what canada is not- a democracy

no queenslave · October 30, 2007

Actually, that quote from my last post was most of the first paragraph of section 91. But if you think there is something in those paragraphs that prove your point, then post them. Show me where. Because it seems pretty clear that the bold writing in my last post lets the federal government legislate everything that does not full under the classes in section 92 - even if it is not listed explicitly in section 91.
The phrase "for provincial purposes" is not irrelevant. Without that phrase you could have provinces legislating direct taxes that they then spend on other provinces. For example, Ontario could legislate an income tax on Ontarians and all the money would go to Manitoba. Or the federal government. That phrase is just as important as the "within the province" phrase and the word "direct". Nothing in the BNA Act defines "direct taxation" as being exclusively for provinces. All it says is that provinces can only legislate "direct taxation" if they tax their own citizens and spend the money themselves.

Please also post this Lord Canarvin quote of yours. I would love to see it.

ScottSA · October 30, 2007

I don't think that's the quote...

no queenslave · October 30, 2007

http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm

read and post what hansard you can come up with to disprove his findings. If a member of parliament could not get documents i am sure you government paid indoctrinated posters will come up with them, since you believe you have a democracy and you believe you have an M.P . to represent you..

no queenslave · October 30, 2007

I don't think that's the quote...

2. No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this act by the legislatures of any province shall be void or inoperative. That is the granting of sovereignty to the provinces; no matter how much the federal government protest and disputes it. Ask your M.P. to give you a letter signed by the queen that this is not so. There failure to do so is a demonstration of their dictatorship, and of them not getting any power from you; as is the requirement in a democracy..

Any province can pass a law saying no federal laws apply in the province .

What is the federal dictatorship government to do but use it's appointed corrupt judges to state otherwise. Then call the queen to testify.

jbg · October 30, 2007

http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm
read and post what hansard you can come up with to disprove his findings. If a member of parliament could not get documents i am sure you government paid indoctrinated posters will come up with them, since you believe you have a democracy and you believe you have an M.P . to represent you..

If you can find me the program under which either the Queen or the GOC would pay me to post I'm all ears. Some days, like today, I'd rather not go to a law office to butt heads with opposing litigants, but would prefer to square off against screen names like yourself or rbacon all day.

no queenslave · October 30, 2007

If you can find me the program under which either the Queen or the GOC would pay me to post I'm all ears. Some days, like today, I'd rather not go to a law office to butt heads with opposing litigants, but would prefer to square off against screen names like yourself or rbacon all day.

What are you a slave? In a democracy you can do what you want. If you would rather not go then don't. I see you have not found any evidence to dispute W.F. Kuhl's report .

If your litigation practice is based on arguing the printed record ( hansard )of the government is not factual ; but your dreams are , no wonder you do not like your job.

g_bambino · October 30, 2007

In a democracy you can do what you want.

Well then, once you get the entire Canadian population to compose and "ratify" a new democratic constitution, my first act of complete freedom will be to enslave you, pay you to post here, and make you pay me income tax on those earnings.

Edited October 30, 2007 by g_bambino

no queenslave · October 30, 2007

Well then, once you get the entire Canadian population to compose and "ratify" a new democratic constitution, my first act of complete freedom will be to enslave you, pay you to post here, and make you pay me income tax on those earnings.

you couldn't afford to pay me.

g_bambino · October 30, 2007

you couldn't afford to pay me.

:lol:

no queenslave · October 31, 2007

When NFLD joined Canada it took a British bill; why?

What stopped the union of the Turks and Caicos islands from joining Canada?

Was it because of the terms of the "terms of union bill"?

Was it because the parliament of the United Kingdom would not allow it ?.

The government of Canada looked into this a few times and i have not seen any comprehensive reason why this union should not take place. A winter haven for Canadians instead of Florida.

Too many Quebecker's in Florida?

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2004/01/21/paridise.htm

Edited October 31, 2007 by no queenslave

jbg · October 31, 2007

What are you a slave? In a democracy you can do what you want. If you would rather not go then don't. I see you have not found any evidence to dispute W.F. Kuhl's report .
If your litigation practice is based on arguing the printed record ( hansard )of the government is not factual ; but your dreams are , no wonder you do not like your job.

All that the US promises is the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It does not guarantee me the income that either EI or mental health disability benefits may give you.

What stopped the union of the Turks and Caicos islands from joining Canada?
Was it because of the terms of the "terms of union bill"?

Was it because the parliament of the United Kingdom would not allow it ?.

The government of Canada looked into this a few times and i have not seen any comprehensive reason why this union should not take place. A winter haven for Canadians instead of Florida.

Too many Quebecker's in Florida?

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2004/01/21/paridise.htm

Why not try spelling the weblink correctly? It works with the word "paradise" spelled correctly, something that seems to challenge you.

you couldn't afford to pay me.

Of course not, since you render nothing of value.

bk59 · October 31, 2007

Direct taxation is the subject class; for provincial is not the subjet class in the sentance..

You can't just pick and choose half of the sentence. You have to read the whole sentence. The subject class is: "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes." It is not "direct taxation". The provinces cannot have a direct tax to raise revenue for federal purposes, therefore it is a federal power, as reinforced by section 91(3). It's no wonder you think you are right. You just stop reading when you find it convenient to ignore the facts.

If you have no documents of the quebec resolutions or british hansard in the passing of the B.N.A.Act then do your DD, before you try and tell me what you think you know; it is all out of context.

Quebec resolutions and British hansard will not help you read the actual text of the BNA Act. These are not relevant to interpreting a section in the BNA Act.

I see nobody has disputed the fact the government can not raise money by any and all means.

The government cannot raise money by any and all means. For example, it cannot resort to torturing people to get them to pay taxes. (See the Charter.) But they can raise money "by any Mode or System of Taxation" as clearly stated in section 91(3) of the BNA Act.

I did prove judges are corrupt =Court of Queens bench Winnipeg file no ci 05-01-43232.

Give us a link or stop making stuff up. You haven't proven anything by giving a string of numbers.

http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm
read and post what hansard you can come up with to disprove his findings.

Amidst some of the ramblings on that link it would appear that whoever wrote this believed that the provinces never accepted the BNA Act, therefore there is no Canadian constitution. Of course, the provinces did accept the BNA Act and the Charter in 1982, so that kills that point. If there is a specific point you want to make, then quote it here. No sense sifting through that link just to find more incorrect statements.

2. No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this act by the legislatures of any province shall be void or inoperative. That is the granting of sovereignty to the provinces;
...

Any province can pass a law saying no federal laws apply in the province .

Once again you misquoted. What section 2(2) of the Statute of Westminster ACTUALLY says is:

(2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion.

That does not give the provinces the power to say that federal laws do not apply in the province. Section 7 states that the BNA Act still applies, meaning federal laws still apply.

no queenslave · November 1, 2007

You can't just pick and choose half of the sentence. You have to read the whole sentence. The subject class is: "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes." It is not "direct taxation". The provinces cannot have a direct tax to raise revenue for federal purposes, therefore it is a federal power, as reinforced by section 91(3). It's no wonder you think you are right. You just stop reading when you find it convenient to ignore the facts.
Quebec resolutions and British hansard will not help you read the actual text of the BNA Act. These are not relevant to interpreting a section in the BNA Act.

The government cannot raise money by any and all means. For example, it cannot resort to torturing people to get them to pay taxes. (See the Charter.) But they can raise money "by any Mode or System of Taxation" as clearly stated in section 91(3) of the BNA Act.

Give us a link or stop making stuff up. You haven't proven anything by giving a string of numbers.

Amidst some of the ramblings on that link it would appear that whoever wrote this believed that the provinces never accepted the BNA Act, therefore there is no Canadian constitution. Of course, the provinces did accept the BNA Act and the Charter in 1982, so that kills that point. If there is a specific point you want to make, then quote it here. No sense sifting through that link just to find more incorrect statements.

Once again you misquoted. What section 2(2) of the Statute of Westminster ACTUALLY says is:

That does not give the provinces the power to say that federal laws do not apply in the province. Section 7 states that the BNA Act still applies, meaning federal laws still apply.

Read the lord nelson hotel case ; with it's water tight compartments.

It all comes down to when the people were given their independence and sovereignty; and it is the Statute of westminster did that in 1931 and any BNA act or other bill is null and void. Dictators and their supporters will argue different.

You can not be independent and a colony at the same time.Quit posting garbage.

bk59 · November 1, 2007

Read the lord nelson hotel case ; with it's water tight compartments.

I've already discussed that case on here. And shown that it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. Of course you aren't actually making a point in your last post, so I'll just say that you need to go read what I posted & then hopefully you can see where you went wrong with your last interpretation.

It all comes down to when the people were given their independence and sovereignty; and it is the Statute of westminster did that in 1931 and any BNA act or other bill is null and void.

Wrong. So very, very wrong. I have already pointed out why this was wrong. I will do so one more time. From the Statute of Westminster:

7. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.

The Statute of Westminster did NOT repeal the BNA Act. The BNA Act was STILL VALID after the Statute of Westminster. In fact, the Statute of Westminster did not make ANY existing Act null or void (with the one exception in section 6 which was limited to section 4 of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act).

All of the laws in Canada at both the federal and provincial level that existed one minute before the Statute of Westminster came into effect still existed one minute after the Statute of Westminster came into effect.

Dictators and their supporters will argue different.
You can not be independent and a colony at the same time.Quit posting garbage.

The only garbage on here is coming from you. This nonsense about being independent and a colony at the same time... where did that come from?

no queenslave · November 1, 2007

I've already discussed that case on here. And shown that it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make. Of course you aren't actually making a point in your last post, so I'll just say that you need to go read what I posted & then hopefully you can see where you went wrong with your last interpretation.
Wrong. So very, very wrong. I have already pointed out why this was wrong. I will do so one more time. From the Statute of Westminster:

The Statute of Westminster did NOT repeal the BNA Act. The BNA Act was STILL VALID after the Statute of Westminster. In fact, the Statute of Westminster did not make ANY existing Act null or void (with the one exception in section 6 which was limited to section 4 of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act).

All of the laws in Canada at both the federal and provincial level that existed one minute before the Statute of Westminster came into effect still existed one minute after the Statute of Westminster came into effect.

The only garbage on here is coming from you. This nonsense about being independent and a colony at the same time... where did that come from?

If all laws and politicians remained the same then you are still calling Canada a colony, and their was no reason to pass the Statute of Westminster.

That is right it is nonsense being a colony and independent at the same time. At least you got that right, or is it left to you.

Edited November 1, 2007 by no queenslave

bk59 · November 1, 2007

If all laws and politicians remained the same then you are still calling Canada a colony, and their was no reason to pass the Statute of Westminster.

Again... no. All laws that were in existence when the SoW came into effect remained in effect. But the SoW affected FUTURE laws. Meaning that in the future, when the UK passed a law it did not become a law in Canada. In the future, when Canada (federally or provincially) passed a law it would be valid even if it conflicted with a UK law. This is why Canada was no longer a colony - it could legislate what it wanted without UK interference. But that did not change the fact that all of the laws in existence BEFORE the SoW continued to exist AFTER the SoW and still have full effect. Which is why (for example) the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments is still governed by the BNA Act.

jbg · November 1, 2007

If all laws and politicians remained the same then you are still calling Canada a colony, and their was no reason to pass the Statute of Westminster.
That is right it is nonsense being a colony and independent at the same time. At least you got that right, or is it left to you.

Even if Canada was/is a colony, there's no reason why it's degree of self-governance couldn't be varied.

The flaws in your dogmatic arguments derive from your habit of ignoring what happens in practice rather than in theory. Certainly starting with WW I Canada was, in practice, fully self-governing, independent and no longer a colony. It took until the Statute of Westminister to formalize the arrangement, and until 1982 to work out an amneding formula.

g_bambino · November 1, 2007

Certainly starting with WW I Canada was, in practice, fully self-governing, independent and no longer a colony. It took until the Statute of Westminister to formalize the arrangement, and until 1982 to work out an amneding formula.

Mmm... you're very close. Before WWI Canada was self-governing to a great extent; however, one key demonstration that the country was still partly colonial (is there such a thing as a "part-colony"?) lies in the fact that when George V declared war on the German Empire, he did so on the instruction of his British ministers, and the decision automatically put the entire British Empire at war with Germany, including Canada, without input on the matter.

Many say it was after the end of that war that Canada began its move towards true independence; the country had proved itself in battle, and Prime Minister Robert Borden insisted Canada be granted a place at the table during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Not long after that followed the Balfour Declaration in 1926, the new Royal Styles and Titles Act in 1927, and then the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Thus, paralelling, but mirroring, the events of 1914, one key demonstration that Canada was now independent of the UK lies in the fact that George VI declared war on Nazi Germany on September 3, 1939, but did so only as King of the United Kingdom, on the advice of his British ministers. The King declared war on Nazi Germany on September 10, 1939, as King of Canada, on the advice of his Canadian ministers, after the matter had been debated in parliament.

Apologies for the historical detour; no doubt, though, this causes queenie no end of confusion.

no queenslave · November 2, 2007

Mmm... you're very close. Before WWI Canada was self-governing to a great extent; however, one key demonstration that the country was still partly colonial (is there such a thing as a "part-colony"?) lies in the fact that when George V declared war on the German Empire, he did so on the instruction of his British ministers, and the decision automatically put the entire British Empire at war with Germany, including Canada, without input on the matter.
Many say it was after the end of that war that Canada began its move towards true independence; the country had proved itself in battle, and Prime Minister Robert Borden insisted Canada be granted a place at the table during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Not long after that followed the Balfour Declaration in 1926, the new Royal Styles and Titles Act in 1927, and then the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Thus, paralelling, but mirroring, the events of 1914, one key demonstration that Canada was now independent of the UK lies in the fact that George VI declared war on Nazi Germany on September 3, 1939, but did so only as King of the United Kingdom, on the advice of his British ministers. The King declared war on Nazi Germany on September 10, 1939, as King of Canada, on the advice of his Canadian ministers, after the matter had been debated in parliament.

Apologies for the historical detour; no doubt, though, this causes queenie no end of confusion.

And the politicians still are sworn in the same as when they were a colony; and not to a constitution as would be done in a independent democracy.

bk59 · November 2, 2007

And the politicians still are sworn in the same as when they were a colony; and not to a constitution as would be done in a independent democracy.

Constitutional monarchies and republics are two different forms of democracies. One would use oaths to the monarch. The other would not. That does not mean that one is a democracy and the other is not. Swearing an oath to a monarch does not indicate that the oath taker belongs to a colony.

jbg · November 2, 2007

Mmm... you're very close. Before WWI Canada was self-governing to a great extent;
***

Apologies for the historical detour; no doubt, though, this causes queenie no end of confusion.

I do appreciate both the compliment and the history lesson. While I know shamefully little about our northern neighbor I am always willing to learn.

My impression had been that after Canada's stellar WW I performance, there was no way Britain was going to boss it around. Similarly, the US's relationship with Britain changed from being a somewhat hostile former colony to one where Britain showed its dependency on one of its grown sons, the US as well as its other grown sons, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

This was even more the case in WW II. Britain emerged broke, the US emerged with the remains of the Empire, which is why people now shout "Death to Bush".

g_bambino · November 2, 2007

And the politicians still are sworn in the same as when they were a colony; and not to a constitution as would be done in a independent democracy.

Yes, they are; the wording is the same, but the the difference, however, lies in who they're swearing allegiance to. Pre 1931: King/Queen of the United Kingdom. Post 1931: King/Queen of Canada.

I could see how you wouldn't be aware of that significant fact, but, really, what kind of logic are you using for the rest of your statement? In the UK MPs, cabinet ministers, armed service personel, police officers, etc., etc., swear allegiance to the Queen. Is the UK a colony? Please.

g_bambino · November 2, 2007

This was even more the case in WW II. Britain emerged broke, the US emerged with the remains of the Empire, which is why people now shout "Death to Bush".

True. But, I think this new relationship was evident even just before the beginning of WWII.

Knowing war was on the horizon, King George VI and his consort made the trans-Atlantic crossing to tour Canada, and make a sojourn into the US to visit with Franklin Roosevelt, all to shore up connections between the two North American countries and the UK. Canada could no longer be counted on to be an automatic party in any European war, and mother Britain couldn't hold her own without US military might behind her.

Both countries joined the Allied Forces, but, you're right, six years of multi-national war was the catalyst that again shifted the dynamics of relationship between these three states.

no queenslave · November 2, 2007

Yes, they are; the wording is the same, but the the difference, however, lies in who they're swearing allegiance to. Pre 1931: King/Queen of the United Kingdom. Post 1931: King/Queen of Canada.
I could see how you wouldn't be aware of that significant fact, but, really, what kind of logic are you using for the rest of your statement? In the UK MPs, cabinet ministers, armed service personel, police officers, etc., etc., swear allegiance to the Queen. Is the UK a colony? Please.

Who is the king /Queen of Canada and where do they live in Canada ? Does UK members swear allegiance to the queen of some other country? That is the difference. Only in colonies did this happen. If Canada wanted a queen to swear allegiance to they should appoint some Queen off the street ; he could still be the figurehead you want to worship.

M.Dancer · November 2, 2007

Who is the king /Queen of Canada and where do they live in Canada ? Does UK members swear allegiance to the queen of some other country? That is the difference. Only in colonies did this happen. If Canada wanted a queen to swear allegiance to they should appoint some Queen off the street ; he could still be the figurehead you want to worship.

Where is my tinfoil and did I leave it in your drawer? Was there enough to make a hat and did you make it way too tight?