Canada Constitutional CRISIS - Conclusions

Canada Constitutional CRISIS - Conclusions

From the evidence which I have thus far submitted, I draw the following conclusions: https://unifythepeople.ca/

1. The provinces of Canada desired a federal union. 2. The Quebec resolutions provided for a federal union. 3. The bill drafted by the Canadian delegates at the London conference, also provided for a federal union, 4. The colonial office was not disposed to grant the provinces of Canada their request for a federal union. 5. The British North America Act, enacted by the Imperial Parliament, carried out neither the spirit nor the terms of the Quebec resolutions. 6. Canada did not become a federal union under the British North America Act, but rather a united colony. The privilege of federating, therefore, was still a future privilege. 7. The Parliament of Canada did not become the government of Canada, much less a federal government. It became merely the central legislature of a united colony, a legislative body whose only power was that of aiding and advising the Governor General as agent of the Imperial Parliament. 8. The British North America Act, as enacted by the Imperial Parliament, was not a constitution, but merely an Act of the Imperial Parliament which united four colonies in Canada into one colony with the supreme authority still remaining in the hands of the British government.

Further Evidence As further evidence that the British North America Act was not a constitution, and that Canada did not become a federal union, I refer to the definition of the term "dominion" which is to be found in section 18, paragraph 3 of the Interpretation Act of 1889. It reads as follows: "The expression ‘colony’ shall mean any of Her Majesty’s dominions, exclusive of the British islands and of British India; and where parts of such dominions are under both a central legislature and local legislatures, all parts under the central legislature shall, for the purpose of this definition be deemed to be one colony." Excepting Canada, no country in the empire had a central legislature and local legislatures. Therefore, according to this definition made twenty-two years after the enactment of the British North America Act, Canada is deemed to be one colony. To show that I am not alone in my conclusions I quote some of the statements of recognized Canadian constitutional authorities before the special committee on the British North America Act in 1935. Doctor W. P. M. Kennedy, Professor of Law in the University of Toronto, at page 69 of the report states: "I think we have got to get away from the idea that the British North Amenea 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." Professor N. McL. Rogers, of Queen's University, at page 115 of the report states in reply to a question by Mr. Cowan: Mr. Cowan: You do not subscribe to the belief that this was a pact or contract? Mr. Rogers: I am thoroughly convinced it is not, either in the historical or the legal sense. Then I would quote Doctor Beauchesne, Clerk of the House of Commons, who at page 125 states. "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 evidence which I have submitted establishes to my satisfaction that there has been at no time in Canada any agreement, pac~ or treaty between the provinces creating a federal union an4 a federal government. The privilege to federate therefore was still a future privilege for the provinces of Canada.