The BNA Act is dead.

We can say that for certain as this was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. By all Standards and Practices in writing any law, the law must have an enacting clause. Removal of the enacting clause removes the enactment of the act. Specifically, the Issue with the BNA Act is that with each session of parliament, this is a re-enacting of the BNA Act.

Since this was removed by Queen Victoria by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1893, this made the law unable to be enacted or re-enacted. However, legal Scholars will argue that the Enacting Clause is only needed to enact the law once, and once it is enacted it does not need the enacting clause, therefore removal or repeal is acceptable. This is incorrect, as each Law must state where it derives its authority from, and you can not have a law that does not define where it derives its authority, as it would have no authority at law.

Law derives from Contract Law. With each law its part of a Social Contract, thus a contract. This is what takes us forward to the Constitution Act and how the Contract has not been able to be met or fulfilled. In simple terms, there is no Constitution Act, The Subjects have not been removed.

Subjects you ask, what are subjects, in legal terms subjects are the same thing when you go to purchase a home, such as subject to financing, subject to inspection, subject to whatever really. What a subject is, is a condition that must be met before the execution of the contract. The Contract can not be fulfilled with unmet conditions. For example, subject to financing on a purchase of a home means you need to get the loan to buy the house, if you do not get the loan, you do not get the house.

This should adequately explain to you what a subject is in legalese. Because this is important for you to understand.

Now let us get back to the topic at hand, the Constitution Act. This Statement is based on Contract Law and based on the facts in evidence that has been ignored or concealed by everyone that is in “Government”, and the legal profession hoping you would not notice.

First in the evidence of the problem of the Fact that the Constitution Act is not in effect or in force or has any force of law is from the Transcription of the Proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The two paragraphs that bring grievance to the current situation of the Constitution Act are as follows:

And Whereas section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1982, set out in Schedule B to the Canada Act, provides that the Constitution Act, 1982 shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued under the Great Seal of Canada.

 

Now Know You that We, by and with the advice Our Privy Council for Canada, do by this Our Proclamation, declare that the Constitution Act, 1982 shall, subject to section 59 thereof, come into force on the seventeenth day of April in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-two.

What does this mean? The paragraphs state “shall, subject to section 59 thereof”. This means that the subject MUST be removed before this Constitution Act comes into force.

This is where Section 59 of the Constitution Act comes into play:

Commencement

58 Subject to section 59, this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.End note(109)

 

Marginal note: Commencement of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec

59 (1) Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.

 

Marginal note: Authorization of Quebec

(2) A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be issued only where authorized by the legislative assembly or government of Quebec.End note(110)

 

Marginal note: Repeal of this section

(3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.

Now we reference 23(1)(a):

23 (1) Citizens of Canada

 

(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or

 

(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,

 

have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.

Let us go back to Section 59(1) of the Constitution Act and review this for clarity. This states that the Language Section 23(1)(a) “shall come into force in respect of Quebec”.

There is one problem with this, and it is a whopper of a problem with the Constitution Act. Quebec never signed the Constitution Act. Quebec can not be forced to be a party or subject to a Contract they never signed. This is standard operating procedure of every Contract. You can not make a Contract with another party and force a party that is not part of the contract to be subject or party to the Contract. Only when that outside party signs that contract can they become subject to the Contract.

What does this mean when we go all the way back to the Transcription of the Proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982, the subject’s have not been removed because Quebec never Signed the Constitution Act. They can not be removed until Quebec becomes a Party to the Constitution Act.

Because Quebec is not a Party to the Constitution Act, this means the Constitution Act is not in force, or effect or has any legitimacy. What does this mean exactly? Each Province and Territory is technically a Free Country that has not asserted its own Sovereignty.

There is only the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory legitimately, as the Agreement of land claims for Nunavut was with a De facto Government. It was not with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

To clarify the “Federal Government” only has the power because they take an oath to the “Queen of Canada” and because they have the power of the RCMP and the Military behind them to hold their force in place. To clarify, this is tyranny, a Dictatorship.

There is something to note of importance, a Sovereign Constitution is Enacted by the will of the people, and not by the will of an External Party. The people never voted for the BNA Act, or anything that happened to Canada, and no one ever voted on the Constitution Act. There was no referendum in 1982 asking what people thought about the Constitution Act because if they did, they would have never approved it because of section 33 the notwithstanding clause.

The Government of Canada created by the BNA Act was dissolved in 1893 by Queen Victoria and has operated illegally and unlawfully ever since.

This is why we have the biggest lie in the history of the world about “Canada” being its own “Country”. This lie has become an albatross that has been created by the deliberate onslaught of disinformation, and misinformation to keep the people in the dark as to the real situation of this “Country” we call “Canada”.

This is one of the biggest Conspiracies to defraud the Living Men and Women that live on the land that we know as “Canada”.

The Imperium Project has done this research and has been able to determine that the only way forward is to replace the de facto system of government that operates without the will of the people, with a system where those elected can be held to account at every turn by the people.

Government should not be trying to find more ways to take as much money from the people for their own ends. Government should be working for the people and operate and serve the people in the best form possible to save as much money in taxes and provide the best services that are needed for the people. This is possible when done right.

Governments are not there to extort the people, but to serve the people. It is time to solve this problem by replacing the broken system with a new system where the people can elect their representatives to work for them, and not for their own goals or goals of external organizations. It is time to reset this ourselves and solve the problems that our current de facto government has created.

This article has covered many issues that are clearly laid out in Contract Law, and in fact of law, that they can not be ignored any longer.