Users browsing this topic: 0 Registered and 1 Guest
Registered Users: None
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
|
|
Author
|
Message
|
miriam
Joined: 20 Jan 2005
Posts: 713
Location: none
|
Posted: Thu 29 Mar, 2007 10:23 AM
|
|
|
Fortunately yes -- but per capita ---Alberta appears to have the loudest voice of any of the provinces & gets the biggest chunks of per-capita ---I think its degrading to the rest of Canada--but fortunately I'm not taking sides . I do alot of swerving but not as much as the Quebecers . Can they even read signs ???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
 
|
|
dandyrough
Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted: Tue 19 May, 2009 11:10 PM
|
|
Is there anyone out there that knows the difference between Province and province?
Can anyone tell me where I can find a statute that refers to Provinces as being a part of Canada.
Can anyone tell me what statute defines Canada as having any Provinces?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
jovan66102
Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 2
|
|
Posted: Sat 23 May, 2009 6:27 PM
|
|
|
dandyrough wrote:
|
Is there anyone out there that knows the difference between Province and province?
Can anyone tell me where I can find a statute that refers to Provinces as being a part of Canada.
Can anyone tell me what statute defines Canada as having any Provinces?
|
You might take a look at the Constitution Act, 1867 which created Canada as a nation:
|
Quote:
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
dandyrough
Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted: Sat 06 Jun, 2009 10:38 AM
|
|
|
jovan66102 wrote:
|
|
dandyrough wrote:
|
Is there anyone out there that knows the difference between Province and province?
Can anyone tell me where I can find a statute that refers to Provinces as being a part of Canada.
Can anyone tell me what statute defines Canada as having any Provinces?
|
You might take a look at the Constitution Act, 1867 which created Canada as a nation:
|
Quote:
|
|
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.
|
|
I expected an answer that contained references to the BNA.
the BNA became void in 1931 with the passing of the statutes of Westminster.
The trouble with most Canadians is that":
1. they are bloody lazy and don't want to read statutes
2. they are bloody stupid and don't understand English
3. They prefer to live in their own imagined "free society" and not do ANY investigation on their own to find out what the real situation is.
4. they prefer to bitch between themselves and not write letters to people who could give them the answers they need to change things.
5. Their conditioning is so strong that 99% will turn their backs on statutes that upset their beliefs and go on believing that they live in "Canada" without knowing where Canada is.
So here is information that you may not want.
According to Stautes
Canada comprises of the Yukon, NW Territories and Nanuvut
AND NO-WHERE ELSE and these are referred to as provinces.
the word Province only appears in statutes when the CORPORATE Provinces are mentioned.
When questioned extensively, the Federal government admitted that they did not know where the boundaries of Canada are, thus admitting that they could not define Canada.
ACCORDING TO STATUTE
the former colonies became sovereign states upon the passing of the statutes of Westminster, I know damn well that YOU don't want to hear this, because that would mean you would have to actually DO something, and that aint the Canadian way.
The words "defacto government" must be familiar to most of you, that's the type of government we have - WHY?
Because the government in 1931 seized power when the King abandoned his colonies, and since then, the people who run the corporations of Canada and the Provinces have convinced the sheep that they live in a "Country" with legal - not lawful government.
Fortunately, for me that is - not you, I am not affected by all the corporate bullshit you suffer, there is a way out, it's simple and easy with no resistance from the Man, but first you have to open your eyes and your mind.
For most of you, that's not going to happen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Curtis
Administrator
Joined: 03 Jan 2003
Posts: 1166
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
|
Posted: Mon 08 Jun, 2009 2:21 PM
|
|
|
Which section of the Statute of Westminster makes the BNA Act void?
|
|
___________________________
Courage, my friends; 'tis not too late to build a better world.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
 
|
|
|
dandyrough
Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted: Mon 08 Jun, 2009 10:29 PM
|
|
|
Curtis wrote:
|
|
Which section of the Statute of Westminster makes the BNA Act void?
|
There is no "section" in the stautes of westminster that mentions the BNA, the statutes freed Australia, New Zealand, Canada and all the former British colonies from Colonial status and gave them sovereignty. At the time, the Provinces were colonies, Newfoundland was a sovereign country until 1949 when it voluntary joined the former colony of Canada The statutes did not free Crown colonies, they remained private property of the Crown.
The BNA became void on the day Q Victoria died in 1901, read section 2 (repealed) of the BNA and you will understand how you have been duped.
I don't want to be nasty about this but it is obvious you have not fully read the BNA or the statutes of Westminster, why not take the time to do that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
jovan66102
Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 2
|
|
Posted: Mon 08 Jun, 2009 10:45 PM
|
|
|
dandyrough wrote:
|
The BNA became void on the day Q Victoria died in 1901, read section 2 (repealed) of the BNA and you will understand how you have been duped.
I don't want to be nasty about this but it is obvious you have not fully read the BNA or the statutes of Westminster, why not take the time to do that?
|
Well, I've read them both many times over the last 40 years and I think you're full of shit. In fact, far from the 'BNA (Act) bec(oming) void on the day Q Victoria died in 1901', Section 2: 'The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland', makes it quite clear that the Act did not end with the death of Queen Victoria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
dandyrough
Joined: 19 May 2009
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted: Tue 09 Jun, 2009 7:23 AM
|
|
|
jovan66102 wrote:
|
|
dandyrough wrote:
|
The BNA became void on the day Q Victoria died in 1901, read section 2 (repealed) of the BNA and you will understand how you have been duped.
I don't want to be nasty about this but it is obvious you have not fully read the BNA or the statutes of Westminster, why not take the time to do that?
|
Well, I've read them both many times over the last 40 years and I think you're full of shit. In fact, far from the 'BNA (Act) bec(oming) void on the day Q Victoria died in 1901', Section 2: 'The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland', makes it quite clear that the Act did not end with the death of Queen Victoria.
|
read it again.
that section was repealed in 1893 - now what?
if you can't keep this civil AND polite, I will ignore everything from you
3) Section 2, repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1893, 56-57 Vict., c. 14 (U.K.), read as follows:
2. The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Curtis
Administrator
Joined: 03 Jan 2003
Posts: 1166
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
|
Posted: Wed 10 Jun, 2009 1:26 PM
|
|
|
dandyrough wrote:
|
|
I don't want to be nasty about this but it is obvious you have not fully read the BNA or the statutes of Westminster, why not take the time to do that?
|
I have read them, and although jovan66102 could have been a little more diplomatic with the way he said it he is right. It seems you don't really know what you're talking about.
The Statute Law Revision Act does not void the entire BNA Act. Removing section 2 of the act does not mean that every other section expires upon the death of Queen Victoria.
|
|
___________________________
Courage, my friends; 'tis not too late to build a better world.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
New Canada4Life.Ca Clothing
|
|
|
