Monday 9 December 2019

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

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 Smithin the Macdonald Hotel, Edmonton, in October, 1935.

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
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
checking and verifying the facts contained herein.
R. R. S.


—2—
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 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 Oct. 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. 
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 Confederate Navy was in Liverpool, as all Confederate ports were blockaded. They sank $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 NewYork harbor 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 Emperor Maximillian entirely to France.

He was eventually taken prisoner and with two of his Generals, courtmartialled 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.
— 3—
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 Resolutions to London : these Resolutions,
which were for a Federal Union, were to be returned to the people 't or their ratification (see Section 70)T 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. John A. Macdonald 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 unavoideably 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,OOO,OOO 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 the terms of the Treaty of Washington, before the Hon. John could leave Canada, which he did the latter part of November. Our delegates in London,, had been unsuccessful in their attempt to bring the Quebec Resolutions to the attention of Parliament, and were cooling their heels in London waiting for him. On arrival he immediately convened the delegates in the Westminster Palace Hotel Dec. 4th, 1866, where they sat until Dec. 24th drafting the "Kingdom of Canada" draft of the Bill. Each delegate signed a separate copy; these are carefully preserved in the Archives at Ottawa.

A draft was sent to Lord Carnarvon, Secy, of State for the Colonies by the Hon. John, Dec. 26th, 1866 and he had a reply dated the 28th, stating that the draft was being sent to the printers to be printed. This draft of the Bill which
contains the following repealing clause, was rejected by the Colonial Office:

"From and after the Union, all Acts ancfparts of Acts, passed by the Parliament of Great Britain, the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the legislature of Upper Canada, the legislature of Lower Canada, the legislature of Nova Scotia or the Legislature of New Brunswick which are repugnant to or inconsistent
with the Provisions of this Act shall be and the same are hereby repealed".

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 to create a Federal Union. It was imperative for the best interest of Great Britain that Canada be retained as 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 interests 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 with 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?

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 Hansard 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 interests 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 upon this part of the subject, and I will not dwell upon it — but one thing is clear the preamble of the Resolution comes before us in 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 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'etre of the measure, as stated in the preamble, as most important -

"The object of the Act was to create a Federal Union..... en-trusted with the exclusive administration of affairs in which they If had a common interest, each Province retaining its independence and If 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
m 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 to the Inter-colonial 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 become 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".

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 wishes 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 honor to labor and whose fortunes in this darkest hour of her history it would be cowardice to desert".

— 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 affected only 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 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.

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 a 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 M. Lemaire, Clerk of the Privy Council. Not having this document, Mr. Lemaire instructed his secretary to conduct me to
— 8—
the Governor General's Office, where I was presented to Mr. Pereira, Chief Secretary. 

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 Under-Secretary, 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, but would open the vault if I would care to look. We descended, with an assistant, to a room below the Senate Chamber, and with the aid 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 discolored 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 be in
Ottawa. So I think Ave can assume for the purposes 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, March 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
"Onion 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 center power on Central Government, which is the only way a Constitution can be created. First, 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 acceptable in a Court of Law, is a "Union of Sovereign States,mutually adopting a Constitution". It is not enough that they be free to unite, they must be also 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 a 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.

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 purposes 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 changed 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 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 right 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

— 10—
Majesty's Most Honorable Privy Council, to administer affairs, in connection with the United Colony. As the New England Colonies were called Dominions and as 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 they could create their own Government, the same as the Common wealth
of Australia, the Union of South Africa or 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 it 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 idea or intention of the House of Lords or 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 can not 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 the section.The Statute of Westminster grants autonomy." .

Although the object or raison d'etre 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 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 they enacted the B. N. A. Act.

By the terms of the Act the Governor General is the Government. He
received his "Letters Patent" to exercise the powers of the Act from the
Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, the latest "Letters Patent" 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 Statute to the "accepted constitutional position" of equality with Great Britain, the Imperial Government could not grant further "Letters Patent"

In a cable to the Imperial authorities in October, 1935, I myself protested any "Letters Patent" being issued to Lord Tweedsmuir. He received none. 
Without these all-important Letters Patent the powers granted to the Governor General in the B. N. A. Act can not 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
11 —
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 classe 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. 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.
Dr. Arthur Beauchesne, K.C, C.M.G., L.L.D., Clerk of the House of Commons.
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 biased 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 United Kingdom 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. M. 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 "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 now we 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 of all 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 really what it amounts to. . . If we in Canadaare not capable of interpreting our own Constitution (sic.) we should not have a Legislature at all.
— 12—
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.

BY MR. COWAN:
Q.—You get back to this : your start is another Inter provincial Conference ?
Ans.—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 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 (sic.) must leave nobody with a grievance.

A spirit of conciliation should predominate. For these reasons, the task must be in-trusted 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 (sic.) constitution,
I think it is an anomally 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 any minority rights discussed. There is nothing more dangerous in Canada than a discussion of minority rights. A discussion of them would wreck the whole Constituent Assembly.

I think the time is ripe for a change in the Constitution (sic.) 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.

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 Great Britain, agreed to draft a "Bill" to be presented to
— 13 —
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 United Kingdom.

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 crystalizing 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 United Kingdom. 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 United Kingdom — 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 Avars, 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 of Section 7 was added. Why this section was
included is puzzling. It reads :— "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, alteration or amendment of the B. N. A. 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.
— 14—
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 of 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 Governor General. 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 intention of the Parliament which enacted it ; or we may disregard it entirely if we choose.

Whv? Because the Provinces of Canada are completely autonomous today. Each "Province is a political unit, without a political superior.  (NOTE BY LAW)

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 not divisible ; either you have it, or you have not.

Why are these autonomous powers not granted to the States of Australia individually or to the States of South Africa? Because these States had created their constitutions, before t he commencement of the statute of New 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 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".)
— 15 —
Although Canada and, more particularly, British Columbia, took the lead in placing before the Imperial Conference the reasons for the enactment 7 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 on 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" , and the hair-trigger relationship between Great Britain and the United States of America, he reluctantly accepted appointment as one of the British representatives in the negotiations to agree on the terms of the Treaty of Washington, 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
— 16—
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?

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. There is a vast difference between assumption, belief, and the ability to produce factual evidence.

The next step is an inter-provincial 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.

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.
Here is some info on all of our great to educate
       
"WE THE PEOPLE"  We have had the Power since 1931

(UK) – Statute Law Revisions act, Removed of Sec. 2 of the BNA act, legally removing the Monarchy and all heirs from Canada upon Queen Victoria’s death in 1901.
1931: Statute of Westminster, ending the letters patent/BNA act, allowing Canada to Confederate. Key word here is (the letters patent) only the crown in chancery in England issue letters patent. Not the queen.


Travelling Truth Tour  - Dallas Hills and many others concerned in the Direction the Country has been going since the 1980 started doing some research for over 30 plus years - Collecting information from many historians have complied a data base of very important information 
The Purpose of the Travelling Truth is to   bringing some important information you , your family and friends may be interested in Listening , watching videos and may be interested in having the team visit your local area to educate more people  on a Solution 





BC Refedration Party was formed in the 1990's - Ed Anderson, Dallas Hills, Dennis Shaw, Dallas Hills, in Picture -  Terry Hand, Patrick Kapasky Mel Gartner,- and many others were working on a Solution on a Constitution - and putting the Power back to "We The People " 

Direct Democracy was a Solution to remove corrupt Legislation - Allow the Sovereigns to create Legislation and Finally to create a Constitution  "For the People of The People by the People "- Referendums failed as the Clarity Act - ensure NO Referendums READ the Clarity Act Below

The BC Refederation Party argues that there are three constitutional flaws in Canada. The first, that there exists no confederation document approved democratically. The second, that there exists no democratically achieved constitutional documents federally or provincially and the third, that there is no constitutional basis for the federal government's rights to collect income tax.

BC Federation was 30 years ahead of many - There were also many other Sovereigns for years working on FACTS - Now are numbers have grown exponential - with the latest fake elections - and the NEED for a real SOLUTION is here - All we need to do keep on educating together Nothing can stop the Truth - Please share the information - The more share the faster  we can have this Done


Here are some Videos and Information of the Journey to Inform and Educate more on the "Facts" the "We The People" are Sovereign and each of the Ten provinces and two Territories can 
Canada a country without a constitution is  - if not one of the best videos created how "We the People " are governed under the Westminster - Parliamentary system - Democracy corrupt system.  During  this video it clearly explains Canada has NO Constitution - NO Federation Papers -  it also educates into Direct Democracy (RIC) which failed to control the Dictatorship and much more (because it is NOT BINDING) -  This video is powerful educational video  - Please forward to educate more so we may all get on the SOLUTION to end the fraud and corruption - UN Agenda 21/30 -Banking fraud - and all the unlawful ACT's they have created to harm us "We THE People "

We also offered a #1000.00 dollar reward  in the early 2000's for any one to produce the so-called federation papers- There has been another reward for $25 000 dollars in 2019 to produce these documents- good luck  - on finding them -  many have tried 

The Three Steps that Dennis Shaw, Terry Hand , Dallas Hills , Mel Gardner , and many more worked on in the late 1990 

# 1 Implement DD to remove corrupt legislation and allowing the Sovereigns to create Legislation to protect the people 
# 2 Allow the People of British Columbia to create a Constitution how they want to be governed , rather than be Dictated too - In the Constitution there was Accountability
#3 Was we were going to re-negotiate with Ottawa on there unlawful activities on a the Sovereign Country of British Columbia - and doing so other Countries would demand the same thing

Canada a Country without a Constitutions






Dallas in  Victoria  - Bank of Canada  Scam -October 15th 

This was educating more people but it was hijacked by George Soros and the real message was never to get on Main stream media - But it has always been controlled  - But now its 2019 and more are awake the Facts - the entire system is a LIE and must be removed

Video Are on Brighteon "Our Free Speech Site" Please support free Speech 

Dallas Hills speech at the Capital BC Legislature BC Canada

Video Are on Brighteon "Our Free Speech Site" Please support free Speech 
https://www.brighteon.com/119617ce-a765-4247-aa65-6a4763fdb846





Attached in the comments are some information you may very informative 
Our solution is  are educating and uniting on a solution to end the Lies and corruption - Thank you all for being part of the Creation of our FIRST Constitution - removing the shackles of the BNA ACT and the Indian ACT

Travelling And Educating has been the foundation to inform More People 

We also ask for our important research and to Please Support the Travelling Truth Tour - So they may continue their work, research, Thank You - donations may be e-transferred to travelingtruthtour@outlook.com - our direct line is 403 -437 -1718 

Also we are please to visit your locations to put on a presentation. Please contact us to setup a community event to have a live presentation - on constitutional committees - constitutional convention - and a Constitution - We look forward to meeting many more Native Brothers and Sister 


We have moved to Brighteon  As this Site offers Free Speech - Please Join and share this out 
- Why we are Creating a True Constitution - Learn more about this amazing Document - here 



PREAMBLE Constitution - has started - Please get involved


HO CANADA - Russel Rogers Smith

Travelling Truth Tour - "WE THE PEOPLE" - Native Sons and Daughter Unite to save their Countries

The Amazing Truck here belongs to Don Morrison - He has been using amazingly decorated truck to educate many of the issues WE THE PEOPLE must correct!
Because VOTING is NOT THE SOLUTION - Educate yourself to become Liberated 


Removing the INDIAN ACT -  BNA ACT - the first step to Liberty, Prosperity and a FUTURE 


WE are all Native Brothers and Sisters and united together - We are Sovereign - We have a Lawful right to create an amazing Constitution together to remove the corrupt BNA Act and the Indian Act  - so all may live in peace, prosperity for future generations -  the steps to do this are educating each other - then participate in constitutional committees, constitutional conventions, then to create a Constitution accepted by the Sovereigns.

We feel after you do your research you will find a Republic Constitution is the most powerful Constitution to protect "WE THE PEOPLE" 

Types of Government, Explained - Republic - Democracy 

This is Video explains the typed of Governments  https://www.brighteon.com/36aa2d6d-fcc7-4820-9aab-fb2a340120c8

Travelling Truth Tour -"WE THE PEOPLE" 
Constitutional Convention -on the tour educating and learning from others.





Travelling Truth Tour - The Myth is Canada - this is a brief description what this page is designed for and our Goals Constitutional Conventions Core beliefs:
De Jure Constitutional Conventions - on Facebook 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and Women are created with equal rights, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men/Women, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Freedom, Justice, prosperity, abundance, emancipation and the ability for all people to thrive.
- Uniting people across the land, inspiring people with truth.
-Bringing the actions hidden in darkness into the public light.
-This is all being done to form a new system that will be for the benefit of the people.

We are attempting to educate the population to help aid them in comprehending the true nature of the political reality we are currently dealing with in "Canada".



We want the people to become involved in the formation and drafting of organic constitutions for each "Country (province)" with respect to native lands.

Each province is in fact it's own country since 1931 Statue of New West Minister . The Video Below  - Dennis Shaw does an amazing explanation in detail how WE THE PEOPLE are Governed under this West Mister System - and some ideas how we may correct this injustice we have been inflicted with since 1931.

Canada a Country without a Constitutions

Canada a country without a constitution is  - if not one of the best videos created how "We the People " are governed under the Westminster - Parliamentary system - Democracy corrupt system.  During  this video it clearly explains Canada has NO Constitution - NO Federation Papers -  it also educates into Direct Democracy (RIC) which failed to control the Dictatorship and much more (because it is NOT BINDING) -  This video is powerful educational video  - Please forward to educate more so we may all get on the SOLUTION to end the fraud and corruption - UN Agenda 21/30 -Banking fraud - and all the unlawful ACT's they have created to harm us "We THE People "

We also offered a $1000.00 dollar reward  in the early 2000's for any one to produce the so-called federation papers- There has been another reward for $25 000 dollars in 2019 to produce these documents- good luck  - on finding them -  many have tried 



The Three Steps that Dennis Shaw, Terry Hand , Dallas Hills , Mel Gardner , and many more worked on in the late 1990 

# 1 Implement DD to remove corrupt legislation and allowing the Sovereigns to create Legislation to protect the people 
# 2 Allow the People of British Columbia to create a Constitution how they want to be governed , rather than be Dictated too - In the Constitution there was Accountability
#3 Was we were going to re-negotiate with Ottawa on there unlawful activities on a the Sovereign Country of British Columbia - and doing so other Countries would demand the same prosperity and future 


Canada a Country without a Constitutions




CANADA A COUNTRY WITHOUT A CONSTITUTION

A Factual Examination Of The Constitutional Problem
By Walter F. Kuhl Member Of Parliament
Jasper-Edson 1935-1949
January 1977
"It is therefore easy to see why Canada is
not a confederation............."
Dr. Maurice Ollivier, K.C., Joint Law Clerk,
House of Commons, before the Special Committee
on the British North America Act, 1935

"I have always contended, for reasons too long to enumerate here,that it [Canada] has not become either a confederationor a federal union."
[Dr. Ollivier, in a personal letter to Mr. Kuhl, May 30th, 1936]

Canada a Country Without A Constitution 

Travelling Truth Tour - Has been educating Facts since 1990 - here are some  of the latest videos 

Never Have so Many Known so Little About so Much
HO, CANADA ! by R. Rogers Smith, ( Chief Wapanatak )
Canada is merely a geographical expression, not a political entity, says R. Rogers Smith, long-time battler for the right of Canadians to vote as Canadians, a right he claims they have never possessed.

In his final chapter the author proposes a “ do-it-yourself ” method whereby the individual Canadian can assert this right.

Writing often in a style, which has brought consternation to officialdom, R. Rogers Smith blends a scholar’s knowledge of Canada’s political history with a formidable array of facts, which cannot be disputed.
Download Download PDF 


Katrín Oddsdóttir talks on Icelandic constitution

Katrín Oddsdóttir talks on Icelandic constitution Participate in writing a People's Constitution for Europe, volunteer or organize a local crowdsourcing session: peoplesconstitution.eu/ For more info, see this presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/Matthijs85/... and the movie Blueberry Soup: http://www.wilmaswishes.com/ https://vimeo.com/72931601 "Jaws dropped around the world on October 9, 2008 as a small collective of bankers brought an entire nation to its knees. Blueberry Soup chronicles the three-year aftermath of the Icelandic financial collapse that resulted in the extraordinary re-writing of the nations constitution. After extreme frustration and a sense of powerlessness Iceland elected a committee of 25 (non-politicians) to re-write their constitution to ensure a disaster like this will never happen again. 500 ran for the constitutional election and 25 were chosen, each representing the eclectic array of Iceland’s society. Such members include teachers, pastors, radio hosts, lawyers, artists, farmers, activists, and more.



















“We the People”

Our message is straight forward "Become educated to become liberated" 

So… here are 10 very important questions that you need to ask yourself:
1.    Where are the Articles of Confederation, if Canada had confederated in 1867 and is a sovereign nation?
2.    Why was Canada known as the “Dominion of Canada” a British colony until 1931, if Canada had confederated in 1867 and is a sovereign nation?
3.    Why in 1867 was the BNA act created to be Letters Patent for a Governor General to the Dominion of Canada if Canada had confederated and is a sovereign nation?
4.    Why in 1893, would the British Parliament deem it necessary to repeal certain sections of the BNA act, with the “Statute Law Revisions act” if Canada confederated in 1867 and is a sovereign nation?
5.    Why in 1931 would the British parliament create the “Statute of Westminster” to nullify the Dominion of Canada, if Canada confederated in 1867 and is a sovereign nation?
6.    Why in 1946 did a foreign Monarch, King George VI appoint a representative for the UK, a Governor General and then command the Parliament of Canada to create Letters Patent in 1947 for his Governor General, if Canada confederated in 1867 and is a Sovereign Nation?
7.    Why did PM Trudeau in 1982 have his liberal government create the “Canada act” and then take that act to a foreign Monarch and have her parliament pass that act as the “Constitution act, 1982” if Canada confederated 115 years earlier and is a sovereign nation?
8.    Why do Prime Ministers and other officials when sworn into office here in Canada, swear their allegiance to a foreign monarch, Queen Elizabeth, and not the people of Canada if Canada confederated in 1867 and is a sovereign nation?
9.    Why in 1947 did Canadian Citizenship come into existence if Canada confederated 80 years earlier and is a sovereign nation?
10.  Why was it necessary in 1990 to sue a member of the federal parliament, J. Littlechild MP, to force him to do his duty to his constituents and have the courts rule against his constituents, if Canada had confederated in 1867 and is a sovereign Nation?
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” – Søren Kierkegaard


Barbara Mcmahon Kevin  Johnston Dallas Hills Randy McMahon






(UK) – Statute Law Revisions act, Removed of Sec. 2 of the BNA act, legally removing the Monarchy and all heirs from Canada upon Queen Victoria’s death in 1901.
1931: Statute of Westminster, ending the letters patent/BNA act, allowing Canada to Confederate. Key word here is (the letters patent) only the crown in chancery in England issue letters patent. Not the queen.
The politician hatched a plan to make their own letters patent so the people would not know that the governor general is commissioned with no authority and can’t royal assent anything (no authority) and there is no enacting clause in any act. An enacting clause may invoke the ultimate sovereign. The people not the politician - now that the people have ultimate sovereignty, the politicians do not. The people have the power so they came up with a Canadian Citizenship Act run by a Minister, means such member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of this Act (British) to diminish your state of sovereignty. (make you mad yet???)
Canadian Citizenship Act
The Canadian Citizenship Act is, however, a horse of another colour. It affects every Canadian of voting age. As it has been incorporated into the statutes of Canada, it is an instrument intended by those who sponsored it to keep Canada and its citizens in thraldom, and it is diametrically opposed to the raison d’être of the Statute of Westminster.
Definition of thralldom or thraldom: noun. A state of subjugation to an owner or master: bondage, enslavement, helotry, serfdom, servileness, servility, servitude, slavery, thrall, villeinage, yoke.
Citizenship Act: Definitions
Minister means such member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of this Act; ((Begin of language: French) ministre (End of language: French))






























We the People of Alberta had the right since 1931
             
What is a Constitution - One of the Most Important Decisions You Will Ever Make
, you decide what happens to your future and your grand-children's future is now - and nobody else can do it but, “We the People”. It becomes the only legally recognized document that ensures their future - It’s called a Constitution - and we have this right since 1931 , and it’s time we completed this document to protect our children's future

Your wishes are carried out the way you planned in a Legal contract of WE THE PEOPLE - OF THE PEOPLE - FOR THE PEOPLE - as many understand the current system has NO ACCOUNTABILITY, NO PROSPERITY and NO FUTURE - Lets change the RULES and Give US THE PEOPLE a Contract that gives us a Future - Accountability - and Prosperity –

Looking for a Real Solution - Well here it is - We the People of Alberta had the right since 1931, isn’t it time. We exercise our right to seat a legal and lawful government for the people here in Alberta.

UNALIENABLE
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold -
Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. - Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." – Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:


Liberty and freedom SONG                                                 
When I was growing up we only had a few rules
Never question authority
Obey their golden rules
But it’s time for change
Let’s re-arrange, what we were taught in school
The system they created only benefits a few

(Chorus)
HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE BC REFED
THEIR GONNA GIVE YOU A CHOICE          And toss us in the ditch                      
GIVE THE POWER TO THE PEOPLE            We keep getting poorer
SO YOU MAY HAVE A VOICE                          They keep getting rich
COME JOIN US IN OUR CAUSE                      Exporting all our tree’s
OUR FUTURE IS AT STAKE                             So future generations will end up on their knees  ONCE WE ARE UNITED  
OUR FREEDOM THEY CAN T TAKE                   (Chorus)
There cunning and so cruel                        They threaten those who speak                  We know their plan for corporate rule    They removed all our free speech                  Its time for us to unite as one - And put them in their place - Restore equality to the human race  

HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE BC REFED
THEIR GONNA GIVE YOU A CHOICE
GIVE THE POWER TO THE PEOPLE
SO YOU MAY HAVE A VOICE
COME JOIN US IN OUR CAUSE
OUR FUTURE IS AT STAKE
ONCE WE ARE UNITED
OUR FREEDOM THEY CANT TAKE
(Chorus Again)
YEA ONCE WE ARE UNITED
OUR FREEDOM THEY CANT TAKE


                                  
WE THE PEOPLE
Help us Help you - educate everyone on Constitutional Conventions - If you understand creating another Party is just like - filling up a glass of water in the deep end of a pool and walking to the low end of the Pool and pouring into the pool and expecting changes - Lets give the People a SOLUTION - Rather than take their hard earned money on another wasted Political party 

Looking for a Real Solution - Looking for lower pricing, the resources in Alberta have belonged to “We the People” since 1931, isn’t it time. We exercised our right to seat a legal and lawful government for the people here in Alberta.

Alberta is one of the largest Oil Producing Countries in the World – Is it Time – to Seat De Jure Government

Oil Producing Nations Price of Gas per Liter in Cdn Dollars:

Alberta: $1.05???
USA: $1.05
Russia: $0.95
Indonesia: $0.93
Saudi Arabia: $0.77
Nigeria: $0.54
Iran: $0.15
Venezuela: $0.01 


 The Myth is Canada-  Doug Force  has been collecting information for years also - and has collected some great information on the website below -  



"WE THE PEOPLE " Constitutional Conventions - Save Your Country 

Please Support the Travelling Truth Tout - The Myth is Canada - donations may be e-transferred to travelingtruthtour@outlook.com - if you interested please contact us to setup a community event to have a live presentation - on constitutional committees - constitutional convention - and a Constitution - We look forward to meeting many more Native Brothers and Sister

Next We will explain - Monetary System - The Benefits of seating a De Jure Government and what this mean to you and your family and your Sovereign Country 



at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH TO YOUR BANK

  AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH TO YOUR BANK   3 Parts to the Affidavit of Truth 1.        Listing who the grievances are and listing of your tru...