4.3 - Is Ottawa lawful ?



There are two fundamental issues in Canadian politics that polite society never discusses.
BC Refed is the only political party in Canada to question Ottawa’s authority to rule this country.

Who gave the Canadian governing establishment the authority to pass laws, and to enforce them ?
Answer, the Canadian governing establishment gave itself the authority to rule over Canadians.

Now the question is - who should give the politicians their power ?
Answer. In a true democracy, the people should.

So the results of Refed’s 5 years of research caused the party to ask questions and find answers in government documents. The party produced the pamphlet below and sent a list of questions to several BC media outlets. None of the media attempted to answer the questions posed. Total silence.
However, an experienced lawyer, not from BC, but from “back East somewhere”, wrote to support the thrust of the pamphlet in these words :
“The BC Refederation Party seeks answers to the question “Is the government of Canada lawfully constituted ?” The question is fundamental. It deserves serious consideration.
I agree with [BC Refed]. The government of Canada is constituted contrary to law.” [Dialogue Magazine, Vol 18, #4, www.dialogue.ca ]
Consider one last item before digesting the questions below.
The BC Refederation Party recently requested a copy of the BC constitution from the Premier, and from the BC Attorney General, and from a well known and respected BC political figure who in his time served in some of the highest positions federally and provincially.
Neither the Premier not the Attorney General could produce any document that is the BC constitution, and the third gentleman knew enough to confirm what BC Refed is saying. There is no document that is a BC constitution.
Here is BC Refed’s questioning of central government authority.

BC Refed Pamphlet # 12

“To think clearly is a political act”
Seriously - Is Canada’s central goverment de facto? De facto means unlawful

A lawful (de jure) RefedBC government in Victoria intends to negotiate changes in what is called “the Canadian Confederation”. But questions arise.
Question # 1 How can a lawful Victoria government negotiate matters with an unlawful Ottawa government ? How can the Ottawa government machinery be unlawful ?

Question # 2 Why is there no document in the archives of any central or provincial government, signed by all the governments and approved by Canadian voters, that records the terms of a confederation of the sovereign provinces ? Where is this document ?

Question # 3 How can a confederation have occurred when provinces were colonies of a foreign nation? Colonies are colonies, without legal status to confederate.

Question # 4 Why is there no document in the government archives recording the terms of a confederation after 10 Jan 1920 or after 1931 when Canada and the provinces became sovereign ? Why is this document not produced by those who claim that there is a confederation ?

Question # 5 Why are the citizens of British Columbia and of Canada always told that they live in a Canadian confederation when there is no confederation document ?

Question # 6 Why do the citizens of Canada believe that there is a confederation when there is no proof? Surely, no document, no confederation …

Question # 7 Why do the lawyers tell the citizens that a confederation exists when there is no documentary proof? Do lawyers and judges accept fairy tales in court ? Do the rules of evidence permit citizens to get away with verbal fairy tales in court cases..? Is it not “no document, no proof…?”

Question # 8 When lawyers who are constitutional experts testify that the BNA Act 1867 is: “..not a contract or a treaty [between provinces] in history or in law..” Kennedy “…not a pact or contract [between provinces], in the historical or the legal sense…” Rogers “…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….” Beauchesne. then how did politicians convince the citizenry that the BNA Act did create a Canadian confederation ?

Question # 9 If the provinces have given up no powers to a confederation, then how can today’s central government be a “federal” government ? How can it be possible for any organization to be the “federal” government of a non existent confederation ?

Question # 10 What is the central government’s claim to legitimacy ? Does it claim that the citizens voted on a Canadian constitution ? Can the central government produce any document which gave the Ottawa bureaucracy lawful powers to rule over Canadians ? Why is that document not in government archives ?

Question # 11 Does the Ottawa government claim a statute as its authority and right to rule over Canadians ? (the Constitution Act, 1982)

Question # 12 Did the Ottawa government itself pass the Constitution Act, 1982 ?

Question # 13 Does the Ottawa government actually use that Act, that statute, as its right to rule over Canadians ?

Question # 14 Did the Ottawa government vote itself into power over Canada by passing that Act ?

Question # 15 Is the Ottawa government passing off an Act, or a statute, (the BNA Act) as a constitution ?

Question # 16 Do all Canadian lawyers accept that a statute or an Act is the same thing as a constitution ? Why do the lawyers not tell the citizens the difference between a statute and a constitution ? Do they themselves know the difference ? Why do all the lawyers talk about a Canadian constitution when the country only has a statute ?

Question # 17 Why does a leading constitutional lawyer today call the BNA Act “…the opposite of a constitution…” ? Hogg

Question # 18 How can the central government be lawful if it voted itself into power ?

Question # 19 Why does the central government only produce its own statute as proof of its authority to rule over Canada ? Has it no authority from the people ? Did it usurp power in 1920 and in 1931 ? Does it still enforce usurped power today ?

Question # 20 What support is there for the BC Refederation Party’s stance that Ottawa needs a written constitution approved by the people in order to be a de jure (lawful) government ? Policy #12 A BC Refed government will encourage other provinces to urge the federal government to draft and present a written constitution for the approval of the Canadian electorate, with a view to creating a lawful (de jure) government in Ottawa.

Question # 21 What further support for BC Refed’s position is needed when 4 constitutional authorities have testified, 3 of them before a House Special Committee on the British North America Act in 1935, that there is no Canadian confederation and no Canadian constitution ?

Question # 22 How can a central government that is unlawful, create a Supreme Court of Canada that is lawful ? How can one institution grant more power to a second institution than it possesses itself ? Is there one legal doctrine for the Supreme Court of Canada and a separate legal doctrine for the rest of society ?

Question # 23 Why do not lawyers tell the citizens that their institutions have no legitimate authority ?

Question # 24 Why do citizens have to tell lawyers that our legal institutions need to be granted legitimate authority ?

Question # 25 How can the government of BC be de jure (lawful) if the central government is de facto (unlawful) ? Where in provincial government archives is the document that states which powers the people of BC have given to their provincial government ? Which document is the constitution of British Columbia ? Why does the provincial government not produce that document ?

Question # 26 Have the people of British Columbia ever approved a document giving the provincial government legitimate power ? Or has the provincial government voted itself into power by means of the BC Constitution Act ? Does the provincial government use its own statute as a constitution, as Ottawa does ?

Question # 27 If the people of BC were to vote and approve a document, would the provincial government then be legitimate ? Would the province then have a legitimate constitution ?

Question # 28 Is it proper for the BC Refederation Party to demand that this province be put on a sound constitutional basis without further delay ? Will a BC Refed government in Victoria be correct to decree that the people of BC are the sole source of all political rights in this province ?

Question # 29 Can the people of BC see that they are wrong to continue electing any political party to form what is an unlawful government in Victoria ?

Question # 30 Is it possible for the voters of BC to come together to demand that their government be lawfully constituted, before they elect a party to run the government ?



DEFINITIONS From Law dictionaries

Constitution:“A charter of government deriving its sole authority from the governed”
From Black’s Law Dictionary , 6th Ed. (see below for Black’s reputation and status)

Statute or Act: The written laws approved by legislatures, parliaments or houses of assembly (i.e., by politicians). Also known as “legislation”.

de jure: Latin: “of the law.” The term has come to describe a total adherence to the law. For example, a de jure government is one which has been created in respect of constitutional law and is in all ways legitimate.

de facto: Latin: as a matter of fact; something which, while not necessarily lawful or legally sanctified, exists in fact. A de facto government is one which has seized power by force or in any other unconstitutional method and governs.

de facto (World Bank definition) OP 7.30 July 2001 These policies were prepared for use by World Bank staff Dealings with De Facto Governments
1. A “de facto government” comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country’s constitution, such as a coup d’etat, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution.
Note:This OP 7.30 replaces OP 7.30, dated November 1994. Questions may be addressed to the Chief Counsel, Operations Policy.

Blacks Law Dictionary About the Author Acknowledged by linguists and lawyers alike as THE authority in legal language and usage, his influence is both far-reaching and profound. Mr. Garner has had a hand in editing the most important legal references produced in the last decade.

Book Description This newest addition to the Black’s Law Dictionary Series is a completely up-to-date version of the world’s most trusted and authoritative legal dictionary. Definitions are accurate, brief, and clear.

Site Map