On February 3rd, 1865, a debate began in the old Legislature of the old Province of Canada (Upper and Lower Canada) on whether to approve the 72 Resolutions adopted by the Delegates at the Quebec Conference of 1864.
The 72 Resolutions were a benchmark on which the London Conference built in 1866. They formed the core of the 147 constitutional provisions enacted into law for the new nation of Canada by the Mother of Parliaments. The British North America Act received the assent of the Queen on the 29th of March, 1867, and came into force by royal proclamation on the 1st of July in the same year, 1867.1 The British North America Act of 1867, with the institutions it created, and its form of government on the model of the Westminster Parliament, has never been lawfully, replaced or terminated. It remains Canada’s true Constitution, the 1982 patriation being a coup d’état and void.
The Writs for the lawful Parliament have not been issued in decades.Confederation therefore came into being as permanent law for Canada on July 1st, 1867. The date selected was an obvious retort to the American annexationists. Emerging from a long and bloody civil war (1861-65), the American warhorse cast its jealous eyes North upon Canada. But British North American unification, under protection of the world’s foremost land and sea power, confirmed the permanency of the Crown in North America, in polar opposition to the Monroe Doctrine and the warrior Republic.
In consequence, July the 1st, 1867 will forever be celebrated before the July 4th memorial to the nearly as bloody American Revolution of 1776.
Confederation was to Serve
Legislative intent is a cornerstone of the British Rule of Law inherited in Canada. In our system, a law is required to be interpreted and applied by the courts according to the true intent of Parliament. A law therefore has a purpose which neither government nor the courts may legally vary.
A more complete statement of this idea is found in Heydon’s Case*, where, over 400 years ago, under the Tudor monarchs, the Barons of the Exchequer formulated the “Mischief Rule”. The Rule requires “all the Judges” to “always” “suppress the evil and advance the remedy” according to “the true reason of the remedy” — “and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act.”
Today, the “true reason” is called “the purpose” for which Parliament passed a statute.
It is therefore obvious that the British North America Act is a constitutional statute with a purpose. In fact, more than one purpose.
The Honorable Sir Étienne Pascal Taché, Receiver General, Minister of Militia, and Premier, was frequently referred to as a “gallant knight” by his colleagues in the Legislative Council of the old Province of Canada, which became Quebec and Ontario.
(Premier Taché lived to see the 72 Resolutions adopted by the Fathers in the Old Province of Canada, but sad to recount, he would not visit London in 1866 where the Constitution was finalized. Nor did he see the birth of Confederation in 1867 for which he had fought so hard on behalf of the French Canadians.)1
On February 3rd, 1867, the Hon. Taché acquainted the Third Session of the Eighth Provincial Parliament with the purposes Confederation was to serve in the opening salvo of the Debates on Confederation on Friday, February 3rd, 1865.
The First Purpose
Sir Taché declared the first purpose, that of “uniting the Colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island, in one Government”. (See page 1 in both the French and English versions of the Debates).
Taché then read aloud the 72 Resolutions which the Delegates had formulated at Quebec. These Resolutions are celebrated on 10 October 1864, the commencement date of talks at Quebec City, the first real step toward Confederation.
Two More Purposes of Confederation:
1. Permanency of the Union and
2. Other provinces to be admitted
The second numbered Resolution makes clear two more purposes of Confederation and means to attain them:  “permanency in the working of the Union”; the means to attain it: (a) a division of powers between the federal and provincial governments (“a General Government” and “local governments”); (b) the laws of a province are to have effect only on its own territory; and  other Provinces are to be admitted to the Union in future.
The text of the second Resolution, in English:
2. In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of Government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interest of the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the Union, would be a General Government, charged with matters of common interest to the whole country; and Local Governments for each of the Canadas, and for the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections. Provision being made for the admission into the Union, on equitable terms, of Newfoundland, the North-West Territory, British Columbia and Vancouver.
The text of the second Resolution, in French:
2. Le meilleur système de fédération pour les provinces de l’Amérique Britannique du Nord, le plus propre, dans les circonstances, à protéger les intérêts des diverses provinces et à produire l’efficacité, l’harmonie et la stabilité dans le fonctionnement de l’union, serait un gouvernement chargé du contrôle des choses communes à tout le pays, et des gouvernements locaux pour chacun des deux Canadas, et pour la Nouvelle-Ecosse, le Nouveau-Brunswick et l’Ile du Prince-Edouard, lesquels seraient chargés du contrôle des affaires locales dans leurs sections respectives; — des dispositions étant faites pour admettre dans l’union, à des conditions équitables, Terreneuve, le territoire du Nord-Ouest, la Colombie Anglaise et Vancouver.
Now, the word “stabilité” in French has the same meaning as “permanency” in English. In fact, the word “stability” in English has that meaning, so the words are virtually interchangeable. My desktop dictionary defines “stability” as: “The quality of being enduring and free from change or variation”; “A stable order (especially of society)”; and “The quality or attribute of being firm and steadfast”.
Quite frankly, I should be using a dictionary from 1867, because the legal meaning of the Constitution depends upon the meaning of the words used then. However, the words “permanency” and “stability” undoubtedly mean the same today as they did then.
I have a nice old dictionary from archive.org, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Third Impression, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1912. At page 610, the word “permanent” is defined:
permanent, n. Lasting, intended to last, indefinitely.
At page 818, we have the word:
“stable, a. Firmly fixed or established, not easily to be moved or changed or destroyed.
I think we get the point that if something is stable, it is unchanging; if unchanging, it is permanent.
The Honorable Mr. Joseph Edouard Cauchon, in the 1865 Debates at p. 564, speaking of the proposed Confederation, uses both words together to the same end:
“Every constitutional mode of existence has its advantages; but assuredly that state of existence which gives permanence and stability to institutions should be preferred to others.”
That statement appears at page 569 in the French version of the Debates:
“Tous les modes d’être constitutionnels ont leurs avantages et leurs désavantages; mais, assurément, le mode d’être qui donne permanence et stabilité aux institutions doit avoir sur les autres la préférence.”
Note the “purposes”. First, Unity. In the text of the British North America Act, 1867, the Founding Provinces are first merged into one legal entity by the British North America Act, 1867:
You will notice that after the first part, entitled “Preliminary”, and giving the citation for the name of the statute creating the Constitution, we have the very first enactment, entitled “II. Union”. Under that heading, section 3 of the Constitution begins with a marginal heading for clarity, entitled “Declaration of Union”. Section 4 is very important. The word “construction” in that section means “interpretation,” i.e., the way the courts will interpret the language of the BNA Act. Also in section 4, the name Canada cannot be used in any other way than to designate the Union created by the BNA Act in 1867. Canada cannot be spoken of in legal terms as though it were or could become anything other than this present legal Union of 1867.
Therefore, when you hear the veiled Communists in Quebec (disguised as “separatists”) speak of a “sovereign” Quebec “negotiating with” “Canada” after a unilateral declaration of independence in Quebec, that is not a reference to Canada as “duly constituted” by the BNA Act. It is a deception to make you think that “Canada” would still exist after a successful UDI, and would still have “powers”, and could use those “powers” to “negotiate” its own restructuring to become another entity.
All such statements have no legal reality. Even more, they signal an abuse or intended abuse of the powers conferred by the Constitution. If anyone speaks of a “new federalism”, or a “new union”, or a “new Canadian Union”, or a “new Canada”, or a “multicultural Canada” (which are very different kinds of unions from the one legally established), or they suggest a “North American Union”, none of these has anything to do with Canada as constituted in 1867. To attempt any of these would be an abuse of power, or intended abuse, and illegal. It is a sure sign of treason underway.
A real-life example of this kind of treason underway is a statement by Stephen Harper on the French CBC in 1995 at the time of the (illegal) Quebec referendum:
[Journalist, M. Savoie:] Monsieur Claude Ryan disait tout à l’heure sur nos ondes que ce qu’il faut à partir de maintenant c’est qu’on reconnaisse le Québec non pas comme une société distincte, mais comme un peuple. Est-ce que il y a une volonté dans le reste du Canada pour en arriver là ?
[Stephen Harper:] Monsieur Savoie, je suis euh … j’ai de la difficulté avec cette idée. J’ai de la difficulté avec l’idée d’un peuple dans un peuple. Moi, je préfère bâtir une nouvelle fédération. Moi, j’ai de la difficulté à imaginer une structure constitutionnelle d’un pays et demi.
[Journalist, Mr. Savoie:] Mr. Claude Ryan said earlier on air here that what is needed now is that Quebec be recognized not as a distinct society, but as a people. Is there a will in the rest of Canada to do that?
[Stephen Harper:] Mr. Savoie, I am uh … I have difficulty with that idea. I have difficulty with the idea of a people within a people. I prefer to build a new federation. I have trouble imagining a constitutional structure of a country and a half.
That statement was out-of-doors treason. Mr. Harper has no such power. No one elected or appointed has any such power. Any and all power exercisable by elected or appointed officials must come from the Constitution itself, which also includes limits on power.
The power to do things, the power to act, must be found in the Constitution. There is no other source for primary power. The power to “build a new federation” is not only not found in the Constitution, the Constitution clearly forbids it in the Long Title. Canada’s Long Title reads as follows:
An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for Purposes connected therewith.
(Moreover, the “new federation” Harper wants to build is the North American Union, which he did in fact build with Communist interloper Barry Soteiro, aka Barack Obama, while both of them were detaining office in our respective countries.)
Limits on power also prevented Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his gang of Rhodes Scholars (on the Supreme Court advisory bench in 1981) and other leftists from legally adding a “Charter” to the BNA Acts. The effect of the Charter terminates Parliament and the Provinces as founded in 1867.
You must never take treason lightly, or misidentify it as a “political option”. When anyone seeking power, or occupying power, speaks in any way of altering or destroying the country, or of using the country as a platform to create something else, you must get together and consult, because something legal has to be done about it, to put a stop to it.
Of course, in order to consult, you have to be knowledgeable. You do not want to depend on professional liars who have attached themselves to those detaining power. We therefore have to change our education system to add law and constitutional law to the provincial school curricula from daycare onward. We must develop a constitutional culture, a culture of real self-government. Like Trudeau and all of the others who are complicit in the destruction and overthrow of Canada, Harper knows that we have no clue what is really going on, and that is why he dares to get away with such blatant statements of high treason in public.
Treason is very dangerous. It is dangerous for everyone. Treason means that somebody is trying to change the game rules. They are trying to remove your constitutional protections. They have a goal. You don’t want them to achieve their goal, because it is you who will pay for it. As many Canadians today are now paying for Pierre Trudeau’s coup d’état of 1982, which is clearly a long-standing plan for the genocide by mass immigration of the Founding Peoples, if you will read his 1962 article, “New Treason” in his pro-Soviet magazine, Cité Libre. In the course of urging his readers to replace Confederation with polyethnic pluralism (multiculturalism: the demographic basis of Communism) Trudeau says:
Other than to situate us in the correct perspective, it will get us nowhere to affirm that the French-Canadian nation must probably disappear one day, and that the Canadian State itself will not last forever.
It won’t “last forever” once Trudeau gets his hands on it, and overthrows it in 1982 on the way to regional union (disguised as “free trade”), and hands it over to 200 foreign races mass-immigrated to destroy the Founding Peoples.
Treason is an attack, or an apprehended attack on the world’s second largest country, one of the richest countries in terms of potential wealth and natural resources. Annexing Canada would be a windfall for any bankrupt nation or banana republic in the western hemisphere. Annexing Canada would be a trophy in the crown of the international bankers, who have been working on world government for over a century.
More importantly, the Founding Peoples of Canada would instantly be stripped of their legal rights and heritage, forever. They would be stripped of their Constitution’s protections. And one of these protections is legal federalism, which prevents the genocide by attrition of the Founding Peoples in the wake of mass immigration, which is illegal. Mass immigration signals a new constitution being unlawfully created to replace the lawful one that protects you.
In particular, don’t be misled by fake defenders of Canadian “sovereignty”. If someone sets up a “political” party to “fight” for Canada’s “sovereignty and independence” against people they say are perpetrating treason, while taking no legal steps to stop it, you’ve got “controlled opposition” on your hands. That kind of a “party” is there as a delaying tactic to deceive you until the treason has run its course. Even worse, that kind of a “political” party may try to rope Canadians into the treason, and trick them into voting “for” or “against” it, to force Canadians to psychologically accept the treason, because there has been a “referendum”. A vote cannot sanctify treason. I am of course referring to the Canadian Action Party (CAP), and to Soviet agent Lester Pearson’s man Paul Hellyer, who set it up, and to Hellyer’s favorite Communist whom he chose to run it, Constance Clara Fogal Rankin. Don’t fall for controlled opposition.
Sections 3 and 4
of the British North America Act, 1867:
3. Declaration of Union; and
4. Legal meaning of the name “Canada”.
Here is the English text of sections 3 and 4 of the British North America Act, 1867, taken from a PDF of the original imperial statute downloaded from the Justis database (print-screened above):
Declaration of Union
3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada ; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.
Construction of subsequent Provisions of Act.
4. The subsequent Provisions of this Act shall, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the Day appointed for the Union taking effect in the Queen’s Proclamation ; and in the same Provisions, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the Name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.
Now, the BNA Act was passed by United Kingdom Parliament solely in English, undoubtedly because the courts must interpret every word of a statute according to the parliamentary intent behind it. Since the members of United Kingdom Parliament on the whole, or as a whole, in 1867, did not speak French, the Act could hardly have been passed in French because they would not have understood their own statute. It would likely not even be a statute had they attempted to pass the BNA in French, because there could be no parliamentary intent in French words for the courts to interpret, since those who would have attempted to “pass” it would not have understand what it said.
However, a bilingual BNA Act was published in Canada shortly after Confederation. The French version of that bilingual BNA Act is not legally enforceable; the terminology is not legally established; and cannot be legally interpreted. There are in fact several French versions of the first BNA Act floating around, including one annexed in the French version of the 1939 Senate Report on the BNA Act. But this French version was published in 1868 to ensure that all French Canadians could read at least a version of their new Constitution in French. And you must understand, French Canadians very much wanted Confederation, because it gave them all the benefits of military and economic protection from the Mother Parliament in England, together with their own permanent territory, and their own permanent Legislature, where they legally are entitled to be the self-governing majority. In other words, Canada’s legal federalism excludes multiculturalism and interference from 200 other foreign races, which neutralizes our constitutionally mandated self-government.
Here is a transcript of sections 3 and 4 of the unofficial French translation published in Canada in 1868 of the Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britannique du 1867 (the marginal headings were not translated, probably because they are only inserted in the English BNA to aid legal interpretation, and the French version is not subject to interpretation):
3 Il sera loisible à la Reine, de l’avis du Très-Honorable Conseil Privé de Sa Majesté, de déclarer par proclamation qu’à compter du jour y désigné, — mais pas plus tard que six mois après la passation du présent acte, — les provinces du Canada, de la Nouvelle-Ecosse et du Nouvcau-Brunswick ne formeront qu’une seule et même Puissance sous le nom du Canada, et dès ce jour, ces trois provinces ne formeront, en conséquence, qu’une seule et même Puissance sous ce nom.
4 Les dispositions subséquentes du présent acte, à moins que Je contraire n’y apparaisse explicitement ou implicitement, prendront leur pleine vigueur dès que l’union sera effectuée, c’est-à-dire, le jour à compter duquel, aux termes de la proclamation de la Reine, l’union sera déclarée un fait accompli ; dans les mêmes dispositions, à moins que le contraire n’y apparaisse explicitement ou implicitement, le nom de Canada signifiera le Canada tel constitué sous le présent acte.
The object of the permanency of that Union is achieved by other important features of the new Constitution.
The division of powers between the federal and Provincial governments guarantees that no province has any power to secede, and therefore cannot disrupt the Union. If a Province could disrupt the Union, all of the Provinces would end up annexed to the USA. (Or, in the modern variety of that problem, annexed into the regional North American Union.)
The division of powers prevents a Province from seceding by expressly conferring the general residual power upon the central Parliament, at s. 91 of the constitution, which is the reverse of the American system. The USA had split up in 1861-1865 when the southern States claimed “national sovereignty” on the basis of precisely that “general residual power” reserved to them in the text of the American constitution.
The general residual power contains the national sovereignty of the country. In Canada, it belongs to the federal level. However, at s. 92 of the Canadian division of powers, the word “exclusively” confines law-making power to the provincial legislature for the purpose of local governance; while section 92(16) confers a merely local “residual power” to cover uforeseen contingencies on the territory of the Province.
In other words, if a Province legitimately needs to pass a law on a subject matter not listed at section 92, which also is deemed not to be an exclusive federal power of the central Parliament, then the Province can still pass that law under s. 92(16). But in every case under section 92, and section 93 which contains the Education power; and also sections xxxx xxxx, “the laws of a province are to have effect only on its own territory”. Two words can sum that up: “no extraterritoriality“.
The result is that no Province constitutionally speaking, meaning legally speaking, has any power to implement any law or measure which substantially affects any other Province, or all of Canada. It cannot even take a step in that direction because the object being illegal, the steps are illegal.
Therefore, referendums, which are a step toward UDI, and a fraud to hide treason behind a forced vote of the people, are an illegal step toward an illegal “law” declaring “sovereignty”; but the Provinces deliberately have no constitutional power to declare sovereignty.
Therefore, every political party which declares a mandate of Quebec “sovereignty” cannot swear an oath to sit and vote laws in Parliament or a provincial legislature because the power is denied, and they intend to do it anyway, they intend to exceed the limits on power, which is treason.
The Provinces have no legal power to affect one another, or all of Canada. Thus, they have no legal power to affect the province of Quebec. Therefore, when you have “declarations” or “resolutions” by other provinces that Quebec is “free to determine its own destiny”, which is a formulation of UDI — a repudiation of the Constitution — and extraterritorial in nature, you can see that all the elements of Confederation are under foreign control and are being manipulated to dismantle the country. Whoever repudiates the Constitution has already overthrown it. As a result, we have not governments, but a long series of coups and usurpations. There is also no possibility of “amending” the constitution to do these illegal things, because the lawful Constitution makes ALL steps in that direction totally illegal. A Constitution cannot be altered, amended or repealed like ordinary legislation. If you replace Confederation, if you replace Parliament and the Legislatures with a new form of government, you cannot pretend to have “amended” the constitution. Any pretense of amendment is elaborate fraud to cover a coup d’état.
As a result, there has not been a single, lawful federal or provincial government sitting anywhere in Canada for decades, because all of them, and all of the “political” parties, are opposed to the lawful Constitution (which is not their property). All levels have been working for decades to break up, i.e., restructure Canada in order to link it to Europe while dissolving the territory and its Founding Peoples into Mexico and America.
Put another way, no Province has any constitutional power to hold a “referendum” “in relation to” (legal term) “secession”. Because first of all, any pretense to such a power by a Province on the basis of its alleged implicit “national” sovereignty is immediately rebuffed by the Constitution which expressly creates “one Parliament for Canada”, while giving the “national” residuary power to that one Parliament, and not to the Provinces.
Further, the “exclusive” power of a particular Province to make law for its own territory, automatically excludes any attempt by the federal Parliament (unless authorized in express words by the Constitution as an exception to the norm), or any other Provincial government to make law for another Province or for all of Canada. Therefore, the arrangement of the division of powers, in concert with other features of the Constitution, preserves unity.
‘[image Built for War] The next purpose of admitting other Provinces achieved the objective of a continent-wide national border for Canada, and assurance for security against invasion of the USA coming up and around from the West. The original four Provinces ensured security in the East from military attack by the USA by extending the Canadian border to the Atlantic coast. And also through a railway system linking Ontario and Quebec to the Maritimes. Canada’s Intercolonial Railway was not only a means of linking and politically connecting the old colonies under the new central Parliament, it was a defensive measure, in other words a “war measure” for the defense of Canada.
With these initials steps, the Fathers achieved their design of permanency for Confederation.
The intention of permanency is clear from numerous statements by the Fathers in the 1865 Debates, calling for a Constitution to last “for ages”, and “for centuries”.
However, not only did the Fathers hope for this permanency, they designed permanency into Confederation. They established in writing an immutable Constitution whose particular features create, impart and ensure the desired long-term stability.
I may discuss more of those features in another post; but for now, the objective is to review some of the important statements by the Fathers at the time they chose Confederation (a central Parliament and Provincial Legislatures) rather than a legislative union (just a Parliament) for Canada.
I will, however, mention the “lack” of a particular feature, whose absence was viewed as conducing to Confederation’s permanency. Many writers have wondered over the years why each of the Provinces of Canada has a constitutional amending formula, but Canada as a whole had none. The answer is in the Debates, where we learn from the Hon. Thomas D’Arcy-McGee that the permanency of the new Constitution was ensured in its infancy by denying a general amending power. Like jello, Confederation needed time to set!
Here is McGee in the English and French versions of the Debates:
“We go to the Imperial Government, the common arbiter of us all, in our true Federal metropolis — we go there to ask for our fundamental Charter. We hope, by having that Charter that can only be amended by the authority that made it, that we will lay the basis of permanency for our future government. The two great things that all men aim at in any free government, are liberty and permanency. (Legislative Assembly, Thursday, February 9th, 1865, p. 146)
“Nous nous adresserons au gouvernement impérial pour lui demander notre charte fondamentale. Nous espérons que cette charte qui ne pourra être amendée que par les autorités compétentes sera la base permanente de notre futur gouvernement. Les deux éléments principaux que tout le monde cherche à obtenir dans un gouvernement libéral, sont la liberté et la permanence.” (Assemblée Législative, jeudi, le 9 février 1865, p 148)
Now, let me close with additional statements of the Founding Fathers, who obviously intended a permanent Union, a permanent Confederation, and the permanent survival and prosperity of the Founding Peoples of Canada.
Having concluded that some kind of federation was necessary, the Fathers studied history to see how well federations had fared. They wanted to make sure that they had properly designed Confederation to be permanent.
In choosing a constitution for Canada, the Founding Fathers were meticulous. They sought to avoid the mistakes of history, and to lay the stable foundations of a future Canadian empire. Remarking on the future promise of Canada, the Honorable Sir Narcisse-Fortunat Belleau declared:
“In the Confederation of these provinces are to be found elements which give promise, nay, contain the germ of a power which will one day take its place among the nations of the world.
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.
— Debates on Confederation, Legislative Council, Tuesday, February 14, 1865, p. 181.
For decades, the International Money Power and their agents, the Rhodes Scholars and the Left, have tried again and again to break Confederation apart.
They have failed; and will keep failing.
What the British Parliament tied together in 1867 is One permanent country.
How else do we know
that Confederation is permanent?
We know because of its monarchical form of government. In 1865, the French-Canadian, Honorable Antoine Chartier de Lotbinière Harwood, observed, as a matter of fact, the legal effect of the monarchical principle in Parliament.
“As a British subject, I find most pleasure in that article of the scheme which declares the Sovereign of Great Britain to be the head of the Executive. The monarchical element will predominate in the Constitution, and we shall thus escape that weakness which is inherent in the Constitution of the neighboring States. [ … ]
The “weakness” of the American States was that the southern States claimed to secede. Each State claimed ultimate sovereignty over its territory. A vast civil war ensued.
Confederation eliminated potential claims by Provinces to States’ Rights or sovereignty. The Provinces are subsumed under one central Crown, in the person of the One and indivisible Monarch, in whose person legal sovereignty is vested.
Because Canada is a British-style monarchy, it is one and indivisible; there is no secession.
Mr. Harwood went on:
“Under the working of our Constitution, [ … ] as the sovereign is permanent (“the King is dead — God save the King!“) we have at all times in him a father, whose interest and whose inclination it is to extend his protection equally over the cottage of the poor and over the palace of the rich, and to dispense equal justice to both. (Cheers.) Our Ministers will still be responsible to the people.”
The “permanent monarch” being attached to the Parliament, the Parliament too is “permanent”. The British monarch, like the monarch of the French ancien régime, in his person represents both the state and the nation, and is thus the embodiment of unity.
That is the basis of the legal principle underlying the oneness and permanency of Parliament. That is why the British North America Act, 1867 says:
“There shall be One Parliament for Canada”
— not ten or more. The Provinces have parliamentary-style legislatures, and although they are called “provincial parliaments” by habit, they are not “the” Parliament. All the Provinces (at the federal level, in Parliament) are one and indivisible with the Crown, and with the Sovereign. They are comprised in the unity of Canada, which like the person of the One Monarch, is indivisible. The unity of Canada is therefore permanent.
We know again that Confederation is permanent because of its principle of parliamentary supremacy, which sets in motion a perpetual cycle of Parliaments. I’ll repeat what I said in a post in 2012.
The lawful Constitution of Canada is based upon the animating principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, sometimes called Parliamentary Supremacy.
There are at least two components of this principle, which act in corollary:
(1) No particularly elected Parliament may bind a subsequently elected successor Parliament;
(2) There must always be a “successor Parliament”, which means, of the same type and genus as its predecessors. This is how the perpetual cycle of Parliaments arises.
Albert Venn Dicey in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution described the principle like this (1889, 3rd Edition) at page 38:
“The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.”
Parliamentary Sovereignty benefits the electors, the voters, who, together, are the political sovereign of Canada. However, the Monarch is the legal sovereign of Canada, in whom its territorial and political unity are vested. The Sovereign in his or her very essence is legal unity; and there is thus no power in the Sovereign to encourage, facilitate, or authorize a national dismantling.
The political sovereign, through their elected representatives, say whether a law is to be made, altered or repealed. If Parliament fails to represent the public will, they may be ousted at the next election.
This is one reason why the so-called Charter of Rights of 1982 is unparliamentary. It lets unelected judges (not the people) make or unmake any law of the legislature, and the judges then impose their own laws on the people.
But, under Canada’s British-style Constitution of 1867 — which the addition of the Charter largely nullifies —
“No person or body is recognised … as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.
To do so pre-empts the rights of the people, who are the political sovereign.
They Overthrew The Parliament!
Under Trudeau’s illegal 1982 system, the judges are the political sovereign, not the people! The judges decide whether the “policy” of the Legislature is acceptable. They alter or eliminate policy at will, using judicial devices such as “reading down” (similar to editing out), or “reading in” (adding to a law things the people did not contemplate or deliberately excluded).
The Charter implements a non-British, totalitarian, top-down system which the people cannot easily change. Thus depriving the people of their political control of parliament, while subjecting them to the “government of judges”.
However, the British Parliamentary system is a guarantee against the “government of judges”. Canada’s lawful Constitution imports that system through the Preamble of 1867, which confers upon Canada a “constitution similar in principle” to that of the United Kingdom, as that Constitution stood in 1867, when the judges definitely had no right to “rule” on policy.
Confederation is Permanent Because
Power to Dismantle is Denied
There is No Power to Secede in the BNA ActAs Sir John G. Bourinot observes at pages 95-96 of his Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, 1903, the legislative powers were distributed between the federal and provincial levels (Articles 91 and 92 of the BNA Act of 1867) in a manner designed to secure “unity” and prevent “secession”. Sir Bourinot:
“XII. — Distribution of Legislative Powers. … The doctrine of state sovereignty had been pressed to extreme lengths in the United States, and had formed one of the most powerful arguments of the advocates of secession. This doctrine had its origin in the fact that all powers, not expressly conferred upon the general government, are reserved in the constitution to the States … Now, in the federal constitution of Canada the very reverse principle obtains, with the avowed object of strengthening the basis of the Confederation, and preventing conflict so far as practicable between the provinces that compose the union.”
No States’ Rights for the Provinces
1865 -versus- 1998
In the Debates on Confederation of 1865 John A. Macdonald, a founding father of Canada, refers to the American War of Secession (1861-65) as “the disruption of the United States” (page 33, right-hand column). (In fact, there is a book title on that civil war which uses the same word: The Disruption of the United States. On the Origin of the Second Civil War.)
This war of secession was the reason for the particular division of powers between the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the Provinces. A Province can do nothing that substantially affects another Province, or all of Canada. Only the federal level can affect all of Canada. And both levels are subject to the Long Title of 1867, which controls the application of all power in Canada.
[Macdonald:] “Ever since the [American] union was formed the difficulty of what is called “State Rights” has existed, and this had much to do in bringing on the present unhappy war in the United States. They commenced, in fact, at the wrong end. They declared by their Constitution that each state was a sovereignty in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty belonged to each state, except those powers which, by the Constitution, were conferred upon the General Government and Congress.
Here we have adopted a different system. We have strengthened the General Government [the Parliament]. We have given the General Legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail, all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures, shall be conferred upon the General Government and Legislature.
We have thus avoided that great source of weakness which has been the cause of the disruption of the United States. We have avoided all conflict of jurisdiction and authority, and if this Constitution is carried out … we will have in fact, as I said before, all the advantages of a legislative union under one administration, with, at the same time, the guarantees for local institutions and for local laws, which are insisted upon by so many in the provinces now, I hope, to be united ….
It is clear from Bourinot, above, and Maconald, that the second American war of secession (1861-65) was the reason for the particular division of powers between the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of the Provinces. A Province can do nothing that substantially affects another Province, or all of Canada. Only the federal level can affect all of Canada. And both levels are subject to the Long Title of 1867, which controls the application of all power in Canada.
In other words, there is no power to secede. There is no residual sovereignty in the Provinces, which unlike the American States were never nations before they federated. In other words, they had no international personality. If secession were attempted in the absence of a power at s. 92 of the British North America Act of 1867, it would be radically “extra-territorial”, meaning that it would presume to affect the whole of Canada, including all the territory outside the local boundaries of the attempting Province. It would in fact be a coup d’état.
“Constitutions are not usually made in a day, and they should not be passed in a week; they are matters of too grave a character. I trust, if we make a new Constitution, it will be one that will be sustained not for ten or twenty years, but for centuries.
It is to be hoped that every change which is made will be of the right character, and in accordance with the interests of the country; not such a change as will have to be repealed again in a few years.
— Debates on Confederation, Legislative Council, Monday, February 13, 1865, p. 162.
The meaning of the word “disruption”, as used by Mr. Bourinot quoting Attorney General Macdonald, is more clear from the statement of the Hon. Mr. David Reesor, speaking on Monday, February 13, 1865 in the Legislative Council of the Old Province of Canada at page 163 of the Debates. Said Mr. Reesor:
“I hope to see a union of the British North American Colonies effected, but what I am anxious for is that the conditions of the union may be so satisfactory and well considered, that there will not be embraced therein the seeds of future disruption, or anything that will give rise to a desire on the part of any of the provinces to separate from the union, or prevent other portions of British North America coming in hereafter and forming parts of this proposed Confederation.
— Debates on Confederation, Legislative Council, Monday, February 13, 1865, p. 162.
Contrary to the claim maintained by the Supreme Court of Canada sitting as a non-judicial federal advisory board in the 1998 Quebec Secession opinion, the Constitution did not “evolve” after 131 years, or grow principles to “secede”, as a tree grows leaves. There is not only no “duty to negotiate” the end of Canada after a Yes in Quebec; but the referendums are illegal as attempted coups d’états.
The permanency of the Constitution was not a mere “wish” of the founding fathers. They designed the Constitution to give shape and expression to their wish. While the monarchical principle was chosen as the “leading feature”, the DIVISION OF POWERS became the cornerstone of Canada’s “permanency”.
The Forms of Failed Confederations
Were Avoided by the Fathers
The Honorable Antoine Chartier de Lotbinière Harwood, in the Legislative Assembly on March 9th, 1865, outlined the better-known confederations of history, from antiquity to 1865. One by one, he highlights the reasons for the success or failure of each of them.
If you read and learn what the Founding Fathers knew about Confederations, you will then understand why all of Canada would disintegrate if any part attempted to detach itself. And why today, more than ever, “separated we are weak, united we shall be strong.”
But, that is exactly what veiled Communist Guy Bertrand, a Quebec City lawyer and a founding member of the Communist Parti Québécois, wants for Quebec. He wants Quebec, like the old Guatimala, to declare independence and set itself up as a federal republic.
“I shall now, Mr. Speaker, ask to be allowed to say a few words on the other confederations which have existed on the continent of America.
In the first place I shall mention that of Central America, or Guatimala. That Confederation was situated on the shores of the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. It consisted of five states — Guatimala, Honduras, San Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. These states were peopled by Creoles, Mestizos, Indians and Negroes.
Until the year 1821 this Confederation was rich and prosperous. Guatimala, then, imitating the ill-advised example of other Spanish colonies, declared its independence, and thought fit to set up as a Federal republic; but in 1839 an insurrection detached the state of Honduras from the Confederation, and shortly after the other states also declared themselves to be independent (1847).
And what are they now? They have fallen into complete insignificance, a prey to the ambition of numerous dictators, without any common bond, disunited, and therefore without vitality or strength.
— Debates on Confederation, Legislative Assembly, Thursday, March 9, 1865, pp. 830-831.
The Founding Peoples would lose the protections of our federal Constitution. The United Nations Organization could then destroy Canada in the same way it destroyed Yugoslavia. Wait for a couple of Provinces to declare UDI, and then announce to the world that “Canada” (like the former Yugoslavia) is “in a state of dissolution”.
Canada then, like the old Confederation of Central America, which fell apart, would be picked to pieces by oligarchs among the “radical rich”, and by petty Communist dictators.
(See Guy Bertrand’s 2014 “political last will and testament” which he calls his “Liberty-Nation Project” and in which he cites the supporting opinions of numerous other veiled Communists who control our press.)
The Honorable Antoine Chartier de Lotbinière Harwood goes on:
“We next come to the united provinces of Rio de la Plata, now constituting the Argentine republic. The Confederation of La Plata comprised fourteen states, the greater part of which formed at one time a portion of the immense Viceroyalty of Peru.
In 1778, being united to the present province of Bolivia, to Paraguay and Uruguay, they formed a particular Viceroyalty, that of Rio de la Plata. In 1810 they took part in the important insurrectionary movement which shook all the transatlantic dependencies of Spain; from that time everything tended to republicanism; separate and independent states became republics.
They are now a prey to anarchy and the confusion which attends such institutions. The industrial arts are unheeded, and the commerce limited.
If, sir, that Confederation had proved to be faithful to the cause which gave it life, if union had prevailed instead of disunion, strength, power, prosperity and wealth would have fallen to the lot of the association, in place of poverty, misery, and decay, which seem now to be their inevitable fate.
— Debates on Confederation, Legislative Assembly, Thursday, March 9, 1865, p. 831.
Communism, which is the goal of The Parti Québécois and of Guy Bertrand, would administer a similar fate of poverty and decay upon the remnants of Canada, restructured on the PQ’s Soviet model. See my exclusive English translation of the 1972 manifesto of the Parti Québécois for a Communist state of Quebec in the sidebar at CANADA How The Communists Took Control.
“Now, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that in ancient days, in the middle ages, and in modern times, states, provinces and kingdoms desirous of growing in strength, wealth and prosperity — desirous of acquiring power internally, and making themselves formidable to rivals abroad — desirous of means to repel ambitious assailants and enterprising neighbors — combined together — formed confederations with a view to increase the general prosperity, and the means of a common defence and mutual protection.
We have seen that it was the surest, the most rational, and the most generally adopted plan in all ages; and why should not we, profiting by the experience of others, do the same?
— Debates on Confederation, Legislative Assembly, Thursday, March 9, 1865, p. 835.
Speaking on February 21, 1865 in the same Debates on Confederation, the Hon. Solicitor-General Langevin addressed the objectons of Mr. Joly as to the durability of Confederations:
“That honorable member (Mr. Joly) has endeavored to prove that all confederations die of consumption, and has cited, in support of his argument, the political condition of the Spanish republics of South America.
Why did he say nothing of the Germanic Confederation? If he had mentioned that, he would have had to confess that it had proved a success. He would have said also that it is a monarchical confederation consisting of thirty-one states, the chiefs of which are almost all kings, princes, or electors. There are not more than four or five states which are not monarchical, and, nevertheless, that confederation works well.
Mr. GEOFFRION —
“Are they sovereign states?
Hon. Sol. Gen. LANGEVIN —
“Yes, but they have done what we are now about to do. In order to hold their own among the great powers, and not to be at the mercy of the first who might choose to assail their rights, they have united their strength because they conceived that “union is strength.”
When the honorable member for Lotbinière (Mr. Joly) was talking about the weakness inherent in confederations, he ought to have recollected late events in Italy, as they happened a few years ago.
He should have called to mind the conquests of Garibaldi, and reflected that if he had succeeded in overcoming a number of petty states and even the kingdom of Naples for the benefit of the king of Sardinia, it was because the Italian States, being divided as he found them, were too weak to resist an invasion, and that, had they been confederated, neither Garibaldi nor Victor Emmanuel would ever have succeeded in getting the upper hand of them.
And what happened when the little states of Italy were banded together with Piedmont? This happened — when Garibaldi aimed at making conquests on his own account, he soon found out that the small states no longer existed, and that a large state had been formed out of their fragments, the consequence of which was that he was beaten at Aspramente.
— Debates on Confederation, Legislative Assembly, Tuesday, February 21, 1865, p. 390.
A few more remarks from the 1865 Debates, underscore that Canada was founded in 1867 to resist dismantling, and to last forever:
Honorable Mr. John Jones Ross:
“It is of no use to look for a better form to the constitution of the ancient republics which have passed away, their having ceased to exist being of itself proof enough of their not being adapted to our wants.
The honorable member might perhaps have cited the Swiss and Dutch republics, or the constitutions of the United States of 1781 and 1789, and if he had, the House would perhaps have been able to compare them with that now proposed, and arrive at some definite conclusion which might after all have been that ours, as now proposed, is that which promises best to secure freedom to those who are to live under it, and stability for the political condition of our country.
With respect to the Swiss Confederation, however well it may be considered to have worked, it is a fact that within our own time a civil war has existed among the cantons, and that republic has been upon the brink of destruction.
As regards the Dutch republic, it is a matter of history how it fell. During the whole of its struggle against Philip II, the provinces comprising it never had that centralized power which is necessary to the stability of a government, especially one assailed by enemies from without, for two provinces, Guelderland and Overyssel, contributed nothing all that contest through — each standing upon its state rights — while among the remaining five, by far the largest proportion was contributed by the one Province of Holland. The natural result was that the republic fell, and became a monarchy.
The same evil lay at the root of the American Constitution of 1781, and after it had been adopted, so ill concerted and disunited were the efforts of the thirteen states, that the arrangement would not work at all, so that General Washington was obliged to ask for and actually obtained dictatorial powers, to enable him to carry on the contest against Great Britain.
The difficulties between the North and the South which now prevail [1861-1865], arose wholly upon the question of state rights, and had provisions existed in the Constitution of the American Union, similar to those which it is proposed to introduce into ours, the probability is the States would have remained united.
— Debates on Confederation, Legislative Council, Wednesday, February 8, 1865, pp. 74-75.
Honorable Mr. Alexander Campbell, speaking on the purpose of Confederation:
“The Conference acted upon the conviction that they were not building a structure for a temporary purpose, but, as they hoped, for centuries …
— Debates on Confederation, Legislative ggggg, Monday, Febggg 13, 1865, p. ggg.
“A Permanent Foundation”
In the Debates on Confederation, Legislative Council, Tuesday, February 7, 1865, at p. 53, the Hon. Mr. James G. Currie said:
“If we are to have a Confederation, let it be put upon a proper and permanent foundation, one that will be of advantage to this young and vigorous province, and he expressed the hope that only such a scheme would be sanctioned by Parliament. (Hear, hear, and applause.)”
On Thursday, February 9, 1865, p. 124, Hon. Mr. John Sewell declared:
“If we desired to have a Constitution which would have good hope of permanency, it must be planted in the affections of the people — (hear, hear) — for until their intellects were convinced of its excellence, they would not be prepared to uphold it and resist innovations. But they must feel and comprehend the obligation. (Hear.)
The “obligation” Mr. Sewell referred to is the duty owed by one Founding Canadian to another, to respect the Constitution, to ensure its enforcement.&nbps; Our mutual protection and the preservation of our self-government rely upon it.
One by one the Fathers cast aside the failed federations of the past, including the American federation, as unreliable for their need of “permanency in the working of the Union”. Instead, they built a nominally federal constitution upon the indivisible principle of the English Constitution: the Crown and its Monarchy.
The intentions of the Fathers of Confederation, of record in Hansard, are required by well known terms of statutory and constitutional interpretation to be receive their full effect in accord with the express terms of the lawful Constitution.
The British North America Act, 1867 received the assent of the Queen on the 29th of March, 1867, and came into permanent force by royal proclamation on the 1st of July that same year. It gave permanent constitutional existence to the Dominion of Canada, otherwise known as British North America.
Happy Canada Day to the Founding Peoples of British North America!
Your true Constitution can still be recovered, and the proper Writs issued for the lawful Parliament of 1867.
– 30 –