Why Alberta needs a written constitution

 Without urgent changes, a populist dictatorship of ‘the people’ looms

Questions: Just what documents support a position of governing over Canadians? And, who really owns the land in Canada? To understand, we need to know what Eminent Domain is. And we need to be aware of the meaning of what former Prime Minister Trudeau referred to as the patriation of the constitution.

Citizens caring about Canada felt bypassed.and surely were bypassed in the haste by Ottawa under Trudeau to get this patriation thing done.

Haste by Ottawa. Haste by England. In cons, there's always haste.to get it done before someone notices the details and figures out where it's all headed'.

The brilliant Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau inveigled nine Provincial Premiers to agree to what he was doing, even though none of them had been authorized by an election to do this, not debated in the legislatures of the provinces. It turned out to be a snow-job, smoke and mirrors in the eyes and ears of all Canadians.

It was his constitution called his because the people of the country really had nothing to do with it, especially when consideration is toward how constitutions were formulated and implemented in other countries.

Trudeau figured, that if he can pull this off, the advantages to Ottawa of continued central control over all Canadians would be dyed even more in the minds of the populace.

The 'constitution' was never ratified by the people of the Provinces. This particular constitution has no legal basis according to British law.

So, you see folks of Canada, the well meaning attempt at giving Canadians some kind of a constitution obviously didn't mean much to most of the people of the country, so they were effectively left out of it. Did they deserve a proper constitution? If they did, they failed to show it by any actions on their part. So, they have what they have.

It's been the same throughout history whenever the people have no effective say in matters that affect or will affect them.

At any rate, off Trudeau flew to Great Britain to get approval of the British Parliament.(was he really nuts; going to another country for approval of a constitution the people in his country had nothing to do with, but could have been created by them without need of anything from Britain at all? Well, at least it was something. Trudeau cared more than most Canadians to at least have a document that appeared constitutional).for ideas disguised as a constitution for Canadians, but it appeared to be an unnecessary and unfounded 'smoke and mirrors' ploy.

As it played out it kept Canadians far away from the wonderful rights conferred upon the Provinces by the Statute of Westminster; rights, that should have been made known to Canadians; rights not made known to any degree of effectiveness to the public and ended up being of continued great advantage to those wishing the status quo central control of the country by Ottawa continue.

What the prime ministers, Trudeau, Bennett and King wanted, was to make it look like the BNA Act was a continuing act, with Trudeau hailing it as at least something Canadians could have to be proud about; but not many cared. All of these Canadian crime ministers began referring to the BNA Act as Canada's constitution, as they all wanted it to look as if it was more than just a British Act of Parliament as letters patent, which it most assuredly was.

Trudeau, obviously understanding little about Canadian constitutional history, or perhaps knew it better than many and could see the implications if the truthwere known, spent taxpayers money to create a so-called Canadian constitution, a 'constitution' that constituted ideas gleaned from the BNA act, lacked effective public input (had nine people agree to it, of which, as it appears, most of whom had no idea what was really going on), reflected few if any of the desires of the people or the concerns of businesses in the Provinces; made sure, by the haste, a lack of effective public meetings about it occurred, attached other documents to the defunct British designed BNA Act and off he went to England to 'patriate' what he thought Canadians would accept as being their constitution. He never told Canadians exactly what Britain said regarding all this. What did Britain think of it all?

Trudeau made sure the rusty 'ol nullified BNA Act (1867-1930), (never designed to be a compact.formed the basis of this 1982 'constitution' and nobody seemed to effectively question it. Perhaps it was because Canada is really a parliamentary dictatorship with individual party members commanded to vote on platforms the party wants to push upon the Canadian people; push means, without their permission. Why would party members question it? They were in power and all members knew they were to conform to the doctrines and rules of the party they were in. Never mind the wishes of the people in Canada regarding concocted policies. Elected representatives' oaths of allegiance are to the crown, not to the people of Canada who elected them. What does that tell?

Trudeau knew the BNA Act was designed to maintain central Canadian control in the hands of one, over all the Provinces; maintain control in the hands of the Governor General and those.in the Ottawa administration of government of course around to "aid and advise" him and he knew this was turned around by fabricated documents done by previous prime ministers. How nice it would have been if these three politicians were open and honest with the Canadian public, but again, who cared? How nice it would have been they had been honorable and really did good for Canada by telling Canadians of their true status. We would be so much better off today.

Person:

An entity recognized by the law as separate and independent, with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law.

Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity.

Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.

For example, the US Code defines "person" as follows (at Title 1, Chapter 1, ¶1):

"The words person ... include(s) corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals."

De Facto:

Latin: in fact.

As a matter of fact; something which, while not necessarily lawful, exists in fact.

A common law spouse may be referred to a de facto wife or de facto husband: although not legally married, they live and carry-on their lives as if married.

A de facto government is one which has seized power by force or in any other unconstitutional method and governs in spite of the existence of a de jure government.

In R v Sanson, Justice Watt wrote:

"De facto characterizes a state of affairs which, for all practical purposes, must be accepted notwithstanding its illegality or illegitimacy. The de facto doctrine is sometimes engaged to uphold rights, obligations and other effects which are said to have arisen under an enactment later held to be without constitutional integrity."

In a 1910 publication on the de facto doctrine, Albert Constantineau wrote:

"The de facto doctrine is a rule or principle of law which, in the first place, justifies the recognition of the authority of governments established and maintained by persons who have usurped the sovereign authority of the State, and asset themselves by force and arms against the lawful government; secondly, which recognizes the existence of, and protects from collateral attack, public or private bodies corporate, which, though irregularly or illegally organized, yet, under colour of law, openly exercises the powers and functions of regularly created bodies; and, thirdly, which imparts validity to the official acts of persons who, under colour of right or authority, hold office under the aforementioned governments or bodies, or exercise lawfully existing offices of whatever nature, in which the public or third persons are interested, where the performance of such official acts is for the benefit of the public or third persons, and not for their own personal advantage....

"Again, the doctrine is necessary to maintain the supremacy of the law and to preserve peace and order in the community at large, since any other rule would lead to such uncertainty and confusion, as to break up the order and quiet of all civil administration. Indeed, if any individual or body of individuals were permitted, at his or their pleasure, to challenge the authority of and refuse obedience to the government of the state and the numerous functionaries through whom it exercises its various powers, or refuse to recognize municipal bodies and their officers, on the ground of irregular existence or defective titles, insubordination and disorder of the worst kind would be encouraged, which might at any time culminate in anarchy."

De Jure:

Latin: of the law.

The term has come to describe a lawful, legal control of a state or a corporation.

For example, a de jure government is one which has been created in respect of constitutional law and is in all ways legitimate even though a de facto government may be in control.

John Bouvier wrote in his Law Dictionary:

"De jure: rightfully; of right; lawfully; by legal title.

"A government de jure but not de facto is one deemed lawful, which has been supplemented. A government de jure and also de facto is one deemed lawful, which is present or established. A government de facto is one deemed unlawful, but which is present or established. Any established government, be it lawful or not, is a government de facto."

In International Law, the authors wrote:

"De jure/de facto recognition: In effect such a recognition denotes how an entity is recognized rather than a description of the recognition. The essence of the distinction was that an entity recognized as de facto possessed most of the necessary components of sovereignty, whereas a de jure entity possessed complete sovereignty."

In the context of corporations, Justice Linden wrote in Duha:

"... de jure control is just what it is stated to be, control at law.... If majority ownership does not allow for real legal control over a company, the de jure test of control will not have been met."

On appeal of that decision, Justice Iacobucci wrote:

"... de jure control ... the test for such control generally accepted to be whether the controlling party enjoys, by virtue of its shareholdings, the ability to elect the majority of the board of directors.

"However, it must be recognized at the outset that this test is really an attempt to ascertain who is in effective control of the affairs and fortunes of the corporation. That is, although the directors generally have, by operation of the corporate law statute governing the corporation, the formal right to direct the management of the corporation, the majority shareholder enjoys the indirect exercise of this control through his or her ability to elect the board of directors. Thus, it is in reality the majority shareholder, not the directors per se, who is in effective control of the corporation."

A Constitution cannot be implemented by charter, act nor decree, unless it is first 'ratified' by constitutional conventions, of “The People”. i.e.: one cannot assign “by proxy” nor petition, their permission for any one party, group or an individual to “negotiate” on their behalf. A constitution must be ratified by majority vote. So for all those out there with petitions, dreams and delusions of 'Speaking for all Canadians' everywhere, please stand down.

This is pretty much where we're at and stuck as a country, since I joined this group. I've had three 'petitions' thrown in my face telling me I need to sign it right away and someone in Quebec is claiming he's named himself 'King of Canada'. Thank-you for this for a moment I thought I was losing my mind. LOL

Tony Cowen