"The flag question.(link to https://www.detaxcanada.org/canflag.htm has been taken down; they don't want you to know the truth).is just one of the many anomalies which exist in Canada's constitutional position. Some of these have been referred to this afternoon. One of them, the matter of Canadian citizenship, is intended to be dealt with at this session. There are others, such as amendments to the constitution.(there was no constitution and neither is there one today as Canada, like the U.S. was in bankruptcy {caused by the policies against people by the cabal} and when bankrupt, contracts can't be entered into), appeals to the privy council, the power of disallowance, the matter of a federal district proper, and doubtless there are others.
    "All these anomalies ought to be dealt with, and I am personally in favour of dealing with them at the earliest possible opportunity. But I consider that the present piecemeal method is improper as well as undemocratic. I contend that the people of Canada are not being consulted in the manner in which I believe they ought to be concerning their rights in these questions.

"I wish to indicate, Mr. Speaker, my reasons for contending that the method that is proposed to attempt to remove these anomalies is improper and undemocratic. Then I wish to indicate what I consider to be the proper method to use. To do this I first wish to endeavour to account for the constitutional circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment.
    "The question which must occur to every hon. member of this house and to every other citizen in this country is, why do such anomalies exist in our constitutional position? How did they come about? There must be something in Canada's constitutional history that accounts for the circumstances in which we find ourselves. No other part of the British Empire finds itself in the same circumstances.
    "Why are these conditions peculiar to the people of Canada? In endeavouring to answer these questions, and in suggesting what I consider to be the proper remedy for them, I am not posing as a constitutional expert, although I may say it is now ten years since I began my studies on this subject, and I trust I shall not be considered presumptuous in claiming to have added a little to my knowledge in that time.
    "The matters which I wish to discuss are those which every public school child in seventh and eighth grades, every high school student, and certainly every voter should be thoroughly familiar.
.
Every citizen in the land should know by what authority we do things in this country. On several occasions during the past two parliaments I have argued the case I am about to introduce, but very little attention was paid to my statements either in the house or out of it. On this occasion I intend to be heard and if not I demand to know the reason, why. I consider that the situation which I shall discuss is of such importance that a reply or a comment should certainly be forthcoming from the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley) the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and for that matter from all hon. members of the house. I and the people who have sent me here have a right to know whether there is or is not a basis in fact for my contentions and if there is, they have the right to know what is going to be done about it.

"I propose to make a reasoned argument supported by the best evidence I have been able to secure. If my argument is to be controverted, I demand that it be met with a reasoned argument and not with personal abuse and statements which are wholly irrelevant. I expect a more intelligent criticism of my argument than was exhibited by a certain hon. member when I discussed this subject in a previous parliament. In.Hansard.of April 8, 1938, at page 2183, this little exchange took place between myself and the hon. member for Selkirk, Mr. Thorson:
    Mr. Thorson: Would the hon. member indicate where he gets these queer ideas?
    Mr. MacNichol: He has queer ideas of his own.
    Mr. Kuhl: I continue:
    Mr. Kuhl: I placed on Hansard on February 10 a clear outline of the reasons for my statement. If the hon. member wishes to refute any of the facts or arguments which I placed before the house, I shall be pleased to hear the refutation.
    Mr. Thorson: Why battle against windmills?
    Mr. Kuhl: "I submit that the subject matter and the arguments which I presented on that occasion were worthy of more intelligent criticism than was exhibited by that hon. gentleman. I have long ago learned that when an individual has a weak argument or no argument at all, he usually resorts to personal abuse of his opponent. If hon. members have not a better argument to make than Mr. Thorson made on that occasion, I suggest that they hold their peace.
    "In submitting my argument, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that I am actuated by the highest possible motives. We proudly proclaim our faith in democracy; we proclaim it from the housetops. I wish to urge that we practice what we preach. Let us demonstrate democracy instead of merely paying lip service to it.
    "It is my desire to see the people of Canada be consulted where their fundamental rights are concerned. I wish to see government of the people by the people. These are the motives which actuate me in what I have to say on this resolution.
    "In presenting the special case I am about to discuss I am not necessarily speaking as a member of the Social Credit group; I am speaking as a native of Canada. The matters on which I am to speak are of fundamental concern to every citizen of Canada regardless of his or her political persuasion. They are among the most serious matters upon which a citizen can be called to think; they are the bedrock considerations of human government.

Note: It says.'governments ...derive their just powers from the consent of the governed'.
    In Canada, there is no consent (oh, the fed says "it's implied") for powers the government uses for decisions that so often affect Canadians adversely. If a decision is not to citizens' best interests, whose best interests is it for? Any government like this is not a governement at all but a dictatorship using friendly names such as  'democratic'.
    The results have shown various governments in Canada - local, regional, provincial, national, cause advantage for themselves and in turn for corporations these governments have invested money extracted from human beings under penalty (that's slavery - they make the rules often adversely affecting people; they make the penalties to force compliance and that's totalitarianism, Hitler and Mussolini style).

When people in one area have no effective say, it's a 'closed shop' for those that have the say.
   One example is the Province of Alberta:.Albertans have not been the wealthiest Canadians, but because of the belief that they are part of a confederation, they are the biggest contributors to the cost of Canada.
    Alberta Treasury calculates, every man, woman and child paid a net fee of $2,905 into Canada in 2000. For a family of four, that amounts to $11,620. The federal government has taken almost $200 billion out of Alberta in the last 30 years. Former Liberal Prime Minister Chretien said the province needed "tough love" and former Liberal finance minister Marc LaLonde stated that the main reason for the now infamous NEP (National Energy Program) was to bring Alberta down. Now, how's that for a government being socialistically 'fair' to all Canadians? When it comes to transfer payments, the same hypocritical socialist party cries that taking (perhaps 'stealing' may be a better word), under policies they designed which were not agreed to by the people to be negatively affected by them) from one area to benefit other areas (areas of course the ruling socialist elite had decided upon) and of course, areas again in which the ilk mostly hail from. It is a well documented fact of the billions of dollars that have been extorted from the Province of Alberta and used in ways contrived by those who stand waiting to benefit.
    On a larger scale, the Kyoto agreement about global warming signed by a few feds (like, never mind to properly, and unbiasedly, and with openness and total transparency, educate the people of the country with the facts, eh!) is another con job.
.
Even though Australia was allowed to have her own constitution in 1909.(*), it wasn't until December 11, 1931, Britain gave up her 'Dominion' of Australia and she became an independent nation.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 

And you can add to this: Britain back then was inflexible when it came to maintaining control of her colonial possessions, even using coercion when necessary.
    These and other things (the tariffs, the missing page, the inserted clauses, etc.) show that the BNA Act was not any confederation of the Provinces at all; Britain would just not allow it!

"In order to endeavour to account for the contradictions in Canada's constitutional position and to suggest a remedy therefor, I wish to lay down some fundamental premises on which I shall base my entire argument..Locke.is credited with saying:."Men being by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the power of another without his consent. The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community."
    "Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, states: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by.their Creator.with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ...".(the rest of it)

"Now I should like to ask a few questions concerning our position in Canada. Did the provinces of Canada desire federal union?

"The Quebec resolutions, the London resolutions and the draft of the bill by the London delegates all indicate that the Provinces of Canada desired federal union.

"The preamble to the Quebec resolutions reads: "The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a federal union under the crown. Clause 70 of the Quebec Resolutions indicates that whatever agreement was arrived at by the delegates would be submitted to the Provinces for their approval. It reads: The sanction of the Imperial.(Britain). and local parliaments shall be sought for the union of the provinces, on the principles adopted by the conference.
.
"Furthermore, a bill drafted in London, by the Canadian delegates contains the same preamble that appears in the Quebec Resolutions, and this draft bill also contains a repealing clause which hon. members can find on page 179 of Pope's Confederation Documents. It reads:."From and after the union, all acts and parts of acts passed by the parliament of Great Britain, the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the legislature of Upper Canada, the legislature of Lower Canada, the legislature of Canada, the legislature of Nova Scotia, or the legislature of New Brunswick, which are repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of this act shall be and the same are hereby repealed."

"The next question is:.Did Canada become a federal union, under the British North America Act?.I submit that the manner in which the bill was drafted and the manner in which it was enacted throw much light on the answer to this question. The act was drafted by the law officers of the Crown attached to the Colonial Office. Lord Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the Colonies, was the chairman of the conference. Sir Frederick Rogers, undersecretary for the colonies, in Lord Blachford's Letters, is quoted as saying at page 301: They held many meetings at which I was always present. Lord Carnarvon was in the chair, and I was rather disappointed in his power of presidency.
.
"In reading accounts of the times it is quite obvious that the bill which was drafted by the.(British).Colonial Office seems to have prevailed over that which was drafted by the delegates from Canada. The title and preamble of the Bill drafted by the Colonial Office reads:."The union.(the 'union', not the 'confederation'.(*).of the British North American colonies, and for the government of the united colony. Whereas the union of the British North American colonies for the purposes of government and legislation would be attended with great benefits to the Colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom; ..."
    "That is the preamble of the draft bill submitted by the Colonial Office, whereas the preamble of the bill drafted by the Canadian delegates reads:."Whereas the provinces of Canada. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to form a federal union under the British Crown for the purpose of government and legislation, based upon the principles of the British constitution ..."
    "I submit, Mr. Speaker, no evidence is to be found to show that the preamble which we find in the printed copies of the British North America Act in Canada was either discussed or proven.(means to 'establish authenticity of').in the British Parliament.
.
"This preamble.(that later showed up as having been submitted). reads:."Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion, it is expedient therefore that they have laws and regulations to guide them....."
.
"Lord Carnarvon, who introduced the BNA bill on February 19, 1867 to House of Lords in Britain, used these words as reported at page 559 of the British.Hansard:."The bill opens by reciting the desire of the several provinces to be federally united.".(at this point it had the wishes of the Canadian delegation in it)
    "Furthermore Lord Campbell, speaking to the bill on February 26 of the same year, is reported at page 1012 of the British Hansard as having said:."The bill is founded, I believe, on what is termed the Quebec scheme of 1864. When the resolution, which alone engages the Nova Scotian parliament, was in debate, its whole tenor, as our papers show, were against that project. The leader of the government was understood distinctly to renounce it. Our lights, indeed, may be imperfect upon this part of the subject, and I will not dwell upon it. But one thing is clear, the preamble of the resolution comes before us in full and perfect authenticity. The preamble lays down the expediency of confederating North America".
   "I submit it should be evident from these questions that the preamble which was discussed was that to be found in the Quebec resolutions, not the one we find in the printed copies of the British North America Act in Canada.
.
"A pertinent question to ask at this point would be:.when was the present preamble placed in the British North America Act? Why was it not discussed in the British parliament, and, furthermore, what is the significance of an act bearing a preamble which was not even discussed, let alone proven? Another point of significance in connection with this, I believe is the undue haste with which the bill was passed through the Imperial Parliament.
    "When second reading was called for, the bill was not even printed. At page 1090 of British.Hansard.for February 27, 1867, we find these words:."Mr. Hatfield said he rose to ask the government why it was the second reading of this bill had been fixed for tomorrow. It was one which affected 4,000.000 of people.(Canadians).and upon which great doubts and differences of opinion were entertained. It was not yet printed and was of so important a character that he thought some little time ought to elapse after it was in the hands of the members before it was introduced in order that some little consultation should take place upon it. He was not at all sure that he should be opposed to it but he certainly required more time to consider it."
    "Later, on page 1195, on February 28, we find this:."He (Mr. Hatfield) thought that a bill of such great importance ought not to be passed through parliament with such haste. It was read a third time in the House of Lords only on Tuesday night, and two days after they were called to give it a second reading in that house.(this time referring to the House of Commons), that was a bad precedent to establish and might produce ill effect at another time. If the bill had been delayed only for a few weeks, the people of Nova Scotia would have been able to express an opinion upon it. He had not had time to consider either the bill itself or the papers on the subject which had been put into his hands.
.