CANADA How The Communists Took Control
Canadian State of the Union: 2010

Tuesday, October 12, 2010


Blogger's Note: I have altered the title a bit to attract the reader who might otherwise pass by.

Communist Voting - Reminds me of the Quebec Referendums


The "New European Soviet": the European Union is rapidly descending into totalitarianism. Under NAFTA and the proposed FTAA, U.S. policymakers have adopted the same socialist EU program

by Vilius Brazenas | Sept 6, 2004 | The New American

I am going to tell you a story about Europe and America. It is a true story about tyranny and freedom, about hope, folly, deception and betrayal. It is also a warning about grave danger. Alarmed at the trends I see, I feel obliged to tell this story. Now in my 91st year, I am one of the few living souls who have experienced the major events of the last century. Being both European and American, I have witnessed and studied these events from opposite sides of the Atlantic.

I am Lithuanian by birth and saw my small country suffer under both Nazi and Communist brands of totalitarianism. My family was trapped in Russia when the Bolshevik Revolution brought the Communists to power. As a young boy in Moscow, in 1922, I was forced to march with my classmates in the Communist May Day parade in front of Vladimir Lenin himself.

Vilius Bražėnas - Kad tiek kovų nenueitų veltui (1-ma dalis)

VideoLife Uzerinden Izle
[If anyone can understand... I presume this is Lithuanian he's speaking... this is the man, Mr. Vilius Brazenas. There are a number of other videos of him at this source page:]

Like much of Europe, Lithuania was overrun in the 1940s by the Soviet Red Army, then by the Nazis, and then again by the Soviets. In 1944, as the Soviet Red Army was reinvading Lithuania, and after facing Soviet tanks, I was able to escape with my wife and daughter. In 1949, we were able to come to America and, later, thank God, to become U.S. citizens.

In January 2003 I came back to live in Lithuania. As an author, speaker and newspaper columnist, I am attempting to use my talents and opportunities in the time that I have left to warn my countrymen--both American and Lithuanian--about the very real and present danger to freedom posed by the evolving European Union (EU) and the very similar project proposed for North and South America called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Most Americans have only a very hazy understanding about what the EU is and an even foggier notion of how it came about. Unfortunately, most Europeans also have a very poor understanding of these things. They have only recently begun to recognize how blind they have been to the very real threats that the growing centralization of power in the EU poses to their national independence and their freedoms.

However, it must be said that the main reason why Europeans and Americans both have such foggy notions about the EU is that the EU architects and promoters have purposely kept the real origins and objectives of the EU shrouded in deception. They had to do this, in order to foist this scheme on the peoples of Europe. If they had openly proclaimed their true objective--to end national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, socialist suprastate--the entire scheme would have been rejected overwhelmingly, right from the start.

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as "the new European Soviet." He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a "common European home" stretching "from the Atlantic to the Urals," as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist overlord who has steadfastly refused to renounce Communism.

In fact, he defiantly remains a Communist. On December 23, 1989, Gorbachev declared to his fellow Soviets, "I am a communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal." On February 26, 1991, Gorbachev said, "I am not ashamed to say that I am a communist and adhere to the communist idea, and with this I will leave for the other world." He has repeated these sentiments many times. In his book he also stated: "I frankly admit that we are glad that the idea of a 'common European home' finds understanding among prominent political and public figures of not only Eastern, but also Western Europe...."

It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a "common European home" and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model. After all, hadn't the Soviet model collapsed and died? But Mr. Gorbachev was, at least in this instance, telling the truth; the EU has been, and is now, moving steadily toward Soviet-style tyranny.

The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo.

A Revolutionary Coup d'Etat

In their powerful expose, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (2003), British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as "a slow-motion coup d'etat: the most spectacular coup d'etat in history." In what remains of this article, I will attempt to explain why that description by Mr. Booker and Dr. North is no exaggeration and how this spectacular coup has come about. It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTA-FTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d'etat in the Americas.

The "European project," as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a "free trade" agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, "slow-motion" political and economic merger of the member nations. Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as "Mr. Socialist," was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that "the most effective way to disguise their project's political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a 'common market.'"

The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty. Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc. The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, overarching "community" independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

This was not noticed by the people at first, because the EU founders were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.

The original Treaty of Rome has been repeatedly modified by subsequent treaties and legislation, all of which have greatly enhanced the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the central EU government. The European Communities Act (1972), the Single European Act (1986), the Schengen Agreement (1990), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), and the Treaty of Nice (2000) are some of the most important benchmarks that have transferred vast powers piecemeal to Brussels, where the EU is headquartered.

The eurofederalists cloak this destructive, revolutionary process under such code words as "integration," "harmonization," and "convergence." In 1991, the Single European Act was coming into force and beginning to show the very ugly teeth that had been built into it. At that time, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph, one of Britain's major newspapers, expressed in a column the sense of betrayal and outrage felt by many in Europe. "Twenty years ago, when the process began," he wrote, "there was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation."

It was actually a multitude of lies. The EU founders and their successors have been carrying forward nothing less than a brazen scheme of treason dressed up as economic trade policy. And treason is not too harsh a word, for many of the key leaders of this operation are government officials who are betraying a sacred trust and have been lying outright to their constituents. As Sir Worsthorne pointed out, for decades the EU advocates had explicitly lied, insisting that the developing EU would not affect national sovereignty, and that EU laws and regulations would not override national laws and constitutions. These were wild, paranoid fantasies, they said.

Warnings about the true nature of the EU were routinely smothered by the globalist controlled, pro-EU press--which includes nearly all the major media organs. Now that the project is entering its final stages, however, the eurofederalists are dropping all pretenses and admitting openly what they previously denied. They can hardly help it now, since the EU established a constitutional convention in 2002 to draw up a formal constitution for a United States of Europe. At nearly 300 pages, the document is an open-ended power grab, with none of the checks and balances and means of accountability that we enjoy in our U.S. Constitution.

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

* Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU's newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.

* Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction--from the member states to the central government.

* Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with overriding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.

* Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens--including terrorists--to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe--much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.

* Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.

* Destroying agriculture. The EU's Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.

* Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to "impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable." That means direct taxes on individuals.

* Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional "common market" for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: "Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish ... an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union." At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the "ensemble of connections" while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the "new world order" Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU--"integration," "harmonization," "convergence"--to describe their "American project." They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan--or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the "new American Soviet."



Originally published:



Few other human beings were eye witnesses to, and participants in, events of the 20th Century as was Vilius Brazenas. A survivor of wars, revolution, plague, famine, foreign military occupations and forced deportations, he became a tireless champion of freedom and unyielding foe of totalitarianism in all its forms. Mr. Brazenas passed away at the age of 97, in a hospital in Vilnius, Lithuania, on October 3 following complications from a recent fall.

"Vilius Brazenas: Lithuanian-American Freedom Fighter Extraordinaire"
The New American, Friday, 08 October 2010 18:00
Written by William F. Jasper



A light has gone out, but his flame still burns bright in our darkness.
Thank you, Mr. Brazenas.

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Faire sécession vers l'Union nord-Américain

Les sentiments des Québécois français sont impitoyablement exploités afin de créer une fausse association de «l'indépendance» à la question référendaire trompeuse qui demande en realite qu'un « mandat de négocier souveraineté-association.»

« Souveraineté-association » (1980) à savoir « souveraineté-partenariat » (1995) n'est pas l'indépendance, c'est le système de gouvernement de l'Union européenne, et il supprime la souveraineté par degrés, en ne laissant rien à l'État-membre.

Ce système conduit à l'érosion de la démocratie, et à la perte complète de la souveraineté nationale.

Le but du système est de transférer progressivement la souveraineté nationale à un niveau supranational.

A ce niveau supranational, les décisions sont prises et des lois sont adoptées sans aucune préoccupation de l'opinion du peuple.

Dans son autobiographie écrite en 1985 et publié en 1986, René Lévesque a admis qu'il était un fédéraliste mondial. Un mondialiste.

Les mondialistes soutiennent l'idée d'un gouvernement mondial qui dicte toutes les valeurs et qui contrôle toutes les ressources.

Dans son autobiographie rédigée en 1985 René Lévesque a dit, «Je suis fédéraliste» et «l'État-nation a fait son temps». Par conséquent, il faut se demander ce qu'il a vraiment essayer de créer avec son référendum de 1980. Car il essayait de créer la «souveraineté-association» -- le système de l'Union européenne qui prive les peuples de leur contrôle et conduit à un gouvernement mondial.

Afin de transférer le contrôle des ressources au niveau supranational, il doit y avoir «un peuple» à qui seul appartiennent ces ressources, ainsi qu'une « nation » reconnue en droit international public capable de diriger ses propres affaires internationales afin de transférer légalement le plein contrôle de ses ressources par voie de traité.

Il n'y a rien de poétique ou romantique d'être dépouillé de ses ressources par des Joueurs de flûte de Hamelin qui nous vendent notre souveraineté sur leurs propres conditions et stratégies. Ils formulent la question afin de recevoir la réponse dont ils ont besoin.

Dire «OUI» au «mandat de négocier» est de nous faites voler de botre souveraineté et de nos ressources par la force.

Va-t-on tomber pour cela ?

* * *

Lors du spectacle de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste de 1975 sur le Mont-Royal, Gilles Vigneault met temporairement un terme à une période sabbatique en créant la chanson «Gens du pays» qui deviendra l'une de ses plus célèbres compositions.

Cette chanson, dont chacun connaît l'air et le refrain, est chantée lors des anniversaires québécois sous sa version «Mon cher ____, c'est à ton tour». Elle est devenue l'hymne non-officiel du Québec.

-- Kathleen Moore
La Contestation Judiciaire Officielle
à l'Union nord-Américaine

Billet : « PAULINE MAROIS soutient l'Union nord-Américaine »

Billet : « Sarkozy Scamming Quebec's Hoodwinked Separatists »



The sentiments of French Quebecers are being mercilessly exploited to create a false association of 'independence' with the misleading referendum question seeking a 'mandate to negotiate sovereignty association'. "Sovereignty Association" (1980) is not independence, nor is "Sovereignty Partnership" (1995); it is the system of government of the European Union, and it removes sovereignty by degrees, leaving the member state with nothing.

This system is leading to the erosion of democracy, and the full loss of sovereignty.

The purpose of the system is to gradually transfer national sovereignty to a supranational level.

At this supranational level, decisions are made and laws are enacted without any concern for the views of the people.

In his autobiography written in 1985 and published in 1986, RL admitted he was a world federalist. A globalist.

Globalists support the idea of a one-world government which dictates all values and controls all the resources.

In his autobiography, René Lévesque said, "I am a federalist" and "the nation-state has seen its day". Therefore, ask yourself, what was he really trying to create with his 1980 referendum? He was trying to create "sovereignty-association" -- the European Union system which deprives nations of their control and leads to a one-world government.

In order to transfer control of resources to the supranational level, there must be a 'people' to whom alone these resources belong, and a 'nation' capable of international affairs (at international public law) to legally hand control over by way of treaty.

There is nothing poetic or romantic about being robbed of your resources by Pied pipers selling you your sovereignty in order to take it from you. They formulate the question in order to get from you the answer they need.

Saying "YES" to a "mandate to negotiate" is agreeing to be robbed of our sovereignty and of our resources by force.

Are we going to fall for it?

* * *

When performing at the Saint-Jean-Baptiste celebrations of 1975 on Mount Royal in Montreal, Gilles Vigneault put a temporary end to his sabbatical in order to create the song "Gens du pays" (people of the nation) which became one of his most famous compositions.

This song, to which everyone knows the tune and the refrain is even sung at birthday parties in Quebec as the version 'Dear ____, it's your turn'. "Gens du paus" has become the unofficial anthem of Quebec.

-- Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

Blog : "Sarkozy Scamming Quebec's Hoodwinked Separatists"

Blog : « PAULINE MAROIS soutient l'Union nord-Américaine » (in French)




"But is the thesis of continuing Canadian fragmentation after Quebec's secession plausible? Could North America unravel? The United States must take the possibility seriously enough to draw up plans for a form of supranational affiliation with the remnants of Canada. ... ... This new form of affiliation should be aimed midway between the fragility of a treaty and the rigidity of statehood."

-- Will Canada Unravel ? Plotting a map if Quebec secedes, Charles F. Doran, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1996, Volume 75 . Number 5

* * *

Six years before the events of September 11th in the USA, CFR member and author Charles F. Doran wrote these words in the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs:

Plotting A Map if Quebec Secedes

"But is the thesis of continuing Canadian fragmentation after Quebec's secession plausible? Could North America unravel? The United States must take the possibility seriously enough to draw up plans for a form of supranational affiliation with the remnants of Canada. ... ... This new form of affiliation should be aimed midway between the fragility of a treaty and the rigidity of statehood."

Doran was writing at a time when the second attempt to force Quebec to "secede" into an EU-style "supranational affiliation" with the "rest of Canada" in 1995 had recently failed. In proposing a "remedy" in the event of a future success, Doran appears to be attempting to fast-track the North American Union that had been planned decades ago, in embryo, as the "Canadian Community" or the "Canadian Union", which René Lévesque used to call it. For, the phony "secession of Quebec" is and always was a scam to impose the EU system on this continent.

The 1995 attempt having failed, the clever CFR immediately proposes the very same thing as the "remedy" for its future occurrence, but applies the secretly looked for "supranational affiliation" of Rest-of-Canada-Quebec to ALL of North America.

In order to get this fast-track done the next time around, Doran "predicts" that not just the USA, but "North America" could "unravel" if Quebec "secedes". Therefore, so as to stabilize the continent, it must ALL be merged under the very supranational institutions Trudeau and Lévesque failed to impose on Quebec and "the rest of Canada" in 1980.

Had they not failed then, and again in 1995, Canada would now be long gone, and NAFTA would have linked the USA and Mexico into the "Canadian Union"... on the way to full-scale North American Union, which is emerging now through a series of other measures.

While Europe had been put through its paces at a steady gait with the advancement of European integration by successive treaties modifying and intensifying the initial treaty of association, the CFR's North America was flailing sovereignly in the grand European wake... a continent still yet to be "harmonized" with Europe.

Plans for global continental integration and world government have evidently been slightly delayed. However, South America was "harmonized" successfully on 3 May 2008, and CAFTA-ALBA is attempting to bring in Central America to link up the western hemisphere with the Johnny-come-lately merger of North America.

Interestingly enough, 9/11 seems to have sped the CFR's plans up. For, the system being imposed now via the CFR's "Building A North American Community" plan of May 2005, which adds flesh to the bones of the March 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) agreed among Vicente Fox, George Bush of 9/11 fame and Prime Minister Paul Martin, was always intended to emerge as a result of Quebec's phony "secession" into the EEC system. Instead, it is now being done on a fast-track under the auspices of 9/11 as the pretext. And this, without any independent inquiry in Canada into the "freefall" events of September 11th.

If 9/11 was an inside job, and "security" is removed from the SPP and the Building A North American Community blueprint of the CFR, is it reasonable to imagine any self-respecting stable and independently wealthy sovereign nation willingly annexing itself to one or two other states on the mere pretext of "trade" or staunching the flow of illegal aliens?

In effect, 9/11 is doing to North America what the phony "secession" of Quebec has not been able to get done. According to my research, however, the secession of Quebec will be attempted once again... at which point, Charles F. Doran may pen yet another self-serving update for the CFR and Foreign Affairs.... on how "lucky" North America was to have been "secured" and "integrated" in advance of Quebec "secession", so as to prevent the continent from... "unravelling".

With North America under "deep integration", what's the purpose now of Quebec "secession"? Why, to cover up decades of treason, and to make Canadians believe they were fortunate to have fallen by chance into NAU as a "remedy" against post-secession Balkanization.

Last month, Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, which is planted illegally in the federal Parliament of Canada, toured Canada urging all the provinces to "secede". Meanwhile, the Americans have a 10th Amendment movement, which is urging all the US States to do the same thing. Could these two parallel movements be a coincidence? Or, are they evidence of superlative timing and counter-planning by the infamous CFR?

See my Gilles Duceppe FB group: Canada Tour 2010 - Treason Rally (still in development):!/group.php?gid=117511084929452&ref=ts

You can read the whole Doran article here:

"Will Canada Unravel? Plotting a Map if Quebec Secedes". Charles F. Doran · September/October Foreign Affairs (CFR) 1996


For a better view of the "plan" back in 1979, read Lévesque's "white paper" on his desire to replace the Confederation of Canada with a Treaty of Association similar to that of the EEC as it then was:

Québec-Canada: A New Deal. The Québec Government Proposal for a New Partnership Between Equals: Sovereignty-Association


For more discussion of the scam, as I unravel it, see my blog:

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

NB: Must see my VIDEOS in this FB group "Habeas Corpus Canada".



Canada apparently has many enemies, the Roman Catholic Church among them. The Vatican, that is, the Pope, was instrumental in the destruction of the sovereign nation of SFRY Yugoslavia by using the "nation-state" status of Vatican City to "internationally recognize" a rebel component of the SFRY as a state. See:

"In 1993, the Pope Openly Embraced Kosovo Secession"

The Church is apparently deeply involved in the phony "secession" of Quebec. During 1997 "hearings" on the "Reference re the Secession of Quebec", amicus curiae (friend of the court) Joli-Coeur, tabled public statements of Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte. Some of those statements are mentioned in Hansard.

We know that the phony secession of Quebec is and has always really been intended to impose the EEC-EU system of government on this continent, a step toward world government. Can the Vatican be unaware of this scam? Hardly. Therefore, reasonable observers would have to think that the Vatican must be abusing French Canadians, as our politicians are, using them to destroy Canada for NAU and world government.

There have apparently been "Pope sightings" on the guest list of the Bilderberg. What is the Catholic Church planning to gain in the long-term from the wrack and ruin of the international system of nation states?

Here are a few examples of the Catholic Church pushing Quebec secession:


/ Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ):

/ 1035

However, Quebeckers have understood what is at stake. In the last several weeks, we have seen and heard men and women from every political background condemn the government for what it is trying to do. Since I have little time left, I will name only a few of them. Claude Ryan, chairman of the no committee during the 1980 referendum and former Leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec; Daniel Johnson, leader of the no committee in 1995 and present leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec; some senators, and among them Jean-Claude Rivest; former Conservative ministers, among them Monique Vézina; reporters who are not always on our side but who have vigorously condemned what the federal government is doing. There were also members of the church hierarchy, namely Mgr Blanchette, bishop of Rimouski; Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, who delivered the same message, namely that "It is for Quebeckers to decide their own future."

[ ... ]

/ Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ):


/ 1225

Other key figures like Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, archbishop of Montreal, and Monseigneur Bertrand Blanchette, archbishop of the diocese of Rimouski, have said that the Supreme Court should not decide the future of the Quebec people, thus echoing the position taken by the bishops of Quebec and Canada in favour of self-determination, at the centennial of Confederation in 1967.

/ Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

/ 1355

Think about Jean-Claude Rivest, Conservative senator and former special advisor to the Liberal premier, Mr. Bourassa, a federalist, who said at one point that never again would Quebec go through what it went through after Charlottetown. Think about André Tremblay, special constitutional advisor to Robert Bourassa in Charlottetown in 1992. Think about Cardinal Turcotte—and that tops it all—who, despite his very delicate functions, has had the courage to take a stand in this debate, knowing what kind of criticism he would draw because of that. Where does the Liberal Party of Canada stand in Quebec at this moment apart from the support it gets from Alliance Quebec? I would like my colleague from Beauce to respond to that.

This old Hansard, and in particular Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte's public statements supporting the illegal referendums "to secede", has inspired me to create some images on the subject.

My goal is to expose the essential hypocrisy, and cruelty of the Church urging French-Canadians to liberate themselves to destroy Canada for some blood-chilling share of power the Church may have in store for itself under a one-world government.

Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union




Le Canada a apparemment beaucoup d'ennemis, l'Église Catholique Romaine parmi eux. Le Vatican, c'est-à-dire, le Pape, était instrumental dans la destruction de la nation souverain de l'ex-Yougoslavie (SFRY) en utilisant le statut d'état-nation du Vatican afin de « reconnaître » internationalement un composant rebel du SFRY comme un état.

« In 1993, the Pope Openly Embraced Kosovo Secession » (« En 1993, le Paper ouvertement embrassé la sécession de Kosovo »)

L'Eglise est apparemment profondément impliquée dans l'escroquerie de la « sécession » de Québec. En 1997, pendant les « audiences » sur le « Renvoi relatif à la Sécession de Québec », l'amicus curiæ (« ami de la cour ») Maître André Joli-Cœur déposa devant la Cour suprême du Canada quelques déclarations publiques de Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte. Certaines de ces déclarations sont mentionnées dans Hansard.

Nous savons que le vrai but de la sécession de Québec est -- et toujours a toujours été -- d'en imposer par « traité » le système juridique et politique du CEE-UE, une étape vers un gouvernement mondial. Le Vatican peut-il nier toute connaissance de cette escroquerie ? À peine.

Donc, les observateurs raisonnables devraient penser que le Vatican manipule les Canadiens français, tout comme le font nos politiciens, afin de détruire le Canada au profit des élites qui poussent l'Union Nord-Américaine, étape vers un gouvernement mondial.

Les noms de quelques Papes ont été vus sur les listes d'invité de Bilderberg.

Qu'est-ce que l'Eglise catholique a l'intention de gagner à la long terme de la ruine du système international d'états-nation ?

Voici quelques exemples de l'attitude de l'Eglise catholique à l'appui de la «sécession» de Québec :

À voir : Source:

/ M. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ):

/ 1035

Cependant, au Québec, on a compris l'enjeu. On a vu et entendu, au cours des dernières semaines, des hommes et des femmes de tous les horizons politiques dénoncer le geste que tente de poser le gouvernement d'en face. Je vais en nommer quelques-uns, compte tenu du temps qui m'est alloué: Claude Ryan, président du comité du non lors du référendum de 1980 et ancien chef du Parti libéral du Québec; Daniel Johnson, président du comité du non en 1995 et chef actuel du Parti libéral du Québec; des sénateurs, en autres, Jean-Claude Rivest; d'anciens ministres conservateurs comme Monique Vézina; des journalistes, qui ne sont pas toujours de notre côté, mais qui ont dénoncé vigoureusement les gestes que le fédéral est en train de poser. Il y a même des gens d'Église, dont monseigneur Blanchette, évêque de Rimouski et le cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, dont le message était unique, dont le message était le même: «C'est au peuple québécois de décider de son avenir».

[ ... ]

/ M. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ):

/ 1210

Je conclus, dans la minute qui me reste, en disant que le Bloc québécois n'est pas tout seul à dénoncer cette situation. Je n'aurai pas le temps de vous lire toutes mes citations, mais je vais vous nommer des gens qui disent la même chose que nous: le cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte; M. Claude Ryan, l'ancien chef du camp du non des fédéralistes, en 1980; M. Daniel Johnson, l'ancien chef des fédéralistes du camp du non, en 1995 et qui, jusqu'à preuve du contraire, est encore chef du Parti libéral du Québec, ce serait donc encore lui le chef des fédéralistes au Québec; M. Lucien Bouchard; M. Alain Dubuc; le député de Sherbrooke; le député de Laurier—Sainte-Marie, chef du Bloc québécois; M. Alain Pellet, président de la Commission du droit international des Nations unies; M. Gordon Wilson, conseiller constitutionnel du premier ministre de la Colombie-Britannique. Il y a beaucoup de gens. Il y a un consensus qui est même plus que québécois, qui est en train de se faire ailleurs qu'au Québec, même sur la scène internationale.

/ Mme Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ):


/ 1225
D'autres personnalités, comme le cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, archevêque de Montréal, monseigneur Bertrand Blanchette, archevêque du diocèse de Rimouski ont souligné que la Cour suprême n'a pas à décider de l'avenir du peuple québécois, reprenant en cela la prise de position des évêques du Québec et du Canada en faveur du principe de l'autodétermination lors du centenaire de la Confédération, en 1967.

/ Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ):

/ 1355

Quand on sait que M. Jean-Claude Rivest, sénateur conservateur et ancien conseiller spécial du premier ministre libéral, M. Bourassa, qui était un fédéraliste, s'est tenu debout et a dit, à un moment donné, que jamais plus le Québec ne vivrait ce qu'il venait de vivre au lendemain de Charlottetown, que M. André Tremblay, conseiller constitutionnaliste spécial de M. Robert Bourassa, à Charlottetown, en 1992, et que le cardinal Turcotte—c'est la cerise sur le sundae—, malgré des fonctions très délicates, on le sait, a le courage de prendre position dans le débat sachant la hargne dont il serait victime, où est le Parti libéral du Canada au Québec actuellement si ce n'est avec Alliance Québec, tout simplement, comme appui? J'aimerais connaître la réplique du député de Beauce.

* * * * *

Cet ancien Hansard, et plus notamment les déclarations publiques du Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte à l'appui des référendums illégaux m'a inspiré à créer des images sur le sujet.

Mon but est de démasquer l'hypocrisie essentielle, et la cruauté de l'Eglise qui exhorte les Canadiens-français qui ne sont carrément pas emprisonnés à «se libérer» afin de détruire le Canada pour gagner sa part du pouvoir sous un éventuel gouvernement mondial construit à partir de la fusion des unions continentales y compris l'Union nord-américaine.

Kathleen Moore
La Contestation Judiciaire Officielle
À L'Union Nord-Américaine

Blog :

Billet : « PAULINE MAROIS soutient l'Union nord-Américaine »

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Project of the Century: Bullet Train for North American Union

As a member of the Canadian Legislature, I pledge my best support to help this enterprise [...] and I hope to see growing a Canadian Empire in North America connected and linked together by this Intercolonial Railway, that may hold a position able to counterbalance the grasping power of the United States on this continent.
His Honor the Speaker, the Honorable U.J. Tessier, at a public meeting held in Quebec in 1858, when three delegates were in England pressing for Confederation.


Annexation is Unconstitutional and thus Illegal

I like to start my Constitutional law research with an historical view of what happened in similar circumstances. In other words, I begin with a search for precedent. The current issue of President Obama's high-speed bullet train, which he intends to deliver direct to Montreal, bypassing the US-Canada border and without any customs facilities, is broached in terms of railways and the Canadian Constitution. For, of course, the building of the Intercolonial, that is, the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) -- a ribbon of steel which would finally unite Canada from coast to coast, was a condition upon which the Maritime provinces agreed to join Confederation; it was also a pledge offered by Macdonald to secure the addition of British Columbia to the Canadian Union.

Or, as the Hon. Mr. George Brown said in the 1865 Debates on Confederation (page 103), “the Intercolonial Railroad has been made an absolute condition of the compact”. George Brown also underscored the "military" nature of Confederation, as a defence against U.S. annexation, when he described that threat as follows:
[T]here is no better mode of warding off war when it is threatened, than to be prepared for it if it comes. The Americans are now a warlike people. They have large armies, a powerful navy, and the carnage of war has to them been stript of its horrors. The American side of our lines already bristles with works of defence, and unless we are willing to live at the mercy of our neighbors, we, too, must put our country in a state of efficient preparation. War or no war-- the necessity of placing these provinces in a thorough state of defence can no longer be postponed. Our country is coming to be regarded as undefended and indefensible-- the capitalist is alarmed, and the immigrant is afraid to come among us. Were it merely as a measure of commercial advantage, every one of these colonies must meet the question of military defence promptly and energetically. And how can we do this so efficiently and economically as by the union now proposed ? (Hear, hear.) I have already shown that union would give us a body of 70,000 hardy seamen ready and able to defend our sea-coasts and inalnd lakes ; let us now see what would be the military strength of the Confederation.
Further in the same Debates, it was said: “[...] the Intercolonial Railway [...] as a work of defence [...] has [...] many advocates ; but, if the union of the provinces is to go on, it is an absolute necessity...”

In effect, the statututory and constitutional purpose of the British North America Act, 1867 was to be Canadian, and not American; emphatically and permanently to retain our independence and our control over our own territory and our different destiny. However, on the very eve of Confederation, open threats were still incoming from the Americans:

Horace Greeley's New York Tribune of May 10, 1867 sneeringly declared:

"when the experiment of the 'dominion' [referring to the imminent Confederation of 1867] shall have failed – as fail it must – a process of peaceful absorption will give Canada her proper place in the great North American Republic."

The Tribune was joined in chorus by the New York Herald in proclaiming the ultimate American acquisition of the British Colonies. Other American papers, including the New York Times and the New York World, differed from the Tribune and the Herald in degree but not in substance. Anthony Trollope in his journey around the United States and Canada in 1861 and 1862 remarked how Canadians constantly heard they are to be invaded, and translated into citizens of the [American] Union."

“The [American] Civil War would end sometime, and when it did, the whole western half of British North America, from Lake of the Woods to Vancouver Island, would be in imminent danger of being absorbed by the United States, in the same inexorable way that Oregon had been swallowed up only eighteen years before.” (Life and Times of Confederation 1864-1867, P.B. Waite, University of Toronto Press, Canada 1962, p. 118)

On June 24, 1864, as the Civil War was drawing to its conclusion, the New York Herald editorialized that soon "… four hundred thousand thoroughly disciplined troops will ask no better occupation than to destroy the last vestiges of British rule on the American continent and annex Canada to the United States." (Manifest Destiny and Western Canada, Chapter I, A Tale of Two Countries, Todd Sauvé:

The Hon. Mr. McGee, at page 132 of the Confederation Debates warned his fellow representatives of the acquisitive Americans: "They [the Americans] coveted Florida, and seized it; they coveted Louisana, and purchased it; they coveted Texas, and stole it . . . . The acquisition of Canada was the first ambition of the American Confederacy, and never ceased to be so. . . ."

Founding father of Canada, the Hon. George-Etienne Cartier, speaking in the 1865 Debates, underscored for the Hon. Members the true nature of the long-time ambitions of the American state when speaking of the former Province of Canada:

"The absorption of this province [Upper and Lower Canada] into the United States had long been contemplated, as would be seen from the 7th article in the original draft of the American Constitution, which he would read. It was as follows: " Art. 7. Canada, according to this Confederation and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union; and shall be equally with any other of the United States, solemnly bound to a strict observance of, and obedience to, these articles ; as shall be also any other colony which shall be admitted into this Confederacy. The eleven votes in Congress shall be increased in proportion as the Confederacy is extended. But, except Canada, no other colony shall be admitted into the Confederacy without the assent of eleven or more votes, as the case may require, by the Confederation being extended." By that article, no new state could go into the union except by the vote of the number of states required to admit a new partne. But, as regarded Canada, no such assent was required ; on knocking at the door of the union, she would, as a matter of course, be admitted.

Confederation, it was declared at p. 24 of the Debates of 1865 "by contrast with other forms of defence, was both cheap and simple. That was the principal reason for the unequivocal backing it received in London. Confederation cost Britain nothing but the trouble of despatches and the occasional juggling of colonial governors; ultimately, it would save eight colonies by making them one."

The military danger to Canada from the Americans was clearly expressed at page 32 of the same Debates: "The huge union armies and the truculence of the government that controlled them were dangers enough, but the basic indefensibility of Canada was worse."

It was a desire not to be annexed to the United States of America which animated preparation of the Constitution Act of 1867. That refusal to be annexed is the "mischief" or the "evil" under the mischief rule which determines the purpose of a statute, including that of a constitutional statute. The mischief of annexation to the USA was the "evil" which the Imperial statute of 1867 was passed to remedy "for all time to come".

That purpose is not spent; today, as in 1867, it forms the permanent core of the Constitution of Canada. And today, under threats of North American Union, more than ever, that purpose lives and speaks, and must be given its full and unremitting Constitutional effect.

Every court in this country, every government, and every Legislature and Parliament is duty bound under sworn oath of allegiance to give effect to that purpose; otherwise, they have no right to exercise elected or appointed office.

The permanency of the Canadian union -- its permanent exclusion of annexation -- is clear and unequivocal from the intent of the founders:
In the 1858 parliamentary session of the Province of Canada, -- [Alexander] Galt urged federation not only as a cure for the distresses of Canada, but as a great constructive scheme. The Canadian ministers professed to feel that the time had arrived for a general constitutional discussion. The British North American colonies were like isolated and weak foreign states, a condition which was 'considered to be neither promotive of the physical prosperity of all, nor of that moral union which ought to be preserved in the presence of the powerful confederation of the United States'. The imperial government was requested to authorize a meeting of delegates from all the colonies and from the two divisions of Canada to consider a federal union and to discuss the principles on which it could be based .... for ever removing the fear that these colonies may ultimately serve to swell the power of another nation'. [....] The whole scheme aimed at creating a stronger union than that of the United States ..." (W.P.M. Kennedy, The Constitution of Canada 1534-1937, New York, Russell & Russell, [first published 1922] at pages 286-7)
It is further clear from the words of the Hon. Mr. Alexander Campbell, Commissioner of Crown Lands [Cataraqui], on Monday, February 6, 1865 at pages 21 and 22 of the 1865 Debates, where he declares that: "The Conference [of delegates to prepare Confederation] acted upon the conviction that they were not building a structure for a temporary purpose, but, as they hoped, for centuries."

Canada was built in 1867 to last "for centuries", but 150 years later, Barrak Obama presumes to aim his BULLET train into the very heart of Canada which even General George Washington in 1775 was unable to claim with his bald attempt to seduce the French Canadians into U.S. annexation:

"Come, then, my brethren, unite with us in an indissoluble union; let us run together to the same goal." (Washington to the Inhabitants of Canada, in John Joseph Henry. Account of Arnold's Campaign Against Quebec: And of the Hardships and Sufferings of that Band of Heroes who Traversed the Wilderness of Maine from Cambridge to the St. Lawrence, in the Autumn of 1775, Albany: Joel Munsell, 1877, pages 5-6)

The American Civil War of secession from about 1861-64 inspired the founders of Canada to protect us from annexation, because:

(i) the Americans had brutally slaughtered or injured well over a million of their own fellow citizens over the secession issue, and we were determined never to fall into that pit: "And it was a liberal regime, the United States under Abraham Lincoln, that broke with the European code of civilized war by demanding unconditional surrender and launching total war against the civilian population of the South, resulting in 1,500,000 killed, missing, and wounded." (Secession and The Modern State, Donald W. Livingston, PhD., Department of Philosophy, Emory University, December 1996)

(ii) our ancestors did not wish to be annexed, and were determined to retain not only their individuality as British colonies developing on new soil, but to retain their independence from America;

(iii) early Canada was faced with grave hazards including the Irish-American Fenians, many of whom were "battle-tried" veterans of the Union Army, wished to seize Canada for the USA in vengeance for British rule in Ireland; and by Americans determined to annex Canada as the "divine" right of the USA under the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny".

(iv) In addition, the BNA colonies prior to 1867 were already losing immigrants to America because of a dearth of available arable farmlands here at that time;

(v) Americans in the north perceived the BNA colonies over the 49th parallel as in sympathy with the southern war of secession (though this was an exaggeration) and were threatening to cancel the Reciprocity Treaty by which the BNA colonies were able to use American rail and other routes into the USA and out to the sea coasts for the purpose of trade and shipping;

(vi) hard-core American secessionists were eyeing the west and north-west of the continent, and could have made decisive moves at any time to seize them, thus cutting off the BNA colonies on those two sides, and making it easier to finally absorb them.

In the context of all this, the British North America Act, 1867 was passed, including express plans for HORIZONTAL integration of the BNA provinces and territories. The chief means of integration would be the Canadian Pacific Railway, a "ribbon of steel" binding the founding provinces together into one consolidated nation.

The “Intercolonial Railway“, later named the Canadian Pacific Railway or CPR for short, was anticipated not only in the 1858 speech of Speaker Tessier, but provision was made for it in the 1864 Quebec Conference as reflected in the “72 Resolutions"; which were then debated in the Provincial Parliament of Canada in 1865; refined in London in 1866, and passed into Constitutional law of Canada by the British North America Act, 1867, (30 & 31 Vict.) C A P. III. This "constitutional" railway was a work of defence to protect Canada from annexation to the U.S.A., and not merely a commercial venture in view of trade. The horizontal nature of the Canadian Union required horizontal integration, and the railway was its chief tool.

Attorney General John A. Macdonald, speaking in the Confederation Debates on Monday, February 6, 1865 (page 32), made clear the defensive nature of both Confederation and its integral railway when he said: "If we are not blind to our present position, we must see the hazardous situation in which all the great interests of Canada stand in respect to the United States."

In 1881, the CPR was commenced by ratification in Parliament of the contract to have it built. Section 15 of that contract prohibited the building of branch lines from anywhere along the CPR down toward the US border, i.e., in a southerly or south-westerly direction.

Throughout the 1880s, countless provincial laws chartering private firms to build precisely such branch lines, but outside the CPR contract, were disallowed by the Governor General in Council of Canada because they contravened the "settled policy"(FN 1) of the government: meaning that despite these laws being otherwise valid(FN 2), they tended to VERTICALLY integrate the fledgling nation of Canada into the USA, thus delivering our trade down south to the USA to the profit of their own rail lines, whereas we needed to keep our trade at home:

(i) to the profit of our own lines (including the CPR, which involved a huge investment in borrowing by the federal government of Canada);

(ii) and because we needed to consolidate the country horizontally to a position of strength before it would be SAFE for us to build rail lines to the USA.

As a particularly apt illustration, Manitoba(FN 3) planned to charter rails and tramways that would have touched points along the Minnesota border. That was the home territory of the most virulent, hard-core US annexationists who were determined to seize all of Canada:

"Indeed, a single bold military thrust into this region from Minnesota, the epicentre of annexationist passion, (under governors Alexander Ramsey, Henry H. Sibley and William R. Marshall), would have gained them the entire western portion of the continent."

A rail line from Winnipeg to Minnesota would thus have given U.S. troops or mercenaries a free ticket to ride into the heart of western Canada for the takedown of Canada.

Our constitutional history therefore shows that Canada was intended to be horizontally integrated to PREVENT annexation to the USA; and that laws of provinces involving the building of rail lines were routinely DISALLOWED when Canada was felt to be still too vulnerable to attack from annexationists.

Today, the Obama bullet train is touted as the pretext for removing the very national border along the 49th parallel which our founders sought to protect both by building the CP Railway into the Constitution Act of 1867, and by repeatedly disallowing otherwise valid provincial laws to prevent the ANNEXATION OF CANADA to the USA.

The bullet train is a bald assault on the absolute sovereignty of Canada; and a sham and a pretext for attempting to oblige us to remove the national border as if this is required to make the high-speed trains work. One might as well say we need to remove customs offices from our airports to make THOSE work. It simply doesn't make sense, it's part of the scam of psychological intimidation to make us feel that removing the border and cancelling Canada are "required" and thus "inevitable".

That's a pretty good summary of my research on this point up until now. On the other hand, I already also know that the Provincial legislatures of Canada are LIMITED to measures for LOCAL purposes only; they cannot act in a way that substantially affects either another Province, or all of Canada. (Which is one reason why the (phony) referendums to "secede" in Quebec of 1980 and 1995 were utterly illegal, as they were MEASURES of supposed "government" which would obviously have substantially affected all the Provinces and the entire Constitution of Canada, powers the Provinces simply do not have.

The Quebec Legislature might have power to charter rail lines; however, it has no power to remove the NATIONAL border between the USA and Canada, even that portion coinciding with its own soil. In other words, it has no power to VERTICALLY INTEGRATE any part of Quebec into the USA with a view to annexation of Quebec or, by the domino effect, all of Canada.

Moreover, the Parliament of Canada has no power to remove the national border because those we elect do not own the Constitution, and have no right to REMOVE the national border, thus causing half a billion Americans and Mexicans to flow north, unsettling Canada.

The sole power of the Parliament of Canada is concentrated into one word: "GOVERN"; meaning they must ALWAYS govern, they may never CEASE to govern; and the jurisprudence indicates that the word "govern" is only meaningful in relation to those who ARE to be governed, meaning CANADIANS; not Americans and not Mexicans on our soil. And certainly not that mythical hybrid (or tribrid) creature, Robert Pastor's so-called "North American".

The full name of this power is found at Section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, now called the Constitution Act, 1867: the “PEACE, ORDER and GOOD GOVERNMENT” (or POGG) power:

There is no legal, constitutional way to get around this, including a stab at constitutional amendment, because this would not BE an amendment, but the overthrow of the country disguised as amendment.

Moreover, the jurisprudence is clear, not only in Canada but the other BNA dominions and former colonies: you may not use a LIMITED POWER to create a larger power. The LIMITS imposed by the POGG power at s. 91 mean that it cannot be used to do ANYTHING, whether pass a law, or pass an amendment, in order to EXPAND that power to do what the Constitution currently prohibits as part of its founding purpose, which is judicially enforceable: that is, to PREVENT THE ANNEXATION of Canada to the United States of America, and to prevent the Secession of any province.


(FN 1) The precise text of Clause 15 in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract is quoted in this excerpt from a letter of Justice Minister A. Campbell, recommending disallowance of British Columbia Acts chartering rail lines going south and touching the U.S. border:

“The policy of the Government in this behalf, confirmed by Parliament, was given expression to in the following clause of the contract between the Government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, dated October 21st, 1880.
15. "For twenty years from the date hereof, no line of railway shall be authorised by the Dominion Parliament to be constructed south of the Canadian Pacific Railway from any point at or near the Canadian Pacific Railway, except such line as shall run south-west or to the westward or south-west ; nor to within fifteen miles of latitude 49, and in the establishment of any new Province in the North-West Territory, provision shall be made for continuing such prohibition after such establishment until the expiration of the said period.
For these reasons, which the undersigned has had occasion previously to state more fully than it is now necessary to do, he respectfully recommends that the said Acts-- chapter 26, "An Act to incorporate the Fraser River Railway Company," and chapter 37, "An Act to incorporate the New Westminster Southern Railway Company,"-- be disallowed.

SIGNED: A. Campbell, Minister of Justice.”

Source: Sessional papers of the Dominion of Canada : volume 10, third session of the fifth Parliament, session 1885; Ottawa : MacLean, Roger, [1885] ; Sessional Papers (No. 29), page 80

(FN 2) Below are two excerpts from a discussion in which Manitoba is fiercely contesting the federal disallowance of provincial legislation it had a right to pass in view of the subject matters at Section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867. However, despite Manitoba’s undoubted right to legislate in order to charter railways, the effect on the entire Dominion of Canada was national in its implications, and because of the general risk to the fledgling nation, these otherwise valid statutes were disallowed to assure the consolidation of Canada, and inherently to prevent annexation to the U.S.A.
"Your address refers to the question of disallowance, and the elections which have recently occurred and the discussions to which they have given rise have added additional interest to the question. As you are aware, the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway in no way interferes with the right of the Legislature of Manitoba to grant charters within the boundaries of the Province as they existed at that time. This was very clearly pointed out during the debate in Parliament, when the contract with the Syndicate and the charter to the Company were granted. It was important, however, on every ground, commercial as well as national, that the Canadian Pacific Railway should be an all-through line on Canadian territory, and that we should not be dependent in any way upon American lines for our traffic with Manitoba and the North-West."
Source: Sessional Papers (No. 21), p. 232

That after the passing of said Canadian Pacific Railway Act the Legislature of the Province did, according to its undoubted right (as heretofore referred to) by Acts of the said Legislature, charter divers railway companies for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating lines of railway wholly situate within the Province as before defined, yet all of such Acts as chartered a line of railway to be constructed or operated to any point within fifteen miles of the international boundary line have been disallowed and vetoed by the Governor General of Canada in Council, and as the said Canadian Pacific Railway was then incomplete, such disallowance was submitted to rather than in any way impede the completion and rendering permanent of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the same being a national highway.
Source: Sessional Papers (No. 21), page 230.

What is important is that the Canadian Pacific Railway is described as “a national highway” for Canada. Today, the all-too-familiar blue, pink and yellow North American Union map transected by multi-modal corridors of rail, highway and other infrastructure piercing north into Canada to merge the continent, is an attempt to do for North America what the Canadian Pacific Railway was designed to do for Canada: fuse it into a “nation”. KM

(FN 3) "The act of the Manitoba legislature, incorporating the Winnipeg South-Eastern Railway Company, was disallowed because it conflicted with "the settled policy of the dominion, as evidenced by a clause in the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway," which was ratified by parliament in the session of 1880-81 ; which clause is to the effect that "for twenty years from the date hereof

/ 113

no line of railway shall be authorized by the dominion parliament to be constructed south of the Canadian Pacific Railway, from any point at or near the Canadian Pacific Railway, except such line as shall run south-west or to the westward of south-west, nor to within fifteen miles of latitude 49. " The government of Manitoba contended at the time that the act was "strictly within the jurisdiction of the legislature of the province."(1)

These cases show the large power assumed by the dominion government under the law giving them the right of disallowing provincial enactments. The best


/ 114

authorities concur in the widsom of interfering with provincial legislation only in cases where there is a clear invasion of dominion jurisdiction, or where the vital interests of Canada as a whole imperatively call for such interference. The powers and responsibilities of the general government in this matter have been well set forth by a judicial authority: "There is no doubt of the prerogative right of the Crown to veto any provincial act, and to apply it even to a law over which the provincial legislature has complete jurisdiction. But it is precisely on account of its extraordinary and exceptional character that the exercise of this prerogative will always be a delicate matter. It will always be very difficult for the federal government to substitute its opinion instead of that of the legislative assemblies, in regard to matters within their jurisdiction, without exposing itself to be reproached with threatening the independence of the provinces." [...] And in any case, "under our system of government, the disallowing of statutes passed by a local legislature after due deliberation, asserting a right to exercise powers which they claim to possess under the British North America Act, will always be considered a harsh exercise of authority, unless in cases of great and manifest necessity... "(1)
/ (1) Can. Sup. Court R., vol. 2, Richards C.J., p. 96; Fournier J., p. 131.

Source: A Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada from the Earliest Period to the year 1888 by John George Bourinot, 1888. Now scanned and online at Google Books:,+1888&source=bl&ots=3TGljCodPE&sig=oM2QjrCXC9iPcRikp8gf5qIN6Vc&hl=en&ei=7FKyS4eWBcP68AbDuODyBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Notes: Who is John George Bourinot? Read about him here, in the Canadian Parliamentary Review:

Sir John George Bourinot: Vistorian Canadian-His Life, Times and Legacy, McGill-Queens University Press, 2001.

Feel free to use this material online, or in print or in video, as long as you credit the source.

You can also use my English translation from the CALAMEO:

I'm very happy when other people take my work and develop it, because I'm up to my ears with the very fine details of the main legal proceeding to halt North American Union, HABEAS CORPUS CANADA, which I am always working on.

I am now in YEAR SIX of this project, which I started when I was 50, I'll be 57 this summer; I haven't taken a break or a holiday, and I have frequently worked under extremely constrained circumstances, including having my law books and notes stolen out of my apartment.

I now have a laptop that I carry around with everything in it. However, I am short on resources and equipment. Today, I priced 3 factums on file at the Supreme Court of Canada in a fundamental case for Habeas Corpus Canada: $39.00 to get them.

I have not worked in the past six years while doing this, so it has to come out of the miniscule budget after rent is paid. Anyone who would like to support the research and preparations would be welcome to assist via Paypal (, anything from $1 up will be appreciated. Thanks for your time.

Have a great day.
Kathleen Moore
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
Join my new Facebook group: "FOUNDING CANADIANS 1867" and link your Canadian family tree to the group.

DOWNLOAD the article that this current Blog is a reply to:

Obama Pushing Canada-USA Merger With Bullet-Train - Project of the Century: North American Union (March 2010, La Metropole)