Twenty two years after the BNA Act of 1867, in 1889.(long after the so-called.'confederation' date Ottawa has purported.for the lopsided benefit of central Canada concerns and fostered upon a bamboozled public since the 'thirties'), the Interpretation Act, 1889 was passed stating that Canada.is.a colony,.not a confederation. So obviously the claim of any current Canadian confederation is simply a reductio ad absurdum.

Considering all these things, Canada, equals confusion, thanks to two con jobs, a snow job, a de facto government.(word 'de facto'),.and some non de jure.impositions by a controlled Ottawa oligarchy along the way, leading Canadians to think that the present federal government is based upon something more than what the Supreme Court called a country by custom, convention and tradition. They did not say it was by federation! It's the centralist cabal controlled government that spouts the erroneous.concept that we're a nation under a constituted federal government and this comes with the implication that, of course, they are a legal government, whcih they are not. It's all been a con job.

It was the Provinces.which were granted supreme status at the time of the Statute of Westminster, now having been elevated to the status of Eminent Domain. They had no need to go elsewhere to, for example, debate a flag which would represent them. They had an obligation to make known to Canadians the opportunity that lay before them to now create a legal federal union out of the ideas of the people of the country. This never happened.

Even Sir John A. Macdonald.attested to the fact of no confederation in 1867,.here...

If there had been any confederation of the Provinces in Canada, each party to the agreement would be in possession of a copy listing all signatories.(*). Check the archives of any Province.

But you may say, well it's all done now. No it isn't! But you say, we can just work around it. Why? Why work with error when there's an extremely viable option? Why work with error when it's possible to now do it right?.(*) Why continue to be the only one of the former dominions that has an unnatural constitution. But it would be an admission that Canada, at the top, was incompetent, self centered and deceitful in the past. Yep! It would be. And Canada was and some parts of the country would like things to remain as they are to their continued advantage. Previous politicians have made this country a laughing stock to those dignified politicians understanding Canada's and the individual Provinces real and present, status.

So, now, where are we now in Canada? Since the Statute of Westminster, December 11, 1931, Canada has reverted to where it was in 1763 with the constitution granted to James Murray by Britain's Board of Trade and Plantations.

The Statute of Westminster is.such.an important document and it's really sad that many Canadians have no idea of its massive significance and how it can change their lives and the lives of their children for the good now and on into future generations of Canadians.
    Once this document's impact is grasped (it's not that difficult and doesn't really take all that much of your time to get a good understanding of it), you will understand why some past Canadian prime ministers wanted to keep its outcome from Canadians by both circumventing it using con jobs.

There really has been no alteration in the Government of Canada since the capitulation of the French forces in 1763 with the exception that since Canada is no longer under the Colonial Office (Britain), by reason of the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, December 11, 1931, the Colonial Office has not accredited a governor to Canada, therefore...

Under this Statute of Westminster, the Provinces were made equal with Great Britain. The power went to the Provinces.

Ottawa.never.was a province or colony. It was the city where a committee of men, half appointed (the Senate or Upper House) and half elected (the House of Commons, the Lower House) aided and advised the Governor General and rent was paid on the buildings they used, who all were constituted by the BNA Act in force from 1867 to 1930.

After this Statute of Westminster effectively removed the Governor General and his authority over Canada, those in Ottawa began to play games with Canada, by not making known to the people of Canada their new constitutional opportunity, carrying on as though the Governor General was still in proper position, all the while surreptitiously.appropriating powers that Canadians would never have allowed them to have, had the truth been known, and Canadians had a part in drafting their own constitution.

And, what has all this brought Canada: Adscam, increasing taxation, tax upon tax, such as.GST.(illegal?.*), on even second hand goods {cars, etc}), Carbon Tax, National Energy Program (tax) and at least a good 'free' health care system; an unstable devalued dollar subject to wide fluctuations,.a 'special status' for Quebec.because of her majority French speaking culture where she can be unilingual but the rest of Canada with minute French populations in so many areas are forced to become bilingual and the erroneous concept disseminated by the federal government in Ottawa of 'two founding nations', a propaganda campaign to sway the opinions of Canadians to the way the fed wanted them to go, was finally struck down by the Supreme Court as being unfounded; preferential freight rates.(*); huge grants to accelerate genetically modified 'food' development without approval of Canada's electorate for either the direction.(whether to go into altering genetic code in foods in the first place, such as where pesticides are placed right into the gene of the food).or the amounts.

Zero dollars going to struggling organic farmers who produce real food, an arrogated decision to, of all things,.not even label foods.(can you believe this type of subjugation?).that have been tampered with.(genetically modified); what kind of a government does this to a populace?; the Kyoto boondoggle; a former National Energy Program (1980-1984) that was anything but nationally concerned, but was instead, a money grab, taking from those who produced it to those who felt they could somehow use it in ways.they.determine.(extreme socialism bordering on, or comprising closet communism), where even its design architect Liberal Party cabinet minister Marc Lalonde admitted that the only reason it was implemented was to bring down the province of Alberta's wealth.(at a time of great prosperity).as the power was moving away from central control; where the money is, the power is. How's that for a nice government?

Property rights have been taken away from Canadians and many other nations, as this was a worldwide effort by the cabal. The socialist dream is to have all property rights in the hand of the state where you as a citizen can own no property, but they can and it's your land if you live and work in it, because they are supposed to be representing the wishes of those in it. Ever wonder why they want this? That's another interesting insight. One thing it does do, is hold people back. Contrast factors producing the Industrial Revolution. Ask any real estate agent or your local real estate board about what property rights you have in Canada now. Why was this done? Yeah, I know,.because they could as they are the plunderous kind. 

A free market system as compared with antiquated policies such as 'managed economy' provided little difference. Incessant spawning and modification of laws, regulations, programs and 'national purposes' are the expression of a state that sees itself not as a function existing for benefit of the general public, but rather as a controller, a manager of citizens and their production. Of course rules and regulations are necessary. They just need to be the ones the people want. It is their country!

Many governments in Canada successive to the extinguished BNA Act have proven their inability to protect citizens from itself. Something is seriously wrong when governments impose policies, often kept submerged until implemented, that are disadvantageous to the populace. What do you call it when citizenry are denied occasion for approval or repudiation,.(like, how many referenda have you had opportunity to vote for in Canada?).and why would this lack of occasion occur.if.a country was truly a democratic country? Could it be that proposals would be subject to a rejection risk, had the citizens possessed opportunity for vote upon them?, So, it's a dictatorship, a parliamentary dictatorship, that is absolved from concerns of the people of the land.

Are citizens actually being dispossessed of rights by policies excluded from their consideration, policies which are to affect them nonetheless; policies which obviously are felt to be advantageous to those mandating them, or those policies would not exist in the first place.

What have some of these policies been?.1/3 of income written out of income tax calculations, patronage appointments, indexed incomes unapproved by the populace.(but probably a good idea when you think about it; but not a good idea if the citizenry hasn't approved it), no smoking here, no smoking there, forced metrication and Frenchification of the entire country, closed door meetings about things later to affect the populace that they have not been priorly made aware of, nor had chance for input and voting upon, funding of groups not approved by the populace, while denying funding to other often much more helpful groups the populace perhaps may have agreed on, given opportunity; decisions proved to be virtually valueless, that the public should have had input on.(used submarine purchases which killed people because they were not really seaworthy, helicopters same story, soldiers that had to buy their own uniforms, etc., etc. ad nauseam).

What has led to this in Canada has come from some con jobs and disreputable prime ministers that have set cons in motion, the effects of which, have carried on to this day.

If a government isn't subject to effective laws laid down by citizens and attempts to prescribe, license, tax and govern virtually all human activity, then it's totalitarianism. Today, in Canada, when a candidate is elected he is placed under control of the prime minister if his party was in the majority and won the election. Any concern of the populace, from that moment on, can then be bypassed if the party in power so chooses. Is this representative government? Without constitutional limitations on the power of a government, after an election, it can quickly evolve into a political system in which the elected party exercises abusive power. In Canada, instead of the people being defended against enemies of their lives, liberty and property, past governments have been the adversaries.

Things just have to be spelled out on.how citizens want their government to act, otherwise it's just like a teenager who has no guidelines; they take all the advantage they can, often ending up hurting you in the process.

Things need to change if we are ever to have a great society now and for children growing up and their children and on beyond. Things that need consideration for change.
    Governments without control by citizens living in the land are governments that go corrupt.(*).

We could use the BNA Act along with constitutions of other countries as a guide in forming a real Canadian constitution, or we could create one totally from scratch. Together, Canadians could develop a constitution that is at least equal to, and perhaps the best of all constitutions in the world; we are last in civilized countries, so we have all the others to go by (example). Its formulation would involve virtually.all Canadian citizens.–.all Canadians having opportunity for input in the process. Everyone who cares enough to participate in the constitution's formulation, principles and guidelines, would be given occasion for voting on its completed drafts and final draft ratification.

Various Canadian prime ministers (R.G. Bennett, Mackenzie King, and much later, even Trudeau) seemed to make it want to appear as if this BNA Act was a continuing Act and began referring to it as the Canadian Constitution, even having the name changed on the defunct BNA Act in 1982 to what it says today after so many revisions.'Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982'. 

Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's Constitution Act of 1982 added stuff to the defunct BNA Act.(discharged as of December 11, 1931 thanks to the Statute of Westminster), talked to provincial premiers to get them to agree.(most, if not all back then, obviously had no idea why they shouldn't agree) and then ran off to England, as if England legally, still had something to do with Canada at this time and returned triumphing a new "Canadian Constitution.

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney attempted to secure Quebec's approval of this new Trudeau constitution in 1987 with the Meech Lake Accord, which required the unanimous.assent of all provinces within a three year period.

As a result of a new language dispute and English Canadian concerns over identification of Quebec as a "distinct society", the accord was never ratified. The crisis continued, even after Mulroney forged another compromise, the Charlottetown Accord.

Up to the date of the Statute of Westminster December 11, 1931, no union could take place between the Provinces of British North America as they were not sovereign or independent communities possessing qualities essential to the basis of such a union. The Provinces are Sovereign and will remain so until we the people through our Provincial Governments create a country.

Sovereignty still resided with the British Crown (see Monck's letter) and the Imperial Legislature.
    The only course toward any kind of union taking place was by means of an act of the Imperial Parliament (in Britain). Britain.then.was not about to allow this to happen.

But since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster on December 11, 1931, where England gave up her sovereign rights to the colonies, collectively known as the Dominion of Canada, a different story occurs. The Provinces were now free to form a federal union, but to this day in 2006, they still haven't. What an opportunity awaits all Canadians!

Since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster neither the Government of the United Kingdom nor His nor Her Majesty have sent an accredited representative to Canada, so, what's one doing here, and who's paying the bills?
    When asked, the reply by means of the British High Commission and the Canadian High Commissioner through the Department of State for External Affairs, Ottawa said, when asked by.Frank Eliason, Secretary, United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan Section Ltd., Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,.what department of the Government of the United Kingdom was responsible for appointing Canada's Governor General: From File Number 624-30 August 13, 1945."No Department of the Government of the United Kingdom is concerned in any way with the appointment of the Governor General of Canada.".And from the Justice Department File number 5111-40 July 10, 1940."The answer is that His Excellency the Governor General came to Canada.not in the capacity of viceroy of His Majesty, except in the popular sense of the term.".(Signed) J. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice.
    So what happened that we still have a Governor General?

And, just where do we go from here?

.

.
Index of Canadian political history

Eternal Keys site