"From the evidence which I have thus far submitted I draw the following conclusions:
    1. The Provinces of Canada desired a federal union.
    2. The Quebec resolutions provided for a federal union.
    3. The bill drafted by the Canadian delegates at the London conference, also provided for a federal union.
    4. The Colonial Office was not disposed to grant the Provinces of Canada their request for a federal union.
    5. The British North America Act, enacted by the Imperial Parliament, carried out neither the spirit nor the terms of the Quebec resolutions
    6. Canada did not become a federal union under the British North America Act, but rather a united colony.(a 'Dominion' of Canada). The privilege of federating, therefore, was still a future privilege.
    7. The parliament of Canada did not become the government of Canada, much less a federal government. It became merely the central legislature of a united colony, a legislative body whose only power was that of advising the governor general as agent of the Imperial Parliament.
    8. The British North America Act, as enacted by the Imperial Parliament, was not a constitution, but merely an act of the Imperial Parliament which.united four colonies in Canada into one colony.with the supreme authority still remaining in the hands of the British government.

"As further evidence that the British North America Act was not a constitution, and that Canada.did not.become a federal union, I refer to the definition of the term "dominion" which is to be found in section 18, paragraph 3 of the Interpretation Act of 1889. It reads as follows:."The expression 'colony' shall mean any of Her Majesty's dominions, exclusive of the British islands and of British India and where parts of such dominions are under both a central legislature and local legislatures.(and this was only in Canada), all parts under the central legislature shall, for the purpose of this definition be deemed to be one colony.(one Colony, collectively called the Dominion of Canada)."
    "Excepting Canada, no country in the British Empire had a central legislature and local legislatures. Therefore, according to this definition made twenty two years after the enactment of the British North America Act,Canada is deemed to be one colony. To show that I am not alone in my conclusions, I quote some of the statements of recognized Canadian constitutional authorities.before the Special Committee.on the British North America Act.in 1935.
    The evidence that I have submitted establishes to my satisfaction that.there has been at no time in Canada any agreement, pact or treaty between the Provinces creating a federal union and a federal government.  The privilege to federate therefore was still a future privilege for the Provinces of Canada.

Canadians have not created a legal federation because they have been bamboozled by those in positions of trust.(*), whose obligation it was to make known to Canadians the status the Provinces now have available.
    Instead, Canadians have been deceived, so we could be 'raped' for the selfish advantage of those assuming control (hijacking the country), when they had absolutely no right to do what they did. The problem is, for 65 years, up to 2005, there has been no change in the 'seedbed' that has caused this. Canadians were deeply deceived then regarding the incredible rights they were given; rights they were not told about in such a way as would impel action toward a country of design by the people. Today, Canadians are in just about as much ignorance and confusion of their country's true status as they were then.

"Since the condition of sovereignty and independence must be enjoyed by the Provinces before they can confederate, it was necessary that the British government relinquish its authority over them. This was done through the enactment of the Statute of Westminster on December 11, 1931. By section 7, paragraph 2, of this statute, the Provinces.of Canada were made sovereign, free and independent.in order that they might consummate the federal union which they wished to create in 1867, but were not permitted to do so.(actually conned out of doing so).
    "Since December 11, 1931,.the Provinces of Canada have not acted on their newly acquired status; they have.not.signed an agreement, they have.not.adopted a constitution, and the people of Canada have.not.ratified a constitution. Such action should have been taken immediately.upon the enactment of the Statute of Westminster. It is by reason of the failure of the Provinces and of the people of Canada to take this action that all the anomalies in our present position exist. We have been trying since 1931 to govern ourselves federally, under an instrument which was nothing more than an act of the Imperial Parliament.(Britain).for the purpose of governing a colonial possession. 
    "Not only has this anomalous condition obtained since 1931, but it has done so.without any reference whatsoever having been made to the Canadian people. They have.not been consulted on anything pertaining to constitutional matters. Before there can be a federal union in Canada and a.(duly constituted). federal government, the provinces of Canada must be free and independent to consummate such a union. They have been free to do so since December 11, 1931 but they have not done so.

"I therefore pose this question:.Whence does the dominion parliament derive its authority to govern this country?.The Imperial Parliament cannot create a federal union in Canada or constitute a federal government for the people of Canada by virtue of the British North America Act or any other act. This can be done only by the people of Canada by agreement and because they have not yet done so, they are still part of United States under their original 1776 constitution existing long before the cabal's British North America Act.
    "Since December 11, 1931, as an individual citizen of this country I have had the right to be consulted on the matter of a constitution. I have had the right along with my fellow citizens to ratify or to refuse to ratify a constitution.(such as other former colonies of Britain have done), but I.(and fellow citizens of this country).have not been consulted in any way whatsoever. I assert therefore that.until I, along with a majority of Canadians, ratify a constitution in Canada, there can be no constitution, and I challenge successful contradiction of that proposition.
    Mr. POULIOT: Were you born in 1867?
    Mr. KUHL: Not that I recall.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Were you?
    Mr. POULIOT: No.
    Mr. KUHL:.Those who were in charge of Canadian affairs in 1931.(and those after as well, who understood, and if they didn't, what were they doing there in the first place).were under obligation to acquaint the people of Canada with the constitutional position obtained at the time and to prepare them so that they would be able to act upon their altered status..(*)
    Mr. JAENICKE: What about section 7 of the Statute of Westminster?
    Mr. KUHL: I have already answered that. I have indicated the position of the British North America Act and have pointed out that it has not been accepted as a constitution by the people of Canada.
    Mr. JAENICKE:.The Statute of Westminster made the provinces.autonomous.
    Mr. KUHL: Yes.
    Mr. JAENICKE: What about section 7 of the statute of Westminster?
    Mr. KUHL: Which one?
    Mr. JAENICKE: Amending the British North America Act..(*)
    Mr. KUHL: Just exactly as I have said,.there can be no constitution in Canada, whether it is on the basis of the British North America Act or any other act, until the people of Canada accept it. They have not accepted it.
    Mr. COLDWELL: We have been acting under the British North America Act since 1867.
    Mr. KUHL: That does not alter the situation.
    Mr. JAENICKE: What are you going to do about it?

Note: None of these good hearted people, as it seems, knew much if anything important of what Canada was before 1867. 

"To show that I am not alone in my proposal, I quote Doctor Beauchesne from the evidence of the special committee on the British North America Act in 1935. On page 126 of the evidence he is credited with saying:."....The Statute of Westminster has altered our status.(*)....The time has come in my humble opinion, when the British North America Act, except as to minority rights, should be transformed and a new constitution more in conformity with present conditions should be adopted. Amendments here and there would be mere patchwork which could not last. The people of 1935 are different from those of 1867. What we want is a new constitution.(one which puts people first, and the only way that's going to come about is if the people set it up in the first place.–.how?). ...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, therefore, beg to suggest an imposing constituent assembly formed of eminent men coming from all parts of Canada. Provincial conferences, attended by a few ministers meeting behind closed doors, would hardly satisfy public opinion. The debate should be public...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 of a provincial legislature ....."
    "And on page 128 Doctor Beauchesne is reported as follows:."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."
    "And again on page 131:."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."
    "And page 135:."I think the time is ripe for a change in the constitution. I do not think you would need much publicity in order to draw to the attention of the people of this country that the British North America Act is inadequate."
    "And finally on page 129:."Whether our country should be changed from a dominion to a kingdom is also a subject which might be discussed. I would suggest that the country should be called 'the federated states of Canada'."
    "I contend, Mr. Speaker, that such are the actions which should be taken before it is appropriate to adopt a distinctive national flag. I submit that the adoption of a new flag of our own designing should be the crowning act to putting our constitutional house in order. I believe that the statements which I have placed upon the record are historical facts.
   " I believe that the conclusions which I have drawn from these facts are the only ones which can be drawn from them, and I believe, consequently, that the solution which I have suggested is the only one adequate for the circumstances. If hon. members of this assembly can successfully dispute either the facts which I have submitted or the conclusions which I have drawn therefrom, I shall be prepared to withdraw those conclusions, but if they do not do so, I believe the people of the country have a right to know what they propose to do in the circumstances.
    "It was my intention to move an amendment, but as one has been moved already I shall refrain from doing go until the amendment already moved has been dealt with. So far as the substance of that amendment is concerned, I repeat what I have previously indicated. I think it is premature to consider any flag, either the one suggested in the amendment or any other. There are other and more important actions to be taken before we can consider the adoption of a new flag."

Ottawa: Printed by Edmond Cloutier, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, 1945.