Aboriginal Canada! Come aboard the Big Ship, Confederation ! Departing for ports unknown in the unmapped future. Join us for the cruise of the Millennium!
The Fathers of Confederation in the Debates of 1865 mooted Canada’s future Union under the motto “United we are strong”. The illustration of that motto was a bundle of sticks. When tied together, the bundle resisted every effort to break them, whereas the single stick might easily be broken.
In the Legislative Council of the old Province of Canada, on Tuesday, February 14, 1865 in the 1865 Debates on Confederation at pages 180-181, the Hon. Sir Narcisse Fortunat Belleau observed:
“Et, à propos de cette confédération des provinces de l’Amérique Britannique du Nord, je ne puis m’empêcher de me rappeler la fable des faisceaux, que j’ai apprise étant enfant, et qui s’applique parfaitement au cas actuel.
Cette fable nous rapporte que des faisceaux réunis étaient assez forts pour résister à tous les efforts faits pour les briser, mais que divisés ils se brisaient au premier choc.
Il me semble que la leçon que nous donne cette fable est très applicable à la question de la confédération : séparés, nous sommes faibles, unis nous serous forts.
Le commerce, la population, les industries, les progrès, en un mot tous les éléments qui sont nécessaires pour faire une nation puissante se trouvent dans les colonies réunies; mais tout cela devient peu important si on le laisse à l’exercice de chaque colonie isolée.
Et non-seulement la réunion de ces éléments ferait de la confédération une grande puissance parmi les autres nations du globe, mais on trouverait encore dans sa population un nombre de bras suffisant pour nous permettre de repousser l’agression de l’étranger, avec l’aide de la Grande-Bretagne.”
“And in considering this Confederation of the British North American Provinces, I am reminded of the fable of the bundle of sticks, which I learned in my childhood, and which so exactly applies to the present circumstances.
This fable tells us that the sticks when bound together were strong enough to resist all the efforts made to break them, but that when separated they were broken one by one with but little effort.
It seems to me that the lesson afforded by this fable may be well applied to the question of Confederation — separated we are weak, united we shall be strong.
Commerce, population, manufactures, progress, in a word, all the elements requisite to constitute a powerful nation are contained in the united colonies; but these become of little consequence if allowed to be utilised by each separate colony.
And not only would the union of these elements constitute the Confederation a great power amongst the other nations of the world, but there would be found amongst its population a number of sturdy arms, sufficient, with the aid of Great Britain, to repel foreign aggression.”
Source: — Hon. Sir N. F. Belleau, Legislative Council, Tuesday, February 14, 1865, Page 180, Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, 3rd Session, 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada. Quebec: Hunter, Rose & Co., Parliamentary Printers. 1,050 pages.
The motto arose because of a threat of war and annexation by the Americans who were the world’s foremost military power at that time. Therefore, Confederation in 1867 was a war measure, a military alliance, backed by the British Empire, to secure the permanency of our own federation of French-Canadian and British-derived cultures in North America.
The federal aspect of the British North America Act of 1867 is a feature laid down to preserve the cultures and peoples of each of the founding British (or “Britanno”) and French-Canadian colonies. Canada’s legal federalism of 1867 was consciously adopted to preserve each local (provincial or territorial) ethnic majority by excluding from our local self-government any undue cultural interference from the other ethnic founding majorities of Canada.
Confederation, as founded, as lawfully implemented (and it is not “multiculturalism”) is therefore to a large extent suitable to preserve the Aboriginal peoples in a regime of self-government.
In order to retain the strength of that “bundle of sticks” of 1867, the format of Confederation which our founding Statesmen, the Fathers, had researched in detail before applying it, must be carefully adhered to.
The problem of the Aboriginal Peoples appears to be that they are scattered in small minorities all across the country. Each one alone can do nothing. United into a Province by Confederation, they gain strength from consolidation among themselves. Importantly, they acquire two strong voices in the country, one federal, and one provincial.
At the same time, within the reasonable limits already noted in the case law on Confederation (long prior to the 1982 coup d’état which we are going to throw out), the Aboriginal Peoples have the right to develop their respective cultures, and their local provincial constitution.
By limits, I mean that as a Province they must remain integrated into Canada under the lawful Crown; they cannot turn themselves into a Republic, or a Communist dictatorship. But under the Crown, within Confederation, under Section 92 et seq., the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada can configure their local institutions, their local and federal elections, to suit their hereditary customs by blending these with their new constitutional arrangements.
Perhaps the First Nations will pass a law in the first session of their Aboriginal Legislature requiring all hereditary chiefs and all clan mothers to run for nomination as official candidates of the people in provincial and federal elections.
Perhaps the First Peoples on their first day in their new Aboriginal Legislature will pass a law configuring their non-contiguous territory into something akin to the Swiss Cantons. Whatever they do, they can respect the local cultures of each small group amongst them.
The globalists and their
Aboriginal Peoples, Municipalities and World Restructuring
Moreover, some of our Aboriginal Peoples have wondered why their communities are being pressured into the form of “municipalities”. Some aboriginal analysts have noted what they call a federal government “policy objective” with regard to comprehensive land claims and claims to self-government. That policy is to convert First Nations communities into municipalities.
What these aboriginal analysts likely have not seen is the decades-long federal policy of using Quebec to dismantle Canada into socialist, planned megacity municipalities and municipal regions, making Parliament and our provincial legislatures defunct. There is no legal power to do this, therefore doing it is treason. And the reason they are doing it is world government. The goal is a world-state of multicultural communist municipalities expanded, consolidated and equipped with legislative powers and fiscal resources. The goal is to end the nations, and all national peoples. The goal is to end all ethnic identity (except that of the Israelis) by forced inbreeding (or out-breeding, however you prefer).
The policy of decentralizing provincial and federal powers into municipalities and other new global infrastructure is being implemented together with mass immigration and multiculturalism. The deconstitutionalization of Canada and its transformation into multicultural international city-states is part of a world-wide program of geopolitical re-engineering to destroy the West and western peoples.
In United Kingdom recently, the new Muslim mayor of multicultural London, where mass immigration has reduced the classic British to a minority, has been asked to take the city of London out of Great Britain, to “secede” to become an international city-state. In other words, the heart of the British homeland is being hijacked into anti-national Communist globalism by multicultural foreigners.
The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is a consolidation of the core Toronto municipality together with outlying “settlements” (smaller cities, towns and villages). Rumblings have also been heard that Toronto GTA will “secede” from Canada to form a new international city-state.
The globalists are eliminating the nation-state, including Canada’s provinces and territories. They are wiping out national borders. They are wiping out self-government. They are substituting expanded and consolidated municipal structures (modeled on Soviet Moscow) on which sovereign powers of government, development, and Communist planning are to be devolved.
The globalists thus are emptying out our lawful Parliament and local Legislatures under the BNA Act of 1867 as “redundant”. These new Communist municipalities will take their orders from Moscow, or perhaps from Jerusalem, which the Israelis are planning to make the headquarters of the new world government (i.e., see Jacques Attali on the subject.).
Therefore, in shaping Aboriginal communities into the form of municipalities today, the globalists who run our country by manipulating those we (are allowed to) elect, can later cause these tiny settlements to be fused to any nearby municipality in their new global system. Any such fusion will risk merging Aboriginal Peoples with other ethnicities, eliminating any temporary gloss of “self-government” in these municipalities.
Indeed, this is how the Communist Parti Québécois in November and December of 2000, created 17 municipal “regions”, by mergers or “fusions” to main municipalities of outlying settlements. Articles have been written wondering why these megacities were created. There are three articles that you have to read to get a handle on this. They are by: Chad E. Tepper, Andrew Sancton, and Maurice Zeitlin. Read Zeitlin first (1975) on Moscow as a region-city, expanded, consolidated and equipped with powers and fiscal resources for Communist planning.
The outlying towns and villages absorbed into the Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia mega-cities were robbed of their self-government. The final goal behind that theft is world government. The link between the designed emergence of Communist megacities and one-world government is found in the documents of the SI online at their web site (when their search isn’t broken). And please take note, Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP) has always been a full member of the Socialist International (SI). Everything the NDP has done for decades has necessarily been in lock-step with the SI’s goal of world government.
In 1982, René Lévesque applied for admission of the Communist Parti Québécois to the SI. He was fought down by the NDP, since only one Red party per country can join the SI. The NDP is influential in the SI, even holding executive positions within it.
The platform of the SI, as above-said, is world government. The NDP adheres to the SI and thus to the goal of world government, meaning: terminate Canada. René Lévesque was happy and ready to adhere to the goal of world government. In fact, in his 1986 autobiography, Lévesque said, “I am a federalist, in world terms”.
The Canadian Action Party (CAP) led by Paul Hellyer was ready to adhere to world-government, because Hellyer tried to merge his CAP with the NDP, but failed. Allegedly, the NDP refused the party name-change required to do it.
The 2003 Report of the Socialist International from its XXII Congress at São Paulo in southeastern Brazil (27-29 October 2003) is entitled “Governance in a Global Society – The Social Democratic Approach”. In that report, the SI identifies the new elements of the emerging global infrastructure.
At its numbered paragraph 2, the SI declares:
“Globalisation is calling into question very basic elements of the political and social order we are used to. The nation-state which for more than a century has been a central element of the political, social and economic order of more and more of the world’s societies, is losing strength and importance. New trans-national units, like global and regional organisations or trans-national corporations, and sub-national units, like increasingly autonomous sub-regions and municipalities are taking over parts of the state’s discretionary capacities. In many policy fields, domestic solutions alone are no longer sufficient or adequate and have to be replaced or accompanied by internationally coordinated political efforts.”
Therefore, any Aboriginal “municipality” in the future SI world system will find its own policies “replaced or accompanied by internationally coordinated political efforts”.
What are “discretionary capacities”?
In constitutional law of Canada, the word “discretion” bears a very specific meaning. It refers to the national sovereignty of Canada.
It means the “discretionary powers” of the Parliament of Canada, these being the undefined residue of powers conferred upon the Parliament in 1867. Let me clarify that.
The British North America Act gives enumerated powers to the Provinces with a supplementary local “residual” or “residuary” power restricted to local purposes. This local residual power is thus not confined to a particular provincial subject-matter. But however it ends up being used, it can only be used for a legitimate local purpose, not something affecting any other territory or Canada as a whole.The national sovereign power is the undefined residue of all powers, subject of course to the Long Title, the Preamble, and other features of the formal Constitution. Some of these are discussed in my post, “The Constitution 101: Canadian Federalism and Self-Government for Dummies”.
That residue means elbow room. In other words “discretion”. The national sovereign decides all issues relevant to the country that are not specifically conferred upon the provinces, minus a few listed examples at section 91 of the BNA Act, that are exceptions. (Any good law book will explain that.) The national sovereign, meaning the Parliament, has the “discretion” or “elbow room” within the Constitution, to do this.
Constitutionally speaking, this “elbow room” cannot be transferred, meaning abandoned to any other entity, who would then acquire along with it the “sovereignty” inherent in the powers to make these decisions.
“Discretion” is the power to make laws of any kind, subject to the Constitution, for the “Peace, Order and Good Government of Canada”.
By “subject to the constitution” I mean, subject to the federal division of powers, which confers “exclusive” powers for some things on the Provinces.
I mean, as well, the Long Title, restricting all government action, both federal and provincial, so as to maintain the Union of 1867, to keep the Ship of State afloat. For an intro to the Long Title, again, read my post: “The Constitution 101: Canadian Federalism and Self-Government for Dummies“.
I also mean the Preamble of the BNA Act of 1867 (when lawfully interpreted), and not that ridiculous post-coup opinion of the Communists’ and the Bankers’ lackeys sitting in our supreme court of Canada in the PEI Judges reference.
These types of transfers would nullify the last vestige of Parliament, and of the provincial or territorial Legislature handing its powers over. As there is no legal power to hand them over, treason is the watchword, and fraud, lies and deception are the methodology.
These major institutions of government would cease to exist because they would no longer be the entities established by Confederation. Without their powers, they could no longer carry out the purposes of Confederation: the permanent existence of the Union, and the self-government of each of its Founding Peoples.
Therefore all transfers of power and fiscal resources to expanded and merged municipalities are attacks upon the Parliament and the provincial Legislatures. They are attacks upon the nation and its component Founding Peoples. These attacks are already underway, as we shall see.
Therefore, claims by the Socialist International that “trans-national corporations” and “increasingly autonomous” municipalities “are taking over” the “the state’s discretionary capacities”, actually mean that Canada’s powers of self-government are being hijacked by some of the big corporations, and for the purpose of creating socialist, planned, international multicultural (anti-national) city-states.
An article in 2014 in the tabloid Métro (paper edition) points out that Denis Coderre, Mayor of the Montreal megacity, is preparing a joint attack on the Quebec Legislature (and necessarily on the Parliament in Ottawa by ricochet) at the time of Quebec elections in October 2018. The article is entitled: “Montréal et Québec réclament des statuts particuliers“. Said Métro in French (my English translation):
“Pendant la prochaine campagne éléctorale, les municipalités feront front commun pour demander aux partis politiques de prendre position sur des enjeux locaux, a indiqué hier le maire de Montréal, Denis Coderre.” …
“During the next electoral campaign, the municipalities will form a common front to demand that the political parties take a position on local issues, indicated Denis Coderre, the mayor of Montreal, yesterday.” …
“Le maire de Montreal doit rencontrer aujourd’hui les membres de l’Union des municipalités du Québec pour peaufiner leur stratégie.”
“The mayor of Montreal must meet today with members of the Quebec Union of Municipalities to refine their strategy.”
This “common front” will be formed by the 17 “regions” created by the Communist PQ at the end of the year 2000, the year before 9/11 was done to consolidate the continent into a North American mega-region.
What are these new Quebec “regions”?
The 17 regions are used, for example, to find Quebec government job banks, and welfare offices. They are identified as follows:
Capitale-Nationale (03) (Greater Québec City)
Greater Montréal (06)
Where did all this come from?
The above-ground source of this attack of the regions upon the Parliament and Legislatures of Canada is Quebec City lawyer Guy Bertrand. Régis Labeaume, the mayor of the Quebec City mega-city, has moreover joined Coderre in the attack, as recommended by Bertrand in his Liberty-Nation Project. I have translated some of it.
Bertrand was a co-founding member of the Communist Parti Québécois in 1968. He was a constitutional “law” adviser (how to evade the law) to Communist René Lévesque. I say Bertrand is the “above-ground” source, because the original source of the strategy may well be the Kremlin. After all, why would the Soviets allow their Canadian yokels to carry out their own dismantling? The Soviet Foreign Office in fact wrote the book for Sydney and Beatrice Webb (Soviet Communism: A New Civilization); they probably wrote the book for their agent, Maître Guy Bertrand.
Now, in November-December of the year 2000, the Communist PQ in power created 17 municipal regions in Quebec.
These municipal regions are empty vessels, waiting for provincial and parliamentary powers to be transferred into them to make them into functioning Communist units.
The powers are to be used for Communist planning. I call these 17 empty municipal vessels “proto-Soviet regions” because they are modeled on Moscow in the Soviet Union (see “Planning is Socialism’s Trademark” by Maurice Zeitlin (Daily World, 1975).
The fact that these municipal regions are empty vessels waiting to receive the stolen powers (powers that Coderre and his common front plan to steal in 2018) is clear from Guy Bertrand’s 2014 “Liberty-Nation Project, for instance at pages 60 and 61:
“2.5 Transfert de pouvoirs aux régions
La réforme des institutions politiques au Québec doit nécessairement passer par le transfert de pouvoirs gouvernementaux vers les régions, une fois modifié le statut politique du Québec. La décentralisation s’impose.
« La décentralisation, c’est le transfert de pouvoirs gouvernementaux vers les régions, avec, bien sûr, les ressources nécessaires pour les exercer, sans quoi il s’agit d’un transfert bidon. La décentralisation, précisons-le d’emblée, n’est pas un transfert ou une déconcentration de services, mais un transfert de pouvoirs. L’opération n’est pas de nature administrative, mais de nature politique. Il ne s’agit pas de réaménager l’Administration. Il s’agit de réaménager l’Etat.
“2.5 Transfer of powers to the regions
The reform of political institutions in Quebec must necessarily proceed by way of the transfer of governmental powers to the regions once the political status of Quebec is modified. Decentralization is the way to go.
“Decentralization is the transfer of governmental powers to the regions, with, of course, the necessary resources to exercise them, without which, it would be a useless transfer. Decentralization, let us stipulate at the outset, is not a transfer or a dilution of services, but a transfer of powers. The operation is not administrative in nature, but political in nature. It is not a question of restructuring* the Administration. It is a question of restructuring* the Government.“
* Translator’s note: “réaménager” is literally “refitting”. The word is used in speaking of commercial premises, for example, that are “fitted out” with offices, showrooms, company kitchen, boardrooms, etc. In the present context, they are saying “refitting” the Government. I think they mean “restructuring”, so that’s the word I’ve chosen to use because it reflects the warnings of Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsin in The Peresiroika Deception that we must avoid the restructuring. There is a bit of a potential complication in that the word Etat (used here) can mean State (as in nation), or Government. But I think that here it means Government.
Download an English translation of most (if not all) mentions in Guy Bertrand’s Liberty-Nation Project of “Premières nations” (First Nations). These are just very short extracts as a guideline.
Page 60 continues:
Certains pourraient croire que la création d’instances régionales [done by the PQ in year 2000], telles que nous les connaissons actuellement, constitue en soi un transfert de pouvoirs. Cela n’est pas vrai. Comme le dit le professeur Larocque :
« [o]n ne trouve aucun élément de démocratie régionale dans la création de 17 régions administratives, de 15 régions pour le ministère des Transports, de 12 régions pour le ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation, de 21 régions pour le ministère du tourisme… »
« … Les instances régionales sont purement administratives et servent uniquement, qu’elles en soient conscientes ou non, à éviter le transfert de pouvoirs réels vers les régions. »
Même si tous les partis politiques au Québec, et cela depuis 1960 à aujourd’hui, « se sont engagés formellement dans leurs programmes officiels à effectuer des transferts de pouvoirs vers les régions », la décentralisation attend toujours. Pourquoi ?”
Some might believe that the creation of regional authorities [which took place in year 2000], such as we currently know them, constitutes in itself a transfer of powers. That is not true. As professor Larocque says:
“ne finds no element of regional democracy in the creation of 17 administrative regions, 15 regions for the Transport Ministry, 12 regions for the Ministry of agriculture, of the Fisheries and Food, 21 regions for the Ministry for tourism… ”
“… The regional authorities are purely administrative and are serve only, whether they are aware of it or not, to avoid the transfer of real powers to the regions.”
Even if all the political parties in Quebec, and that from 1960 to the present day, “were formally committed in their official programs to carrying out the transfers of powers to the regions” decentralization is still in the wings. Why?”
Did you get that? Since 1960, says lawyer and Communist PQ adviser Guy Bertrand, all the political parties in Quebec have formally committed themselves in their official party programs to carry out the transfers of powers to these new [municipal] (Communist) city-state regions. You can see who Bertrand is citing in his footnotes if you download the French original: file name: n.guy-bertrand.3.pdf.
In other words, not just the Communist Parti Québécois, but all the political parties in Quebec are “formally committed” to destroying Canada for a Communist world-state.
They all are going to restructure Quebec, they all will declare UDI; they all intend to disenfranchise the Founding Peoples of Canada with Soviet-Zionist planned Communist multicultural international anti-national megacities, i.e. “regions”.
Can it be any coincidence that all of the “political” (so-called “nationalist”) agitation in Quebec begins in 1960?
The whole Communist underground came to the surface in Quebec in circa 1960 and went into action under the leadership of Red moles like Pierre Elliott Trudeau at Cité-Libre, Bernard Landry (Trudeau’s law student), Jean Marchand (union strike organizer of the 40s and 50s), Claude Ryan (controlled press), René Lévesque (controlled broadcast and controlled politics), Pierre Bourgault (far-left Communist leader of the RIN which was founded then and helped Landry to generate social upheaval, before disbanding in 1968 to join Lévesque), and a long list of others, not to forget Soviet agent Lester Bowles (aka “Mike”) Pearson at the federal level, waiting to inflict a “constitutional reform” to settle the Red-generated upheavals in Quebec.
Red parties were founded; riots and strikes were launched, the FLQ showed up. And hypocritical “nationalism” became the operating banner of the Red emissaries to get their hands on the powers out of the Parliament in Ottawa for a Communist international dictatorship.
The pretense of ethnic concerns of the French Canadians waved by these Communist hijackers is pure make-believe.
Edmund Burke said, “Government and a free government are two different things.” We have no free government. We have an apprehended Communist insurrection which has hijacked our political institutions and placed us on an electoral treadmill toward the Canadian Red Dawn.
In his last-quoted paragraph, Guy Bertrand asked a question. Why have the powers not yet been transferred (to what I call these proto-Soviet) regions? Bertrand answers his own question, as usual, and I will elaborate:
Même si tous les partis politiques au Québec, et cela depuis 1960 à aujourd’hui, « se sont engagés formellement dans leurs programmes officiels à effectuer des transferts de pouvoirs vers les régions », la décentralisation attend toujours. Pourquoi?
C’est mon avis que le transfert de pouvoirs gouvernementaux vers les régions apparaît beaucoup plus logique et plus facilement réalisable dans le cadre où le Québec obtiendrait tous les pouvoirs inhérents à son statut de pays indépendant.”
“Even if all the political parties in Quebec, and that from 1960 to the present day, “were formally committed in their official programs to carrying out the transfers of powers to the regions” decentralization is still in the wings. Why?
It is my opinion that the transfer of governmental powers to the regions seems much more logical and more easily achievable in the framework where Quebec would have all the powers inherent to its status as an independent country.”
You bet. Because the fact is, they could not run a Communist country North of the USA without “independence” and a fully loaded military machine to defend them. See my post at WordPress entitled: “Quebec: A North-American Communist Military Power Built by the Federal Government of Canada”.
In order to use that ordnance, with international back-up from the UN, these Reds running Quebec must first declare UDI and be recognized by their Communist brothers at the Red UN as a “nation” state. At which point they can fire in “self-defense”.
Aboriginal Communities To Be Roped into
New Communist Structures
Moreover, the aboriginal communities are to be sucked in to the new Soviet municipal structures. This is clear at page 14, when Bertrand says:
Conférences régionales des élus (CRE)
“Regional Conferences of Elected Officials (RCE)
It would be reasonable therefore to inquire if the federal policy of imposing a municipal framework with respect to aboriginal self-government is part of this overall global restructuring. Because the end-game is termination of the nation-state and of federalized peoples like the British North Americans (the founding peoples of Canada) by mongrelization of all peoples in multiracial city-states.
Ethnicity has long been recognized as the basis of national sovereignty, meaning self-government, Destruction of ethnicity by forcing the peoples of the world into the same location to interbreed, destroys national sovereignty. It destroys national cultures and national peoples. It is, in truth, a form of global genocide.
Why would the Leftists who are so “sympathetic” to Aboriginals that they are pushing self-government for them, be working to destroy the self-government of other ethnic peoples with mass immigration?
Why would the Leftists not be planning the same goal of out-breeding to eliminate Aboriginal sovereignty?
The Left does not want western nations to be sovereign; why would the Left want ethnic Aboriginal communities to expand as new nucleii developing their own national sovereignty?
The Soviet-Zionists, in effect, want no national sovereignty at all, except for Israel.
“United We Are Strong!”
I will close with a few more words from Founding Father of Canada, the Hon. Narcisse Fortunat Belleau. Said Belleau in the Legislative Council on February 14th in the 1865 Debates on Confederation at page 181 (page 184 in the French version of the Debates):
“Après ces quelques mots pour montrer la nécessité de la confédération et qu’elle produira, dans ses résultats prochain, un peuple nouveau et puissant, je vais examiner quelles sont les conditions du projet, et aussi si le Bas-Canada y trouvera la protection nécessaire à ses intérêts. La première chose sur laquelle mon esprit s’est porté a été de savoir quelles garanties les institutions du Bas-Canada, ses lois, sa religion, sa croyance, et son autonomie, trouveraient dans la confédération. Je trouve la garantie de toutes ces choses dans l’article du projet qui donne au Bas-Canada le gouvernement local de ses affaires, c’est-à-dire le contrôle de toutes les questions qui se rattachent à ses institutions, à ses lois, à sa religion, à ses industries et à son autonomie. N’êtes-vous pas tous prêts, hons. messieurs, et surtout vous, les membres du Bas-Canada, à faire quelques sacrifices pour arriver à avoir le contrôle de toutes les choses dont je viens de parler, et qui se trouvent toutes dans les attributions du gouvernement local ?
With these few remarks to shew the necessity of Confederation, and that its first result will be the production of a new and powerful people, I propose to consider the terms and conditions of the scheme, and whether Lower Canada will find in them the protection its interests demand. The first point to which I directed my attention was to ascertain what guarantees Lower Canada would find in Confederation for its laws, its religion and its autonomy. I find the guarantee of all these things in that article of the scheme which gives to Lower Canada the local government of its affairs, and the control of all matters relating to its institutions, to its laws, to its religion, its manufactures and its autonomy. Are you not all prepared, hon. gentlemen, and you especially members from Lower Canada, to make some few sacrifices in order to have the control of all those things to which I have just referred, and which are all to be within the jurisdiction of the local governments.
The future sovereignty of the Aboriginal Peoples, and their hope of self-government for the long-term, depends on giving themselves a firm power base in a non-municipal structure; one that has non-communist legislative authority to create real municipalities (or cantons, etc.) for self-government, and not for the purpose of imposed communist planning on dictates from a centralized world government. That non-Communist authority is an Aboriginal Province in Confederation.
Canada must do today what its Founding Fathers did in 1867. Unite to preserve us all. Consolidate the tiny Aboriginal communities into a Local Power, lending strength to, and deriving strength from, the strength of us all.
In order for its Founding Peoples, and its Aboriginal Peoples, to continue to exist on our own respective terms, Canada must remain independent. Yet Canada is being annexed to the USA, by stealth; but not to the “Republic”. Our States and our Provinces are scheduled to be dissolved, and all of our sovereign powers of local and national self-government transferred into new global infrastructures being built now, to be exercised regionally, by others over us, and not by us.
From the viewpoint of justice to the Founding Peoples of Canada; from the viewpoint of justice to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada; from the viewpoint of mutual security in times of peril, Confederation, when restored and lawfully enforced, is a guarantee of self-government, and a war measure in defense of the realm.
Aboriginal Canada! Come aboard the Big Ship, Confederation ! Join us in preserving self-government and national independence.