ANTIFA - WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY ARE IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND -are ANTI -FREE SPEECH is was created in the Universities in the US As ANTI FIRST AMENDMENT - To Shut Down Free Speech - The Controlled Media did not want this out - So they DID a COVER UP and Re-Branded the ANTI FIRST AMENDMENT - To ANTI FASCISTS - the TRUTH is they are ANTI FREE SPEECH - THEY RE - BRANDED TO ANTIFA - THEY ARE COMMUNISTS
I know this will mostly fall on deaf ears, but for the Antifa – stop and think about the violence you’re asking for and planning on committing. Think about the lives that your actions will cost. Realize that the murders and assaults you plan on carrying out will change nothing in your favor. In preparing this article I did as much research as I could on your group, you have no core set of beliefs, you seem to be nothing but paid thugs. Think about those who lead you, always safe and warm and sheltered from the repercussions of the actions they promoted. If all you are is a tool don’t let that tool be a weapon
As for the Antifa crowd, the best I can tell is you‘re just being used.
I can’t think of a single time in history when thugs hiding behind masks and assaulting people with differing opinions were the good guys. That hasn’t changeda
There’s a solution to all these scandals and rip offs.
In 1931 the UK Parliament passed the statute of Westminster, which literally dissolved all government in Canada, it dissolved our dominion and made each province its own sovereign nation. The Myth Of Canada
http://www.nephalemfilms.com/themyth.html
It gave the land to the citizens and told them to design laws and each sovereign nation to create its own type of government, and after that, if it was desired, to create its own dominion or union to create a big nation.
But the politicians of the day knew, it was 1931, and there was no way the people would know what happened, so they started a lie, a lie to keep not only their jobs, but to gain power.
They robbed Canadians of forming their own destiny. That day in December when the UK pulled the highest power in the land, the Governor General, lying politicians decided to lie and say they had the power to assign their own Governor General.
There was a book written on what had happened, it’s called “Ho Canada”’but the lying government (herby referred to as the de facto) banned the book from within Canada!!!
But here we are in 2019, and we have the facts about what was done, and we know how to fix it, we have the lawful right to claim (de jure) our destiny, we can unseat this de facto governmental system and seat our own de jure government.
All the debt the de facto incurred, will remain the politicians in the de facto’s debt, each responsible for his/her fair share!!!!
We are prepared to gather the citizens of each province/sovereign nation (Country ), to write and vote on lawful constitutional articles of convention that will govern us and our representatives in the new lawful governments. We are unique in the world to be able to do so. Join us!!!!
SOLUTIONS DE JURE GOVERNMENT
SOLUTIONS Constitutional Conventions Learn more here
https://www.facebook.com/groups/373652496802161/
The Myth Of Canada
http://www.nephalemfilms.com/themyth.html
George Soros’ Tides Foundation and the PPC -For ALL the PPC member, I expect you to address this article FULLY with Maxime Bernier!
ALBERTA
HAS
THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT
TO
ISSUE AND USE
ITS OWN CREDIT
A Factual Examination of
the Constitutional Problem
by
R. ROGERS SMITH
OTTAWA
1937 NOTE
The information contained in this booklet was placed before Premier Aberhart
and members of his Cabinet by R. Rogers Smith at the Macdonald Hotel,
in Edmonton, on October 25th 1935.
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937 2
FORWORD Although the information in this booklet is important to all (Provinces and all Canadians, it is vital to the people of Alberta, particularly the elected members, because Alberta
elected representatives committed to introduce a Social Credit regime. Throughout the country Canadians are intently watching Alberta — “Why do they
stall ?” “Why do they not put Social Credit into effect ?” They talked enough about it. Is
it that they do not know about the relationship of Alberta to the Dominion ?” These are
questions being asked today.
By checking the information in this brochure it can be proved that Alberta has the
Sovereign right to issue and use its own credit. If, however, the members do not do
this, they can be justly accused by their electors of incompetence or worse. The facts are
taken from the Statutes at large, from the Archives, and from original historical sources
which are irrefutable. I desire to express my gratitude to the various constitutional authorities who have assisted me in the checking and verifying the facts contained herein.
R. R. S.
From 1937 until 2007, seventy years have elapsed before this pamphlet was digitized, and more years are bound to pass ; the only explanation for this lack of consideration towards the information therein offered and the appropriate response stems
mostly from the teachings of our historians and the media organisations. What is
broadcasted about agreements to be reached between provincials rests mostly on
languages, when a Federal Union calls upon territ
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937
3 I — THE ATTEMPT TO FEDERATE THE COLONIES OF
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA. The reason the request of the Colonies to be permitted to form a Federal Union was
refused by the Colonial Office in 1867 was because the United States were pressing Great
Britain for a settlement of the claims for indemnity arising out of the actions of the British Navy during the Civil War, for which Great Britain acknowledged responsibility in
the Treaty of Washington. The terms of this Treaty could only be settled by retaining
Canada as a Colony.
Great Britain had not only assisted the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865, but had
joined in a conspiracy with France, Spain and Austria to divide North America between
them. On October 31st, 1861 a convention was held in London attended by delegates from
England, France and Spain ; they agreed to a joint intervention in Mexican affairs. Emperor Maximilian, brother of Franz Joseph of Austria, was to be placed on the throne of
Mexico, Louisiana, which extended at the time from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian
border, was to be returned to France. The Northern States were to be defeated and returned to England as Colonies. The Confederacy was to be free and retain their slaves.
Great Britain floated the bonds of the Confederacy ; the proceeds were used to build
the Alabama, Florida, Georgia, the Shenandoah, fast sailing ships and their auxiliaries. These were built in Great Britain and the headquarters of the CF Navy was in Liverpool,
as all the CF ports were blockaded. They swank $15,000,000 worth of United States
shipping without taking a prize into an Admiralty court, and without firing a shot at an
armed enemy.
Great Britain also spent $5,000,000 on her own navy, and at the time of the Trent affair embarked 8000 troops for Canada to attack Lincoln from Toronto. The Spanish fleet, at the time in Cuban waters, arrived to invest Vera Cruz Dec. 14th
,
1861. The British and French fleets arriving Jan. 6th and 7th of 1862. France supplied
30,000 troops for this campaign.
The Czar of Russia takes a Hand
Still smarting from the Crimean War 1854-1856, the Czar, to disrupt the scheme of
the European Allies, sent his powerful Baltic squadron to New York harbour and his Pacific squadron to San Francisco. His action had the desired effect. Great Britain and Spain
withdrew their fleets from Vera Cruz leaving the burden of supporting the Emperor
Maximilian entirely to France. He was eventually taken prisoner and with two of his
Generals, court-martialled and shot. When Lincoln won the Civil War, France was informed in plain terms “that the
United States would not tolerate a French force or the existence of any foreign Monarchy
in Mexico”. On Jan. 14th, 1866, Napoleon ordered his General in Mexico to withdraw the
troops.
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937
4
Speech in Ottawa at Session of 1865 by the
Hon. John A. Macdonald on terms of Treaty of Washington
In a four and a half hour speech in Ottawa the Hon. John A. Macdonald told the
House that he was notified by a statesman in the United States that if satisfactory terms
could not be agreed upon it meant war between the United States and Great Britain. In
that event naturally Canada would be invaded.
During these eventful and hectic times our delegates arranged to leave Canada July
30th, 1866, to take the Quebec Resolution to London ; these Resolutions, which were for
a Federal Union, were to be returned to the people for their ratification (see Section 70). We were to have a government of the Canadian people.
Tilly, Tupper, Archibald, and the Maritime delegates left as arranged, Tilly to be
chairman. The Hon. JAM wrote him on the eve of his departure ;
“… On no account change any of the provisions of the Resolutions for if you do it
may mean an entire re-opening of the negotiations with the Provinces and the consequent disruption of our plans…”. The Hon. John wrote the letter because he was unavoidably detained. Armed parties
of men from the United States had invaded Ontario; citizens were enlisted to repel the
raids. They were not driven out, however, until $8,000,000 of damage was done to the
Province of Ontario.
The United States were pressing for a settlement of the claims against Great Britain,
and an unofficial agreement had been reached on
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937
5
It is not difficult to understand why the Colonial Office, objected to Canada’s request
for self-government. It would have been a suicidal policy on the part of Great Britain to
grant the Provinces of Canada the right to create a Federal Union. It was imperative for
the best interest of Great Britain that Canada be retained a Colony, so that they could
settle the terms they had tentatively agreed to in the Treaty of Washington.
In a pamphlet entitled the Balance Sheet of the Washington Treaty, 1871, a copy of
which is in the Parliamentary Library at Ottawa, Viscount Bury, the author and a member
of the Imperial Parliament, frankly tells us that the interest of Canada were sacrificed to
make peace between England and the United States ; England agreed to : 1. Pay ₤3,500,000 in settlement of the claims for shipping sunk (the Alabama
Claims). 2. National Expression of regret (an apology). 3. Canadian loan ₤2,500.000. 4. Settle claims arising out of the War. 5. To cession of territorial rights in perpetuity. 6. To cession in perpetuity of joint navigation of the St. Lawrence. 7. To cession of indemnity for “Fenian raids” $8,000,000. 8. To equal rights with British subjects of fishing rights in Newfoundland and
Nova Scotia.
An arbitration board was set up and final payment made by Great Britain at Geneva
by payment of ₤3,229,000, in 1872.
The United States allowed certain sums for the disputed boundaries, which should
have been credited or paid by Great Britain to Canada as well as the indemnity for the
“Fenian Raids” $8,000,000 which is still owing to the Province of Ontario.
Had the Colonial Office granted our request for a Federal Union, the Imperial Parliament would have had nothing to barter with in their settlement with the United States ; as
well as the possibility that after creating a Federal Union, Canada would join the United
States, which at the time was considered an enemy. The status of Canada has since been changed by an Act of the Imperial Parliament,
the Statute of Westminster, Dec. 11th, 1931, Section 11 of the Act states that Canada is no
longer to be considered as a “Colony”, and recognizes Canada as an equal with Great
Britain as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. II — HOW DID WE GET THE B.N.A. ACT, 1867 ?
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937
6
In a communication dated Dec. 28th, 1866, Lord Carnarvon acknowledged receipt of
the draft of the “Bill” submitted by the Hon. John A. Macdonald, Chairman of the Canadian delegates ; and told him that he was sending the draft to the printers to be printed. This was done, as we have in the Archives at Ottawa printed copies of this draft. Each
delegate from Canada signed his own copy.
The British North America Act passed the second reading of the
House of Commons, without being printed —
(See Parliamentary Debates February 26th, 1867)
Between Dec. 28th and Feb. 9th following, we are informed by Sir Frederic Rogers,
Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies :— “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. I had always believed — and the belief has so consolidated itself
that I can hardly realize the possibility of anyone thinking the contrary — that the destiny
of our Colonies is independence, and that in this view the functions of the Colonial Office
is, to secure that our connection, while it lasts, shall be profitable to both parties and our
separation, when it comes, as amicable as possible. This opinion is founded, first, on the
general principle that a spirited Nation — and a Colony becomes a Nation — will not
submit to be governed in its internal affairs by a distant government, and that nations geographically remote have no such common interest that will bind them permanently together in foreign policy, with all its details and mutations”. The minutes of the meetings at which the British North America Act was drafted
have never been made public.
Referring to Hansard we find that the “Bill” was introduced by Lord Carnarvon to the
House of Lords February 9th, 1867, in the following words :—
“The Bill opens by reciting the desire of the several provinces to be Federally
United”.
The actual words of the Preamble are :—
“By reason of the request of the Colonies for Federal Government. It is expedient therefore that they have Laws and Regulations to guide them”.
Lord Campbell, leader of the opposition in the House of Lords, in opening his speech
at the second reading of the “Bill” February 26th, 1867 said : “The ‘Bill’ is founded I believe on what is termed the Quebec scheme of 1864 —
Our lights, indeed may be imperfect about 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
clear and perfect authenticity”. There is no reason to doubt that the House of Lords believed they were enacting
a measure that would permit the Provinces to form a Federal Union.
The page which sets forth the enunciation of the motives for which the measure was
enacted is not a part of the printed copies of the Act received in Canada. Instead of this
we have a substitution — “Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937
7
Brunswick have expressed their desire to be Federally United into one Dominion”. This
is not a true statement and is discussed under the heading “What is the B.N.A. Act ?”
Let us now hear what the Privy Council has to say :—
Lord Watson (Chairman of the Privy Council Maritime Bank case (1892) A.C. 441)
recognizes the object or raison d’ĂȘtre of the measure, as stated in the preamble, as most
important :— “The object of the Act was… to create a Federal Union… entrusted with the exclusive administration of affairs in which they had a common interest, each
Province retaining its independence and autonomy”. The object of the Act supersedes in importance any subsequent section. Why was the
page which contains this deleted from the printed copies circulated in Canada ? It was to
twist the measure so that Canada should be retained as a Colony.
“British North America” Bill Enacted, 1867
After passing the House of Lords, it was taken to the Commons, Feb. 26th, 1867. The
debate there centered around the appropriation of the Intercolonial Railway. The purpose
of the Act was not discussed. It evidently was assumed that this had been debated in the
Lords. One member asked the Government “Why all the haste in enacting the measure ? I
am not sure I will have anything against it, but it affects four million people, and we
should have an opportunity to study the measure, which is now in second reading, and it
has not been printed”. After passing the Commons it received the assent of Queen Victoria March 29th, 1867, to be effective in Canada July 1st, 1867.
Strenuous opposition was expressed by Nova Scotia. A protest against the Act was
signed by 30,000 people, and in the election of May, Dr. Tupper’s government was defeated. In a house of 38 members, Stewart Campbell of Guysboro County and Dr. Tupper
were the only two returned. Tupper resigned. Joseph Howe and eight members were
delegated to place a petition before the Imperial Parliament “That Nova Scotia be relieved of this measure or a Royal Commission of inquiry be appointed”. Dr. Tupper, a
life-long political enemy of Howe, followed him to London, and going to his hotel said
“Nothing that I can say will deter you from placing your petition before Parliament, but
they will not grant your request. When they refuse, come back to Canada and take a
Cabinet seat at Ottawa, and we will do the best we can with what we got”. [For Tupper to
suggest such a move, he must have had some inside dope.] Howe was dumbfounded, for he previously had thought that Tupper, who was one of
the delegates to London dealing with the Quebec Resolutions, was partly responsible for
the drafting of the British North America Act. He induced John Bright to place the petition before Parliament. It was as Dr. Tupper predicted, defeated, the vote being 183 to 87.
Nova Scotia was compelled against her wish to become a member of the Dominion.
In a speech on leaving London, Howe said :—
“We go home to share the perils of our native Land, in whose service we consider it
an honour to labour and whose fortunes in this darkest hour of her history it would be
cowardice to desert”.
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937
8
III — WHAT IS THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT ? The British North America Act is not, and has never been, legal and valid as the Constitution of Canada. Canada has no Constitution. The “Act” is a “Private Bill” conceived and drafted by the Colonial Office and enacted into a Statute by the Imperial Parliament, uniting four colonies of North America
into One Colony.
Last year (1936) the Imperial Parliament enacted a “Bill” amending the Constitution
of the island of Malta, a Colony in the Mediterranean. Students of law recognize this Act
as a “Private Bill” in relation to the Empire, as it only affected Malta. The British North
America Act is placed in the same category as it affected only Canada. A private Bill
must always have a preamble, the recitals of which must be proved. This is a substantive
enunciation of the motives which impelled the Parliament to enact the Statute. It is the
most important part of the Act, superseding in importance any of the subsequent sections. The Act must be read and construed as a whole although one section may bear a wider
and another a more limited meaning. The Governor General is the Government, with the power to appoint a Council to
“aid and advise” him, or he can remove them from office at his discretion. The custody of
the Great Seal is granted to him, the power to appoint Judges, Justices of the Peace,
Commissioners, Deputies of himself, Lieut. Governors of the Provinces, and Members of
the Senate. He can remove any person from office exercising any official power in our
Dominion, including the Premier of Canada, and the Speaker of the Senate. Insofar as the Provinces are concerned he takes the place of “the Queen and a Secretary of State”. In other words, any legislation of the Legislatures of the Provinces can be
“disallowed” by him ; further, the Provinces can not refer any legislation so disallowed to
the Imperial Parliament, or the Crown.
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937 9
There Was No Confederation
There is nothing in the historical record which can be cited to support the story of
Confederation. There is nothing in the “Act”, to alter in any essential respect the Colonial
relationship, or to weaken the Crown’s headship ; nor is there anything in the “Act” to
indicate surrender in any degree of that fundamental principle of the British Government : the full legislative and executive power to govern over and throughout the British
Empire. An examination of the historical record shows that fraud was recorded in at least four
instances in relation to its enactment. This is not sufficient to remove the Statute. Fraud
must be proven “from the wording of the Act itself and the manner in which the words
are used”. This is the law in relation to Statutes.
Is the British North America Act fraudulent, from the words and the manner in which
the words are used ? It is. A Federal Union must be “free and sovereign”, whereas a colony must be “subservient”. No country could be both at the same time. The words are opposite in their meaning. There is no power in heaven or earth that can pass a law to arbitrarily create a Federal Union. It must be a mutual agreement between those adopting their Constitution. No
agreement of any kind has ever been signed between the Provinces of Canada.
As an enunciation of motives actuating the Parliament to enact the Statute ; the words
“Federally United into One Dominion”, and the manner in which the words are used constitutes fraud and brands the British North America Act as a fraudulent measure. It is
impossible to be Federally United and a Dominion at the same time.
Search for Certified Copy of the Act
My researches on this subject led me to Ottawa, where I examined the documents in
the Archives ; these, the “Quebec Resolutions” and the “Kingdom of Canada” draft of a
“Bill” (Both drafted by our Canadian representatives) are carefully preserved. I desire to
publicly thank Colonel Hamilton, custodian of the records, for his assistance.
At my request to be shown a “certified” copy of the B.N.A. Act, he regretted that he
had no such copy in the records, but obligingly arranged an appointment for me with Mr.
Lemaire, Clerk of the [Canadian] Privy Council. Not having this document, Mr. Lemaire
instructed his secretary to conduct me to the Governor General’s Office, where I was
presented to Mr. Pereira, Chief Secretary. Nor finding this “Act” Mr. Pereira handed me a note for Mr. Hardy, Parliamentary
Librarian. At the Library I was informed that this was a very valuable document and no
doubt I would find it in the Office of the Secretary of State. Mr. Coleman, the UnderSecretary, delegated three of his assistants to search the premises. Not being able to find
it there, Mr. Coleman directed me to Dr. Beauchesne, Clerk of the House of Commons. “Why would “I” have it ?” was the Doctor’s reply to my request. “No documents are kept
here, but you had better see Mr. Blount, Clerk of the Senate. He has a vault where important papers are under lock and key”.
Mr. Blount informed me, however, that he did not know of it, bur would open the
vault if I would care to look. We descended, with an assistant, to a room below the Senate
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937 10
Chamber, and with the help of a step-ladder lowered two large cases marked 1867 and
1868. Not finding the “Certified” copy which is presumably the Charter of the Dominion
Government, I suggested that it might have been destroyed in the fire which burned the
main building in 1916, but I was assured that all the documents had been saved ; some
had been discoloured by water ; all that was lost were some pictures in the Galleries. Returning to his office, I inquired if the Senate Journal had any reference to the Act
being placed before that body. We examined the Journal and another large volume which
contains a Proclamation from Queen Victoria with the names of the first Senators, also an
extract covering the executive activities of the Senate, without success. “Was this Act ever placed before Parliament ?” I asked.
“You will have to ask Dr. Beauchesne”, was the answer.
Returning to the Commons, Dr. Beauchesne made an exhausting search of his records
without finding any reference to the Act in his Journal. “Well, Doctor, I was informed that we had no ‘Certified copy’ of the Act in Vancouver by the Chief Justice of British Columbia, but was assured that I would find it in Ottawa. If it were in Canada it would no doubt in Ottawa. So I think we can assume for the
purpose of my investigations that no certified copy of the British North America Act was
ever brought to Canada. Is that so ?”
“I am very much afraid that you are correct” was the Doctor’s reply. The First Page Was Left Out — Why ?
After the Act was passed by the British Parliament, Feb. 29th, 1867, printed copies
were brought to Canada. These, however, do not contain the first page, which sets forth
the enunciation of the motives and the purpose of the enactment. Why was this most important page deleted ? This is a vital question and can best be settled by having a “certified” copy sent to Canada. The Provinces of Canada will then no doubt form a Confederation or Federal Union as they wished, and as set forth in the Resolutions of 1864. No agreement was ever signed by the Provinces of Canada or their representatives to
confer power on a Central Government, which is the only way a Constitution can be created. First, the representatives of the Provinces are appointed or elected to a Constituent
Assembly where the agreement is drafted. This agreement after ratification by the electors is called a Constitution. Let us examine the difference between a Federal Union and a Colony. The definition
of a Federal Union, as given by our law dictionary, and the only definition accepted in a
Court of Law, is “Union of Sovereign Sates, mutually adopting a Constitution”. It is not
enough that they be free to unite, they must also be free to reject. This is the meaning of
the word “mutually”. They must also “adopt” or ratify the agreement by a plebiscite of
the people for “the people under God are the origin of all just power”. This was a fundamental provision of the “witagenmot”, the early Parliament of the Anglo-Saxons. They
had the power to depose their King. This was again enacted by the House of Commons
on Jan. 4th, 1649. On Jan. 30th, 1649, Charles I lost his head. That settled the argument.
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937
11
In order that all courts should define words in the same manner the Interpretation Act
was passed in 1889. Section 18 paragraph (3) defines a Colony in these words :
“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 all parts under the Central legislature
shall, for the purpose of this definition be deemed to be ‘one Colony’ ”. As Canada was the only Dominion with a Central legislature and local legislatures in
1889, it is evident that in a Court of Law, Canada could not be deemed to be other than a
Colony.
The Statute of Westminster, Dec. 11th, 1931, has since changes our status. Section 11
says, “Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretations Act 1889, the expression ‘colony’
shall not in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act include a Dominion or any Province or States forming part of a
Dominion”. Canada was a Colony before the commencement of this Act, never a Confederation.
It is not generally known that the Native Sons of Canada, and more particularly Assembly No. 2 of Vancouver, drafted the Resolution which is the basis for the Statute of
Westminster, a copy of which is in the Parliamentary Library. Governor General Without Proper Authority
This Statute gives us a status of equality with Great Britain ; they have no more rights
to issue “Letters Patent” to a Governor General to govern Canada, than Canada has the
right to issue “Letters Patent” to a Governor General to govern Great Britain. In 1867 the Colonial Office drafted a “Charter”, which was enacted by the Imperial
Parliament, in a Private Bill or Statute, uniting four of these Colonies into “One Colony”,
without altering their status, of their relation to the Mother Country. Great Britain retained the executive power or legal Sovereignty after the Union as before. In other words
they remained Colonies of Great Britain, with one Governor General, instead of four, and
Letters Patent granting to him the power to govern, and a Committee of His Majesty’s
Most Honourable Privy Council, to administer affairs, in connection with the United Colony. As the New England Colonies were called Dominions and s Wales was a Dominion
until the reign of George III, this United Colony was called a Dominion. In 1931 the Statute of Westminster, altered this relationship and granted to Canada
the right, to self-government and in order that the Federal Union they previously requested, could be formed, granted to each Province the Sovereignty to create a Federal
Union. This power was granted to them so that could create their own Government, the
same as the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa or the Irish Free
State. IV — HOW HAS THE B.N.A. ACT BEEN USED ?
The B. N. A. Act has been used as though it were the constitution of Canada, which is
not. It has been used to govern Canada, and it was the intention of Lord Carnarvon and the
Colonial Office that it should do so, but it was not the intention of the House of Lords or
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937 12
the Commons which enacted it. The Parliament thought it was to be a guide to the creation of a Federal Union. They knew this could only be attained by an agreement between
the Provinces, so they were not particularly concerned.
As has been shown in a previous section the Provinces were united into One Colony,
and Colonies cannot decide on an agreement, for they are not free to sign anything. That
is why, after the Act was passed, it was never returned to the Provinces for their assent.
As the Provinces would necessarily have to be free, before they could legally unite, or
incorporate into a Federal Union, the Statute of Westminster provides a paragraph for this
purpose. Paragraph 2 of Section 7, which is discussed in this section, “The Statute of
Westminster grants autonomy”. Although the object or raison d’ĂȘtre of the Act is to provide a guide to the creation of a Federal Union, this scope of the Act has not yet been
exercised. A Legislature of a Province may pass an Act to incorporate a locality, or a district
into a municipality, but the actual incorporation must be accomplished by the citizens of
the locality. This was the idea the Imperial Parliament accepted when the enacted the
B.N.A. Act.
By the terms of the Act the Governor-General is the Government. He received his
“LP” to exercise the powers of the Act from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery; the
latest “LP” were issued to Earl Bessborough and signed by Sir Claude Schuster, March
23rd, 1931, eight months prior to the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, Dec. 11th
,
1931. As Canada has been raised by the Statute to the “accepted constitutional position” of
equality with GB, the Imperial Government could not grant further “LP”.
In a cable to the Imperial authorities in October 1935, I myself protested any “LP” being issued to Lord Tweedsmuir. He received none. Without these all-important LP the
powers granted to the Governor-General in the B.N.A. Act cannot be legally exercised. In the Statutes of Alberta there is an Act — “The Constitutional Questions Determination Act” which provides that any question touching the Constitution of Alberta, or
where there is a conflict between the Province and the Dominion, the case may be taken
to the Supreme Court and any person, or class of persons, are entitled to be heard.
Sovereign power — is independent of all power from without — it is paramount over
all action within. Following is a synopsis of evidence presented before the Special Committee convened in 1935 to investigate the British North America act :—
Convened at the House of Commons, Ottawa,
February 26th, 1935. F.W. Turnbull, Chairman.
Excerpts from the evidence of :—
Dr. O.D. Skelton, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Dr. M. Ollivier, K.C., Joint-Law Clerk, House of Commons.
Dr. W.P. Kennedy, Professor of Law, University of Toronto.
Dr. N. McL. Rogers, Professor of Political Science, Queens University.
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937
13
Dr. A. Beauchesne, K.C., C.M.G., L.L.D., Clerk of the HC.
Dr. SKELTON, UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for EXTERNAL AFFAIRS :
… Now it might be said, why not trust to growth of convention or custom altogether for the necessary changes in our Constitution ? (sic.) 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 bias 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 UK is either superfluous or dangerous.
DR. MAURICE OLLIVIER :
… Furthermore, our Constitution (sic.) 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. W.P. 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 a 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 we now assume that it is necessary to have constituent powers in Canada,
powers to change the Constitution (sic.). I approach that problem from two angles.
First 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 what it really amounts to… If we in Canada are not capable of
interpreting our own Constitution (sic.) we should not have a Legislature at all.
PROFESSOR NORMAN McL. 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.
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937 14
BY MR. COWAN :
Q.— You get back to this : your start is another Interprovincial Conference ?
A.— I am afraid it is. I see no feasible alternative.
HON. MR. LAPOINTE :
There is no doubt about it.
DR. BEAUCHESNE, K.C., C.M.G., L.L.D., 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 between the
Provinces ; it is an Act of Parliament which does not even embody all the
resolutions passed in Canada and in London prior to its passage in the British Parliament where certain clauses that had not been recommended by the
Canadian Provinces were added. … The Statute of Westminster has altered
our Status… What we want is a new Constitution (sic.). 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 of 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. I would suggest that the country
could be called “The Federated States of Canada”. There have been many disputes about Provincial rights since 1867 and it
seems certain that when a new Constitution (sic.) 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 cases 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 minority rights discussed. There is nothing more dangerous in Canada than discussion of minority rights. A discussion of them
would wreck the whole Constituent Assembly.
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937 15
I think the time is ripe for a change in the Constitution (sic.). I do no 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. V — HOW DID WE GET THE STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER, 1931 ? Summarizing and consolidating the results of their meetings from 1911, the Imperial Conference of 1926, composed of representatives of all of the Dominions and of GB,
agreed to draft a “Bill” to be presented to Parliament which would enact a measure to put
into effect the accepted constitutional position, that each of the Dominions had an equality of status with the UK. Canada without question may be said to have taken the leading part in these conferences, and in 1926 our Prime Minister, the RT. Hon. Wm. Lyon Mackenzie King, moved
the first resolution crystallizing the findings of the previous conferences and is a synopsis
of the accepted opinion and attitude of the Canadian people toward the empire and the
UK. It covers all points which are incorporated in the Statute of Westminster — particularly that Canada should be elevated constitutionally to a position of equality with the UK
— states the position of Canada in regard to assisted immigration and Canada’s natural
resources — our previously expressed attitude on Imperial Defence, that the method of
appointment of the Governor-General of Canada is ripe for a radical change more in consonance with National dignity — that the channels of communication between Canada
and any other country should be direct. As this Resolution was drafted and sent to our Prime Minister, by Assembly No. (2)
of the Native Sons of Canada, Vancouver, B.C., prior to his departure for the 1926 conference, the last paragraph is quoted verbatim :—
“LOCARNO, WAR, NEUTRALITY, etc. This Assembly is convinced
that so long as the present anomalies of Canada’s status continue, the advantages to Canada from participation in Imperial Conferences are largely negative.
The Conference is built on a Constitutional fiction — that all the representatives meet as equals. The test — What is Canada Constitutionally ? is the
true test. And until Canada, either by her own act, or by Imperial concession, attains Sovereignty as an independent Nation under the Crown ; with
international recognition, her position in respect to Britain’s wars, neutrality,
and her international relationships in general, will remain clouded and obscure. That position will be and remain, both constitutionally and internationally, that of a colonial status. Mere rhetoric cannot overcome this inescapable fact”.
This Resolution which was the key-note of the conference was seconded by Prime
Minister Hertzog of South Africa.
A copy of this Resolution with an affidavit signed by the Custodian of the Records
of the Native Sons of Canada, D.H. Elliot, stating that the Resolution was presented to
the Assembly by Brother R. Rogers Smith is in the Parliamentary Library at Ottawa. In the Imperial Conference of 1929 the sections of the Act were condensed into
paragraphs to comply with Parliamentary practice and procedure. In 1930, Prime Minister R.B. Bennett called a conference of the Premiers of the Provinces, when Paragraph 1
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937 16
of Section 7 was added. Why this section was included is puzzling. It reads : “Nothing in
this Act shell be deemed to apply to the repeal, alteration or amendment of the British
North America act 1867 to 1930 or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder”. As
the B.N.A. Act can only be construed as a “guide to the creation of a Federal Union”, and
as this was the enunciation of the motive which prompted the Imperial Parliament to enact it, and as it will most certainly be scrapped when a Federal Union is consummated,
why was section 7, paragraph 1 added ? It does not alter the meaning of the Statute of
Westminster one iota. It seems to indicate a lack of knowledge of the British North
America act, which is not surprising as they had no certified copy to consult or examine. VI — THE STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER GRANTS AUTONOMY As Dr. Beauchesne states in his evidence “The Statute of Westminster has altered
our status”. Section 11 states that after the commencement of the Act no Dominion or
nor Province or State forming part of a Dominion shall be considered to be a Colony. It is acknowledged that the status of Canada before the commencement of the Act
was that of a Colony, and it may be said in this connection that until the Provinces of
Canada had been elevated to a position of autonomy, they had no voice in stating how
they should be governed. The Statute of Westminster “altered our status” by granting
complete autonomy to the Provinces. To state that because the Provinces of Canada have used the B.N.A. Act for seventy
years, or because the Statute of Limitations, or for the reason that the Act has been accepted as the corner-stone of Canadian Law and Legislation, that the B.N.A. Act is a constitution, is not correct reasoning. First, because the Provinces of Canada do not use the B.N.A. Act as a whole. It is
an instrument for the exercise of the powers of the G. It was not accepted by the Provinces at any time since its enactment, but has been protested by them on many occasions. We may use the Act as a guide to the creation of a constitution, or the basis of an
agreement between the Provinces, as this was the object or thin intention of the Parliament which enacted it ; or we may disregard it entirely if we choose. Why ? Because the Provinces of Canada are completely autonomous today. Each
Province is a political unit, without a political superior.
Although the Statute affects other Dominions as well as Canada (that is to say, the
Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa, New Zealand, the Irish Free
State and Newfoundland) it also extends autonomy to each individual Province of Canada. Paragraph 2 of Section 7 states that the provisions of Section 2 of this Act shall extend to laws made by any of the Provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such Provinces. The provisions of Section 2 are those which grant autonomy. Autonomy is indivisible ; either you have it, or you have not.
Why are these autonomous powers not granted to the States of Australia individually or the the States of South Africa ? Because these States had created their constitutions, before the commencement of the Statute of Westminster.
Granting Autonomy to Canada as a whole was not sufficient, in the opinion of the
Imperial Parliament which enacted the Statute, for they knew it would be necessary for
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937 17
the Provinces to grant their power to a Central Government, and this could only be done
when they were free. (This is further discussed in the Section “The Federated States of
Canada”.) Although Canada and, more particularly, British Columbia, took the lead in placing
before the Imperial Conference the reasons for the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, Canada has not taken advantage of its provisions. The other Dominions affected have taken advantage of this measure, and although
remaining within the Empire, have their own Constitutions. The Irish Free State has no
Governor-General, the Premier now acts as the representative of His Majesty. South Africa is no longer “tied to the apron strings of grandma” (Hertzog).
A Parliament of a Dominion is not a Central Legislature of a Colony, and no alteration of its Charter can make it so. Section 3 and 4 of the Statute of Westminster do not
refer to the Central Legislature at Ottawa. This can only be construed as it states, and a
Parliament representing the Provinces of Canada, must be one whose charter is granted
by an agreement between the Provinces, or in other words is created by them. VII — NEXT STEP – “THE FEDERATED STATES OF CANADA” It is true that the Federated States of Canada would not be dependent in any way of
the Imperial Parliament for their government. Why should Canada be dependent ?
Are the States of Australia, South Africa or the Irish Free State, less a part of the
Empire because they constructed Constitutions and are free to govern themselves ? The story of Confederation is a myth, and those that think that Sir John A. Macdonald was the “Father of Confederation” know little about this question. In a letter to
Lord Knutsford, Secy. Of State for the Colonies, at the time the first meetings were held
between the States of Australia regarding a Federal Union in 1888 ; Sir John expresses
his regret for the defeat of 1867 in the following words “If the Statute (the B.N.A. Act)
had only followed the Canadian draft of the bill, Australia ere this would have a government similar to the Kingdom of Canada”. Before this, and because Sir John knew the inside story of the “Fenian Raids” of
1866, and the hair-trigger relationship between GB and the USA, he reluctantly accepted
appointment as one of the British representatives in the negotiations to agree on the terms
of the TW, and from beginning to end of the negotiations he found it necessary to fight
against the sacrifice of Canadian rights. This is seen clearly in the following extract from
a letter he wrote at the time to Dr. Tupper :—
“I must say that I am greatly disappointed at the course taken by the British
Commissioners. They seem to have only one thing on their minds — that is,
to go home with a Treaty in their pockets, settling everything, no matter at
what cost to Canada… The effect which must be produced on the public
mind in Canada by a declaration from both parties in the Imperial Parliament against our course, will greatly prejudice the idea of British connection, as British connection will have proved itself a farce. I do not like to
look at the consequences, but we are so clearly in the right, that we must
throw the responsibility on England”.
Is this the “Father of Confederation” speaking ?
If no ulterior motive was served, why were the stories of Confederation circulated ?
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937 18
All that can be said is that the gullibility of Canadians was deplorable.
No member of the Dominion Government today would seriously contend that he
knows anything about the British North America act, for they know there is no certified
copy in Canada and anything less than an examination of a certified copy can only be
classed as assumption, belief, and the ability to produce factual evidence. The next step is an interprovincial conference where an agreement can be reached
upon the powers to be conferred on the Central Government, and the powers which must
be retained by the Provinces. Federation
First of all power must be conferred upon appointed representatives of the
Provinces, so as to carry on the Government of Canada and with the power to call
an election, as soon as possible, after the Constitution has been ratified by the
people of each and all the Provinces. NOTE
On the opposite page is set forth the exact wording of the first page of the
B.N.A. Act, containing the Preamble of the Act, which has not been published in
the official copies of the Statutes either in Great Britain or in Canada.
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937
19
1867 1867
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Enacted by
Her Most Gracious Majesty
QUEEN VICTORIA
and
THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
BY REASON OF THE REQUEST OF THE COLONIES
for
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IT IS EXPEDIENT THEREFORE THAT THEY HAVE
LAWS AND REGULATIONS TO GUIDE THEM.
R. Rogers Smith — Alberta has the Sovereign Right to Issue and Use its Own Credit — 1937 20
The first page of the British North America Act was deleted after passing the House of Lords and before it was assented to by the Commons. This page states : “By reason of the request of the Colonies for Federal
Government. It is expedient therefore that they have laws and regulations
to guide them”.
Here we have the reason for and the purpose of the Act.
If this page had not been deleted, Canada would ere this have formed a Federal Government. We did not Federate in 1867, and the Governor-General was a corporation
sole until the Statute of Westminster was enacted. What are we now ? We certainly are not a confederation, as there has been no confederation since that
date. The authority was given to the provinces. They were made equal with GB.
The power went to the provinces. Ottawa was never a province or a colony. How
did it get authority ? It was only a committee of men, half appointed and half
elected, to aid and advise the Governor-General. Now there was no accredited Governor-General and no need for a committee
to aid and advise him. The provinces are Sovereign and will remain so until we the people, through
our Provincial Governments, create a country.
For ALL the PPC member, I expect you to address this article FULLY with Maxime Bernier!
This is indisputable proof that Johanne Mennie is a leftist and that Maxim Bernier is more than likely funded indirectly by George Soros. What might their Motives be? I think it is clear they are trying to split the vote and weaken the conservatives.
Please note, I couldn’t care less which poisonous snake of a politician wins the election! I just did my home work and found ties that lead back to GEORGE SOROS which in turn leads to the ROTHSCHILDS. The liberals have not yet finished bankrupting our country. They have not finished flooding Canada with migrants from war torn countries. This is a continued ploy to destabilize our COUNTRY!
George Soros’ Tides Foundation in Canada is currently under investigation by the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA), after they were labelled as a “foreign funded” radical group. The organization funneled money through Liberal advocacy groups, particularly those advocating against the Albertan oil industry, and was also implicated in funding “third-parties” during the 2015 election, which led to the fall of the Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party.
The Social Economy: Ties to the Peoples Party of Canada
During the summer of 2005, the corporations involved with social economy initiatives began negotiating contracts for their activities in the event the Paul Martin Liberal government fell to the Conservatives. In January 2006, the Conservative government under Stephen Harper came into power. At that time the HRSDC (Human Resources and Social Development Canada) and SSHRC (Social Studies Humanities Research Council) were governed under the Minister of Industry, who was Maxime Berrnier. On March 2006, he published a review of the SSHRC praising the merits of the social economy”.
However, by September of 2006, Harper had defunded the social economy programs and was on record for his opposition to these programs. Despite the defunding, Johanne Mennie, then Deputy Director of HRSDC & SSHRC, and the current Director of the People’s Party of Canada (PPC), attended several meetings with the George Soros-funded Tides Foundation of Canada that directly called for government policy interventions to implement the social economy program. One such meeting was on October 19-20, 2006 and was called “Scaling Up the Canadian Social Finance Sector.”
Attendees also included Edward Jackson, supported by the Desmarais Power Corporation, the World Bank, advisor to the Rockefeller Foundations, and Tim Brodhead, who is a mentor for the Trudeau Foundation. The connections continue between the who’s who of Liberal Communist society.
In addition, Johanne Mennie participated at a Symposium held on March 26, 2007 at Carleton University called “Program-Related Investments for Foundations, Policy Makers and Non-Profits” where the following was noted: “HRSDC Deputy Director Johanne Mennie, who recently chaired a federal advisory committee on community finance, observed that there is a range of policy levers, including tax incentives and regulatory frameworks, that are available to governments at all levels to encourage foundations and endowments to invest in ways that are consistent with their missions.”
Furthermore, on March 26, 2007, Johanne Mennie participated at yet another symposium at Carleton University where presentations were made by Ted Jackson from Tides Foundation Canada, in partnership with HRSDC. Ted Jackson is also president for E.T. Jackson & Associates Ltd., an international management consulting firm that has advised on over $10 billion in investments in over 50 countries, with emphasis on strategic planning and implementation for foundations and agencies.
For those of you who haven’t read my previous posts here is your George Soros refresher.
GEORGE SOROS
1. Breaking the Bank of England. In 1992 Soros master minded the crash of the British pound. The pound was weakened and people’s livelihoods were destroyed. Buying up gilts, selling them, then buying them back at cheaper prices. This was legal at the time, but highly IMMORAL!
2. Fueling Malaysia’s economic crises. The prime minister of Malaysia, publicly accused Soros of destroying his countries economy, calling him a HEARTLESS SUPER VILLAIN!
3. Breaking the bank of Thailand. This helped damage the economies of Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and sparking a violent revolution in Indonesia, that killed up to 5,000 people.
4. In 1998 Soros tried to destroy Hong Kong’s economy. Sectetary Donald Tsang Yam Kuen bought $118 Billion into the stock market, and thwarted the evil Soros’s efforts.
5. The most recent attack from Soros was to fund anti oil protestors in Canada, in order to block the construction of our pipeline, and sale of Canadian oil.
He served two terms as a Tory but was forced to run as an independent in the 1993 election after Kim Campbell barred him from running under the PC banner due to fraud charges, of which he was later acquitted.
In 2005, Bernier became the Conservative Party candidate for the riding of Beauce for the 2006 federal election. Stephen Harper had asked his father to re-enter politics who advised Harper that Bernier should run instead.He won handily, taking 67% of the popular vote, the largest majority for a Conservative outside of Alberta.His ties to the ridingand his support for provincial jurisdictions (which earned him an endorsement from former Social Credit party leader Fabien Roy) were factors in his win. Some political pundits believed Bernier's ideas led to the unexpected Conservative breakthrough in Quebec during the election.
ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE SELECTED - NOT ELECTED - THE SYSTEM is de-facto time for De Jure Government
It’s a fact that Johanna Mennie attended these meetings in which the Tides foundation was a part of. It’s a fact that the tides foundation is funded by George Soros and its a fact that George Soros has been destabilizing nations for years.
1. Saudi arabia financed SNC contracts in exchange for blocking energy east. 2. SNC used the Saudi financing to bring PM to head of liberal party and they own him. Their money bought the votes to make him leader and take down Harper...
3.SNC demanded that their bought and paid for pm buy transmountain (1 billion over asking I’m sure SNC got a cut) 4.SNC also demanded that they pick their price for amd win all contracts for transmountain. No worries they sub everything out anyways....
5. SNC are bribing first nations to sign off on letting the pipeline thru. The first nations that already agree have been bribed. The ones that won’t sign on are the few that couldn’t be bought...
6. Did JWR found out how corrupt politics actually work and is she outraged or is this just more of the Lies - I lean toward lies and she very much involved
NOTE: Craig MacMillan - Has been kidnapped by RCMP - March 23,2019 (still be held ) held in UNLAWFUL confinement by de-facto canada.inc because of the Pension Scam and others have researched ----
Soros and the Canadian Connection to the Migrant Caravan on the US Border
By 1995, the expression “Social Solidarity Economy” gained acceptance in Quebec after an appeal for a solidarity economy was published in Le Monde, a large newspaper in France (3). In 1996, the Quebec government decided to reduce the budget deficit to zero at a time of high unemployment. Quebec was predominantly a welfare state, and one of the reasons for the deficit was the interest on public debt, which was higher per capita than in any other Canadian province.
So where exactly will Quebec get the money required for these programs? The Social Solidarity Economy refers to the third sector of our economy, the relationship that exists between corporations and foundations, non-profits, NGOs, charities, cooperatives, and organized labour. This sector operates at a loss and relies heavily on government subsidies, grants and tax credits (4). These programs cost billions of dollars each year to implement (25% of our budget) and produce very insignificant returns.
Figure 1: PM Jean Chretien announced federal investment for Quebec “Social Economy”.
Several organizations within the Social and Solidarity Economy are engaged in political and social crusades where corporations use their foundations as “activism portals” to influence public opinion and government policy (4). George Soros, billionaire founder of the Open Society Foundation and donor to Tides Foundation, considers this new network of foundations as a “cross between a foundation and a movement” that can directly benefit the agenda of a small but powerful group of wealthy globalists determined on steering the sociopolitical framework of nations in their favour (5). Here are just a few examples of this corruption:
Tides Foundation was behind the push to restore voting rights for felons in Virginia in order to influence the US elections in 2016(6)
US Foundations (Tides) campaign to kill the Albertan Oil Sands (7)
Soros’ Tides Foundation Canada under investigation by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for election interference (8)
Non-Profit of terrorist bomber received Tides Foundation funding (9)
Soros’ Open Society sponsored immigration network exposed in Italy (10)
Between 2002 and 2007, the Social Solidarity Economy movement had spread to other parts of Canada and into the United States. The Canadian Community Economic Development Network (CCEDNet) that formed in Quebec in 1999, consisted of community-based organizations, co-operatives, social enterprises, researchers and active citizens; it promoted the nation-wide implementation of the social economy and was instrumental in launching the Intercontinental Network for the Promotion of the Social Solidarity Economy (RIPESS) (11). The North American Chapter consisted of three working agencies who advocated for the social economy: Chantier de l’economie Sociale (Quebec), CCEDNet (Quebec) and the United States Solidarity Economy Network (US SEN) (12).
Today, the globalization of the Social Solidarity Economy includes six international chapters of RIPESS: Africa & the Middle East, Latin America, North America, Asia, Europe, and Oceana. Yvon Poirier from CCEDNet (Quebec) is president of RIPESS(13) (14). RIPESS works closely with the United Nations (13) and International Labour Organizations all supporting left leaning agendas. Quebec, Quebec politicians, and their globalist counterparts therefore played an integral role in what has materialized today as United Nations Agenda 2030.
In 2004, Prime Minister Paul Martin included a social economy initiative in the federal budget to fund these programs under the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) umbrella (15). In the fall of 2005, prior to the election, it was feared that the change in government would eliminate these programs along with contracts so there was a haste to speed up the process and sign these deals.
Figure 2: SSHRC warns frontline social economy organizations and academics to frame their work as “research” and not “advocacy”.
After the Liberals lost the elections, the new Conservative government led by Stephen Harper abolished these programs in September 2006, leaving only the research portion, a five year plan, in place (4). When the Harper conservatives took office, the SSHRC, under the direction of the Deputy Director Johanne Mennie and current People’s Party of Canada (PPC) Campaign Coordinator, warned social economy groups and academic researchers “to frame their productions as research not advocacy activities”(Figure 2) in order to obtain funding (16).
Figure 3: Tides Canada Foundation meeting October 19-20, 2006 Below
Figure 3: Tides Canada Foundation meeting October 19-20, 2006 Above
Figure 4: Tides Canada Foundation meeting October 19-20, 2006. Above
On October 19-20 2006, Ms. Mennie attended a private meeting sponsored by Tides Canada Foundation(Figures 3 & 4). The meeting was called “Scaling up the Canadian Social Finance Sector: Strategy Session”,the very same programs Stephen Harper’s government defunded just a month earlier. At this meeting the following recommendations were made: (4) (17)
It was agreed by all the attendees that social economy initiatives would continue under the leadership of Tides Canada Foundation
It was agreed that these programs would require the development of a national institution that would act as a Social Investment Bank (similar to Trudeau’s Infrastructure Bank)
Attendees agreed that they would get involved in political lobbying in order to “seed” a social finance agenda
It was agreed that attendees would position these programs as an “investment opportunities” rather than “government grants and incentives” programs (to overlook the fact that these programs were operating at a loss and depended almost entirely on government grants and tax credits)
It was agreed that there was a critical need to develop a public policy agenda
Note: The minutes from this meeting do not indicate that there was any opposition on record to these initiatives by Ms. Mennie, who was the Deputy Minister of HRSDC/SSHRC. Prime Minister Stephen Harper was clear in voicing his opposition to these programs prior to the election, he cut the funding and put restrictions on what the Foundations could and could not do (4). So what then is a government official doing at this meeting? Was there usurpation in Harper’s government? And who exactly were the attendees present at this meeting? Tim Draimin founding CEO of Tides Canada Foundation (18), David LePage of CCEDNet (19), Nancy Neamtan President of Chantier de l’economie Sociale (20), Tim Brodhead CEO J.W. McConnell Foundation (current mentor and previous Director of the Trudeau Foundation)(21).
Figure 5: The Canadian Task Force on Social Finance established 2010. Below
Figure 5: The Canadian Task Force on Social Finance established 2010. Above
By 2010, in spite of the federal cuts to these programs these same individuals set up The Canadian Task Force on Social Finance. This time one of their founding members included the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister Paul Martin of the Liberal Party of Canada (Figure 5) (22), and their funding partner was the Ontario Liberals led by Dalton McGuinty. One might call this a conspiracy theory but, is it a conspiracy theory if the events and the planning actually took place?
Figure 8: Policy Research Initiative created in 1996 under the Jean Chretien Liberals by the clerk of the Privy council to expand the research partnership of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Below
Figure 8: Policy Research Initiative created in 1996 under the Jean Chretien Liberals by the clerk of the Privy council to expand the research partnership of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Above
Who exactly is Johanne Mennie? For a person who has been in government since the Chretien Liberals she doesn’t have a huge internet presence. We know Ms. Mennie was Deputy Director of the Social Sciences Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) & Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), Director of the Heritage Foundation, and worked for the Policy Research Initiative which was created by the Privy Council to broaden the research community of the SSHRC (Figure 8).
Johanne Mennie is also Deputy Director responsible for policy development in government, and when one is sitting at a corporate board meeting and pressuring for policy this goes way past employee. The connections are here; the very same corporations pushing the social economy agenda got Deputy Director responsible for policy development in government to do their bidding! (23)
One month later on November 21 2006, the same group of attendees from the Tides Canada meeting, were called as witnesses by a House of Commons committee meeting investigating the value of the “social economy” in Canada. This is the statement of Ms. Carol Hunter executive director of the Canadian Coperative Association (CCA) promoting “Johanne Mennie’s shop”: (24)
Figure 7: Johanne Mennie listed as Director of Canada Inc. Below
Figure 7: Johanne Mennie listed as Director of Canada Inc. Above
Johanne Mennie is also listed as Director of Canada Inc. (Figure 7) who has over 8,000 employees and a budget of 2.4 million which she launched between January-March of 2018 (coincidentally at the same time Maxime Bernier officially launched the PPC) through the acquisition of an office from the Canadian Security Intelligence Services (CSIS). Canada Inc. manages 12, 802 Government companies, 175,961 Charitable Organizations and Foundations, and an additional 548,848 Organization Companies (25). Is this the “Social Economy” Hybrid Universe: the relationship that exists between Government, Corporations, and Foundation & Charities? (4) Is “Johanne Mennie’s shop” the home office for the social economy? Or is it the home office for a one world government? Apparently, Canada may very well have a deep state after all!
Canada’s Connection to the Caravan
The Chicago group involved in the Caravan movement at the Mexican border was led by Inneo Mujica of the Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders), a Chicago-based non-profit organization that follows a Marxist-Leninist ideology and believes in a world without borders. They are committed to trade union work and other international missions (26) (27)(28). Since 2010 they have been organizing caravans of migrants to illegally cross into Mexico and the United States including the Caravan of 2018. Pueblo Sin Fronteras was created alongside other radical Mexican-American activists groups in order to establish a migrant pipeline across the US-Mexican border (26). They are members of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) a left-wing coalition for immigrant activists group (26)(28)(40).
Other coalition members of NDLON include CASA de Maryland and Centro Legal de la Raza (37)(38).
Tax returns filed by Tides Foundation for 2017 (36) show funding to CASA de Maryland Inc. Joel Garcia, second director of Centro Legal de la Raza and founder of Clinica de la Raza Inc. (39) received funding by Tides Foundation funding for Clinica de la Raza Inc. (36).
NDLON has a partnership and is funded by AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labour-Congress of Industrial Organization) (29) (30). The AFL-ICO is the largest federation of labour unions and is actively involved with the Social Solidarity Economy (31)(32)(33). The AFL-CIO was part of the national planning committee that helped to develop the USSF (US Social Forum) consisting of big labour groups and social activists groups which was used to create the US-SEN, part of the North American Chapter of RIPESS (34) which was founded by Quebec.
Both AFL-CIO and RIPESS are listed members of Union for Radical and Political Economies (URPE) (35). Members from this organization promote the Social Solidarity Economy and are left political economists who advocate for Marxism. Many of these organizations actively campaigned for left-leaning politicians such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Other Groups that Received Funding from Tides Foundation Include:
American Friends of Service Committee:
America Friends of Service Committee is a Quaker organization that helped fundraise for Pueblo Sin Fronteras (28). They received direct funding from Tides Foundation (36).
The Immigration Justice Campaign:
The Immigration Justice Campaign (coalition members of American Friends of Service) promoted pro bono legal representation for persons detained by US immigration authorities (42). Immigration Justice Campaign is administered by Center for Popular Democracy (43) which merged with Center for Community Change (44) was also funded by Tides Foundation (36).
BAMN: By Any Means Necessary
The communist group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) voiced its support for the caravan and published a manifesto accusing the Trump administration of being “lawless and repressive.” BAMN wrote: “Open it up or we’ll shut it down! Everyone must be let in! MEXICANS and AMERICANS stand with us!” (28)
BAMN is a Revolutionary Workers League. UEAALDF (United for Equality and Affirmative Action League Defense Fund) coordinated BAMN’s legal defense and is the tax-exempt affiliate of BAMN. Both organizations share the same two leaders and both are identified as national coordinators. UEAALDF received funding support from Southern Poverty Law Center which is directly funded by Tides Foundation(36). BAMN also has ties to NABLA (North American Man/Big Boy Love)and Revolution Workers League (RWL) (41).
The Tides Foundation is structured like a money-laundering operation. Funders who wish to remain anonymous can make contributions through Tides, which avoids the tax-based requirement to report its own donors by structuring itself as an organization with broad-based support (45). On the first page of their 2017 tax returns (Figure 6) is written:
Figure 6: Tides Foundation Tax Returns 2017 Below
Figure 6: Tides Foundation Tax Returns 2017 Above
“Tides Foundation primary exempt purpose is grant making. We empower individuals and institutions to move money efficiently and effectively towards positive social change”
For those of you that have been confused with the alphabet soup, all of these movements have emerged from the same groups that were designed in Quebec to promote the Social Solidarity Economy. So, that Tides Canada Foundation meeting that took place on October 19-20 2006, which involved all the principle stakeholders of this movement, was not as innocent as many would like us to believe (4). Historians refer to this as the “Not-So-Quiet Revolution.”(46)
The RIPESS network, consisting of Chantier de l’economie and CCEDNet with headquarters in Quebec, advocates for “Open Borders”. On February 4, 2019, the European Chapter of RIPESS released a guide for campaigners, communicators and activists called “How to talk about the societies we want in Europe.” (47) (48) (Figure 9)This guide advocates for open borders and makes recommendations on how to phrase the narrative on open borders so as not to upset Europeans:
“We recommend using this imagery of the shared and continuous land and waterways of Europe, but without explicitly mentioning borders… emphasize that borders are invisible.”
Figure 9: Taken from the RIPESS-Friends of the Earth implementation guide “How we want to talk about the societies we want in Europe” Below
Figure 9: Taken from the RIPESS-Friends of the Earth implementation guide “How we want to talk about the societies we want in Europe” Above
Friends of the Earth and the Europeans Woman’s Lobby financed this RIPESS guide also received funding from Tides Foundation (Figure 9)(36 ). In addition Nancy Neamtan (President of Chantier de l’economie sociale) and David LePage (CCEDNet) , both organizations within RIPESS were also present at that October 2006 Tides Canada Foundation meeting(17 ). It appears therefore, that Ms. Johanne Mennie’s (Executive Campaign Coordinator of Maxime Bernier’s PPC) attendance at a Tides Foundation meeting was not so innocent at all; it was a meeting of the “Collaborators of Mass Migration”.
So Canada has a very serious problem; it’s called Quebec. Regardless if the UN Global Compact on Migration is ratified or not, under the “Canada-Quebec Accord” Quebec regulates its own immigration separate from the Federal Government and essentially has a back door into Canada (49). So for those of you concerned about mass migrations, the true question is not who is in power in Ottawa, but rather who is in power in Quebec?
Make no mistake, the “Social and Solidarity Economy” is a Global Communist Movement where Foundations are acting as conduits for money transfers to support their cause. These are movements are fueled by the corporate elites along with larger labour unions and social advocacy groups collectively promoting the social economy while advocating for social justice, but whose ultimate intention is “control of the people”.
To our American friends and neighbours, Canada’s role, or rather Quebec’s role in the destabilization of the North American Continent goes beyond a mere “sorry”. Western civilization and the preservation of our society is truly dependent on the actions of one person and to him we say, “Mr. President, build that wall!”
Figure 1: PM Jean Chretien announced federal investment for Quebec “Social Economy”. Figure 2: SSHRC warns frontline social economy organizations and academics to frame their work as “research” and not “advocacy”. Figure 3: Tides Canada Foundation meeting October 19-20, 2006 Figure 4: Tides Canada Foundation meeting October 19-20, 2006.
Figure 5: The Canadian Task Force on Social Finance established 2010.
Figure 6: Tides Foundation Tax Returns 2017
Figure 7: Johanne Mennie listed as Director of Canada Inc. Figure 8: Policy Research Initiative created in 1996 under the Jean Chretien Liberals by the clerk of the Privy council to expand the research partnership of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). Figure 9: Taken from the RIPESS-Friends of the Earth implementation guide “How we want to talk about the societies we want in Europe”
The Worm at the Core of the PPC
Simone Georges February 2019
Johanne Mennie
Canada’s fledgling new party sprung out of nowhere seemingly, offering deeply Conservative cum Libertarian values. Its founder and leader, Maxime Bernier, announced unequivocally that the Conservative Party of Canada is ’too intellectually and morally corrupt to be reformed’ (1) and proceeded to create a new party which he later named the People’s Party of Canada (2).
Is Bernier the pure-as-driven-snow politician he purports to be? To the some 35,000 of his followers, he can do no wrong. He has said all the right words, he has inspired disillusioned people to leap upon his bandwagon of CPC bashing and attacking of the leader who beat him in the leadership race in 2017, Andrew Scheer.
We have examined his background and found numerous inconsistencies, however it is his current associations that have raised red flags. For a leader who is a bastion of conservatism to hire an individual such as Johanne Mennie for his Director of Communications is astonishing.
Who is Johanne Mennie? Johanne has worked in numerous roles in the government throughout her career. One major consistency, however, has been her involvement in social engineering and promotion of social economy.
Ms Mennie has been closely involved in more than one project with players such as Coro Strandberg who is the author of ‘Canada 2030: Embedding Sustainability into Corporate Governance’ (3), David LePage who is a founding partner of the Social Enterprise Institute (4) and Nancy Neamtan who is a promoter of Social Economy (5).
It is important to understand the definition of social economy. This video lays out the definition quite well, however in sum, it is a social system that promotes people over profit.
Social economy is a major focus of the European Union and the United Nations. Because of increasing globalisation, governments are being encouraged to promote a social economy rather than a profit-based enterprise model. In the words of Carol Hunter, Executive Director of the Canadian Co-operative Association and another known associate of Ms. Mennie, “In a time of a global economic crisis now, we need to have a profound rethinking of all the different business models that are sustainable — and co-operatives are definitely one of those different business models that we need to be looking at more so.” (6) Co-operatives are one of the many sustainable economic initiatives of Ms. Mennie and her associates.
Model developed by Nancy Neamtan and John Anderson
There are three main industrial sectors: firstly, the public sector which runs industries funded and government controlled, secondly the private sector which is for-profit and is run by privately owned companies that are answerable to their investors. The third industrial sector is the social economy under which umbrella are all for-profit and non-profit industries whose goal is to generate revenues for social and environmental causes (7).
Ms. Mennie and her associates have lobbied extensively with the government for the social economy. They proposed that the government should 1) develop regulations preferential to the establishment of social economy enterprises, 2) provide training to low-skilled people, 3) provide preferential government contracts to such enterprises, and 4) make funds available to establish and support such enterprises. Ms. Mennie was closely involved with the Vancity Plan Institute for Caring Citizenship which was funded by Tides Canada.
Suddenly Maxime Bernier’s push to ‘end corporate welfare’ makes perfect sense. He has made it abundantly clear that subsidizing traditional corporations such as Bombardier or GM is against his philosophy. Clearly, through his association with Ms. Mennie and her involvement in his new party, and his past involvement with the United Nations (8) his focus is social economy and promotion of socially run multi-national co-operatives with the goal of lifting out of poverty the unskilled migrants and non-migrant populations through government support, training and subsidization.
Even the name of Bernier’s new party is now clarified. Many spoke of its socialistic implications: People’s Party of Canada. All is now completely understandable; even Bernier’s support of China (9) is understandable as is his refusal to allow a leadership race for his fledging party.
It is to be hoped that all his 35,000 supporters know what they are signing up for.
Somethings to Consider
✅ Sept. 17, 2018 Leona Alleslev crosses the floor joins the Conservatives ✅ Sept. 19, 2018 Bill Casey announces he will not run for re election in 2019 ✅ Sept. 28, 2018 Colin Fraser announces he will not run for re election in 2019....✅ Oct. 25, 2018 Borys Wrzesnewskyj announces he will not run for re relection in 2019 ✅ Jan. 10, 2019 Scott Brison resigns will not run for re election in 2019 ✅ Jan. 29, 2019 Nicola Di Iorio after a long absence resigns..✅Feb. 12, 2019 Jody Wilson-Raybould resigns from cabinet ✅ Feb. 13, 2019 Mark Eyking announces he will not run for re election in 2019 ✅ Feb. 18, 2019 Gerald Butts resigns as Trudeau's Principal secretary...✅ Feb. 19, 2019 TJ Harvey announces he will not run for re election in 2019 ✅ Feb. 27, 2019 John Oliver announces he will not run for re election in 2019 ✅ Mar. 2, 2019 Celina Caesar-Chavannes announces she will not run for re election in 2019. ...Then counters Trudeau's SNC Lavelin explanation with a Tweet. ✅ Mar. 4, 2019 Jane Philpott resigns from cabinet...Mar. 12, 2019 Mario Dion Ethics Commissioner takes extended medical leave. Trudeau now facing his 5th ethics probe. ✅ Mar. 17, 2019 Don Rusnak announces he will not run for re election in 2019....✅ Mar. 18, 2019 Michael Wernick resigns from Privy Council.” ✅ Yesterday, March 20 2019 Celina Caesar-Chavannes resigns from liberal party and sits as an independent....Now Jane Phillpott states there is much more that Canadians need to know about #lavscam You know what to do come #Election2019
DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY OF THEM - SOLUTION IS DE JURE GOVERNMENT
Tides Foundation funded World Wildlife Fund, which ties Butts to all of this as well with trying to collapse our economy.
Alberta, oil MUST come from Canada, but it comes from Saudia Arabia , WHY - connect the dots, Huge mosque being put up in Fort Mac, Saudi Prince has been seen in Fort Mac
Investors pulling out of Fort Mac and Canada --
Everything is being pulled away from under our noses!đ€. Defacto government! Look up DuJure Canada! Stand strong Canadian Patriots. UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL. THIS CORRUPT GOVERNMENT BULLSHIT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR FAR TOO LONG!!!
De JURE GOVERNMENT - Join and Educate yourself their is A SOLUTION
