867, to be made effective July 1, 1867: Great Britain by means of the BNA Act, a Private (not affecting any part of the British Empire but Canada) British bill, which was an absolute.Legislative Consolidation, an act of Britain conferring.no.constitutional.rights for Canadians.apart from explicit approval of the British Parliament, which, as you'll see, they weren't about to give, as the most important of Britain's imperial possessions were not trading posts but settled colonies in the Americas.

The BNA Act was the basis for the uniting of the Colonies in the area we have come to see evolve as the Canada we know and love today, into one Dominion, a Dominion of Canada under Britain's absolute control. It was for.uniting.the colonies, not for 'confederating' them.(*). It was an Act of Britain for maintaining control over her.colonial holdings which included Provinces (synonymous with colonies) within the area called the Dominion of Canada (which expanded as more Provinces were added); control through her.appointed Governor General who presided over these Provinces, collectively called 'the Dominion of Canada'..(the American 13 Colonies)

Britain's hope for a coast to coast united British North America (a united group of colonies, not a confederation) was helped by her 1867 BNA Act when the area known as Canada became a dominion of Britain, having colonies collectively called 'the Dominion of Canada'.

Under the Governor General's oversight, political parties such as the Conservatives and Liberals were allowed to form, and elections took place, whereby management of the day to day affairs of governing the country would occur.

The BNA Act was designed by Britain.(*) with intent to create a strong central authority, not be or become a constitution of any kind; designed to, in effect, function, behavior and performance, as Mr. Adderly, British House of Commons member said in the House of Commons, to allay any members concerns over Canada becoming a self governing nation in her own right where Britain would be out of it)."The Act is designed to strengthen the hands of the Governor General as much as possible".(*), especially now with the American threat and that political parties were formed within Canada, so there would be no doubt in anyone's mind over who was in control of a cohesive Canada, a Dominion of Canada. It was the antithesis of what a constitution would encompass.
    I mean, what if Canadians back then had decided to join the US? This was in the minds of British Parliament as they constructed the BNA Act. They knew what was going on. Canadians back then may have joined the US, if they had been aware of how Britain did them out of the federating of the provinces they had talked, planned and hoped for.
    Mr. Adderly's statement shows that the BNA Act is definitely.not.a reproduction of the Quebec Resolutions, something else Canadians have been cozened into believing.

So, Britain was in a precarious position. The BNA Act was to provide for a Governor General with a committee of half elected and half appointed men to aid and advise him, the intent being to create a strong central government controlled from Ontario, the colony where the Governor General resided. It accomplished this.

The BNA Act spelled out the political power structure for the United Colonies (colonies collectively known as the Dominion of Canada {which comprised the British colonies [or, provinces] in Canada}), the taxing powers of a central government, and the taxing powers of the colonies therein. It also provided a means whereby the Governor General could furnish additional public groups to "aid and advise" him in governing the Colony. Such is what the federal parliament became. The.BNA Act was in no way a constitution, and Britain made sure of that.as you'll continually see.

Britain united Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick under a Governor General with a committee half appointed and half elected to aid and advise him.

The Governor General over what was known as Canada.was the boss, the dictator, the law, the.Corporate Sole.(corporate is: a group of people authorized by law to act as an individual..the Governor General had a body of men to aid and advise him; he was.the.individual 'corporate');.see Letters Patent March 23, 1931.

The British designed constitution for its Colonies in Canada is spelled out in these Letters Patent.(the last Letters Patent was 9 months before December 11, 1931 and the Statute of Westminster, proving that Canada on this 'nine month before' date was not an independent sovereign.federated.country and that no confederation could be tied to 1867 as Canadians thought.....continues next page

.
Index of Canadian political history

Eternal Keys site
.
About the author of this treatise

.
"Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again."
...Ronald Reagan
"Enlighten the people generally and tyranny and oppression of body and mind
will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." ...Thomas Jefferson
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.