dpwozney

I do not know what one Canadian dollar is exactly, physically and quantitatively. I need to know this to be able to make an adequate determination of the value of the Canadian dollar.

Have promissory notes been banned in Canada? A cashier in a local convenience store once refused a Bank of Canada note with the words “hundred” and “dollars” printed on it.

Subsection 1 of Section 13 of the Currency Act states: “13. (1) Every contract, sale, payment, bill, note, instrument and security for money and every transaction, dealing, matter and thing relating to money or involving the payment of or the liability to pay money shall be made, executed, entered into, done or carried out in the currency of Canada, unless it is made, executed, entered into, done or carried out in (a) the currency of a country other than Canada; or (b ) a unit of account that is defined in terms of the currencies of two or more countries.”

This Bank of Canada web page provides the following answer for the question “What is ‘legal tender’?”: “A ‘tender’ is an offer of payment of a debt. In Canada, legal tender consists of coins issued by the Royal Canadian Mint and bank notes issued by the Bank of Canada. This does not mean that a merchant is obliged to accept bank notes. The method of payment can be whatever is mutually acceptable to both parties - cash, credit card, cheque, etc. Thus, a merchant may refuse to accept bank notes in payment for goods or services, without contravening the law.”

According to the Bills of Exchange Act, “A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another person, signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer”. In 1969, the phrase “will pay to the bearer on demand” was replaced by the statement “this note is legal tender” on new Bank of Canada notes. Bank of Canada notes issued after 1968 are not promissory notes.

When I buy something, I do not come to any agreement as to exactly what one Canadian dollar is, physically and quantitatively.

Your replies still do not answer my questions. What is the physical substance, the physical material, of one Canadian dollar? What is the physical manifestation of one Canadian dollar in the material universe? Physically and quantitatively, what exactly is one Canadian dollar?

What is your definition of the value of the Canadian dollar? What is the physical substance, the physical material, of the Canadian dollar? What is the physical manifestation of the Canadian dollar in the material universe? Has any government in or of Canada ever defined the value of the Canadian dollar?

Can you prove this? What all can this “real currency” include and consist of? What is your definition of “currency”? According to this Bank of Canada web page, “In Canada, legal tender consists of coins issued by the Royal Canadian Mint and bank notes issued by the Bank of Canada”.

The term “electronic cash” is not mentioned in Section 8 of the Currency Act which discusses legal tender in Canada. Subsection 1 of Section 8 states: “8. (1) Subject to this section, a tender of payment of money is a legal tender if it is made (a) in coins that are current under section 7; and (b ) in notes issued by the Bank of Canada pursuant to the Bank of Canada Act intended for circulation in Canada.”

According to the Bills of Exchange Act, "A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another person, signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer". In 1969, the phrase "will pay to the bearer on demand" was replaced by the statement "this note is legal tender" on new Bank of Canada notes. Bank of Canada notes issued after 1968 are not promissory notes.

You stated: “The promise is of course made by the Bank of Canada, and the promise is that it is legal tender. They don't promise what they can't, only that it will be honoured”. The Bank of Canada does not promise that legal tender will be honoured.

Are you stating that a Canadian dollar is a Bank of Canada note? If so, which Bank of Canada notes are the value of one Canadian dollar? A merchant is not required to honour Bank of Canada notes. Bank of Canada notes state: “This note is legal tender”. This Bank of Canada web page provides the following answer for the question “What is ‘legal tender’?”: “A ‘tender’ is an offer of payment of a debt. In Canada, legal tender consists of coins issued by the Royal Canadian Mint and bank notes issued by the Bank of Canada. This does not mean that a merchant is obliged to accept bank notes. The method of payment can be whatever is mutually acceptable to both parties - cash, credit card, cheque, etc. Thus, a merchant may refuse to accept bank notes in payment for goods or services, without contravening the law.”

Are you stating that a Canadian dollar is a physical good or service? If so, what physical good or service is one Canadian dollar? What promise is made by whom to whom?

What is your definition of the value of the Canadian dollar? What is the physical substance, the physical material, of the Canadian dollar? What is the physical manifestation of the Canadian dollar in the material universe? Has any government in or of Canada ever defined the value of the Canadian dollar?

The Governor General of Canada is a “corporation sole”, according to Elizabeth II in this document. A “corporation sole” is defined and recognized as being a corporation. It is a fiction that a corporation is a person. “A corporation is a fiction, by definition, ...”, according to Patrick Healy in a statement found here. “A corporation is a ‘fiction’ as it has no separate existence, no physical body and no ‘mind’”, according to this presentation by Joanne Klineberg. Do Canadians want businesses, companies, their government, and their Queen to operate in the realm of reality, or in the realm of fiction?

Do Canadians want businesses, companies, their government, and their Queen to operate in the realm of reality, or in the realm of fiction? “A corporation is a fiction, by definition, ...”, according to Patrick Healy in a statement that can be read here. “A corporation is a 'fiction' as it has no separate existence, no physical body and no 'mind'”, according to this presentation by Joanne Klineberg. The Governor General of Canada is a “corporation sole”, according to Elizabeth II in this document. A “corporation sole” is defined and recognized as being a corporation. It is a fiction that a corporation is a person. Both parties may think they will benefit, but both parties do not necessarily have to benefit. It is a fiction that a person can make a contract with a fictional entity. Maria cares if a corporation is not a person. Are you referring to Wal-Mart as something real, such as a physical store, or are you referring to Wal-Mart as a corporation?

“A corporation is a fiction, by definition, ...”, according to Patrick Healy in a statement that can be read here. “A corporation is a 'fiction' as it has no separate existence, no physical body and no 'mind'”, according to this presentation by Joanne Klineberg. The Governor General of Canada is a “corporation sole”, according to Elizabeth II in this document. A “corporation sole” is defined and recognized as being a corporation. It is a fiction that a corporation is a person. Do Canadians want businesses, companies, their government, and their Queen to operate in the realm of reality, or in the realm of fiction?

"Opposition parties will not have an opportunity to vote on the new scheme: it will be undertaken purely through regulatory changes that do not require their support", according to Jennifer Ditchburn, Canadian Press in this article. Regulatory changes constitute the making of laws. Without the consent and support of Parliament, what legal mandate do such envisioned regulatory changes have? Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 states: “It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”.

The Charter is part of the so-called “Constitution Act, 1982”. The “United Kingdom”, referred to in the present draft of the “Canada Act, 1982, including the Constitution Act, 1982”, refers to the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, not the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. According to the British North America Act, 1867, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

In this recent April 13 article, CBC News staff quote Gary Lunn as stating: "Nuclear energy is absolutely pollutant free, no greenhouse gases, a very very clean form of energy, something if you believe in climate change you have to support it.". This question and answer is from the Bruce Centre for Energy Research & Information: "How do Canadian CANDU reactors compare to U.S. nuclear reactors with respect to generation and emissions of tritium? The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has noted that Canadian CANDU heavy water reactors generate about 30 times the amount of tritium of a light water U.S. reactor. According to UNSCEAR, a CANDU reactor also normally releases over 20 times the amount of tritium to the environment (water and air) than a U.S. light water reactor.". According to David H. Martin, the "emission of large amounts of the radioactive element tritium is unique to the CANDU reactor, because it is produced in great abundance by the exposure of heavy water to radiation". Dr. Gordon Edwards states: "Tritium is created and released into the environment in far greater quantities from CANDU reactors than from other power reactors, such as the American 'light-water' designs".

George VI was not a Queen. George VI was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant in 1947. Members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate, who voted for the "Interpretation Act" in 1985, had an obligation, before taking their seats, to take and subscribe an oath swearing allegiance to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Instead, they swore, or affirmed, that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Elizabeth the Second. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in the Fifth Schedule of the British North America Act, 1867.

In 1931, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867 required a Queen regnant to have executive government and authority of and over Canada. In 1931, Section 17 of the British North America Act, 1867 required a Queen regnant to be part of the Parliament for Canada. In 1931, Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 required a Queen regnant to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

So, are you trying to argue that Canada is a kingdom with no crown? No. The Statute of Westminster, 1931 states: "Now, therefore, be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--". In 1931, Section 9 of the British North America Act, 1867 stated: “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen”. In 1931, Section 17 of the British North America Act, 1867 stated: “There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons”. In 1931, Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867 stated: “It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; ...”. George V was not a Queen. George V was not Canada's constitutional Queen regnant in 1931.

The British North America Act, 1867, which has been amended many times, still refers to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" eleven times. New laws and acts are required to be in accordance with a constitution. Federal statutes do not override constitutional provisions. According to Wikipedia, a "constitution is a system, often codified as a written document, that establishes the rules and principles whereby an organization or political entity is governed. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government". People have the freedom to believe in a present-day existence of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" if they so choose. It's my understanding that the Queen is the Crown, and hence she is sovereign - she is the personal embodiment of Canada's sovereignty. The first definition for the noun "sovereign" in my dictionary states "a person who possesses sovereign authority or power". The first definition for the adjective "sovereign" in my dictionary states "above or superior to all others; chief; greatest; supreme". The second definition for the adjective "sovereign" in my dictionary states "supreme in power, rank, or authority". The "Constitution of Canada" is claimed to be the "supreme law of Canada" and states that "...Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...". The Queen does not claim to be God.