Walk a Kb or Two in my Moccasins- Nobody 'splained it to me like that!

Simple answers to Complex Questions and Complex Answers to Simple Questions. In real life, I'm a Greater-Toronto (Canada) Realtor with RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Ltd, Brokerage. I first joined RE/MAX in 1983 and was first Registered to Trade in Real Estate in Ontario in 1974. Formerly known as "Two-Finger Ramblings of a Forensic Acuitant turned Community Synthesizer"

My Photo

- Realtor (2nd or 3rd best you'll likely run into)
- Philosopher King of Real Estate Business in Ontario (self-assessed)
- Likes Public Policy & Governance Discussions
- Likes discussion on being an "Attestant" and First-Century Ecclesias(aka 'primitive congregations)

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Aboriginals meet the Crown - Jan 24 2012

Ab's meet Crown Jan 24/12 .... who's the Crown? ... who's representing the Crown at the meeting?  ... who's representing you?
I assert that Canada may most accurately compared to a rough-around-the-edges asylum (built on a gold mine, a basin of oil and serviced with boundless fresh water), under absentee-ownership of a far-away, too-rich-to-care Lord (the Crown of Canada) that is being 'stewarded' by inmates who run things with an entitlement-style attitude much like the entrenched-and-determined-to-retain-power era of Pig administration "4 legs good, 2 legs better - some animals are more equal than others" described in George Orwell's Animal Farm.
The nub of my arguments is that governance of British North America/Canada has never progressed past the concept of Responsible Government (defined as Executive powers accountable to the Legislative power) which was introduced imperfectly by the Constitutional Act of 1791 (Governor, Executive Council, plus Legislative Council & Legislative Assembly) and subsequently the Legislators (and other rascals) fought for truly Responsible Government  under the banner of "grievances before supply".
This "imperfectly responsible" system was the basis for the Confederation-wide superstructure of 1867 that was placed atop the colonial/provincial "imperfectly responsible" system extended/enacted/restored by the same BNA Act of 1867.
In all these "imperfect" systems, (notwithstanding the 3rd para of the Statute of Westminster 1931 and clause 2 of the motherland's Canada Act 1982, (U.K.) 1982, c. 11 that removed the "in Council" from HRH-in Canada), Sovereignty and Authority remain at the Top of the hierarchy and all Accountability and Responsibility still flows UP to the Crown.
Never, was "Popular Sovereignty" granted to the Citizens of Canada (some say Subjects of the Crown is more accurate, albeit not well-received), allodial title was never transferred to the Stewards of Canada nor to any Fee Simple Titleholder,
I wish to condemn those who has purposely permitted this law-breaking, abused their Offices by not subsequently correcting it and explicitly denounce every lawyer, Judge and Professor who claims to be a "Constitutional Expert, Advisor or Teacher".
I seek by an analogy to our contemporary view about the historic dis-treatment of our First Nations/Indians/Autochthonous peoples to point out the "one-day-to-become-apparent-to-all" anti-constitutionality of our currently-operating governance system.
Bottom Line ... If we are NOT following the as-written provisions of our Constitution ... what rules ARE we following? 
Jan 23 2012
I cannot finish this ... sorry
Dear Editors & Friends,
and Jay M UCalgary PoliSci- I see you too are not quite clear on the Privy Council -appended
Most 'Ordinary Canadians' think that the Constitution/BNA Act of 1982 wrought significant changes to our governance system.
It's not true ... we were deceived by smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand and distraction - simple tricks of obfuscation more suitable for magic shows.
While we did :
1) formally eliminate the power of the UK's Lower & Upper Houses over Canadian law (previously exercised via the "in-Council" control that their un-written traditions/conventions hold over the Monarch's decisions)
and 2) we did add "subject to" clauses to (and thus limiting) the rights we formerly had at common law (s.1 Judicial veto and s.33 provincial veto),
plus 3) we added "amelioration to disadvantaged groups" mumbo-jumbo
and finally 4) included a virtually-impossible to use set of Amending Formulae (save the Bilateral formula see s. 93a of 1997) - the structure of Accountability and foundations of Sovereignty we not addressed.
The nub of my arguments is that governance of British North America/Canada has never progressed past the concept of Responsible Government introduced imperfectly by the Constitutional Act of 1791 (Governor, Executive Council, plus Legislative Council & Legislative Assembly) and subsequently the Legislators (and other rascals) fought for truly Responsible Government (Executive powers accountable to the Legislative power) under the banner of "grievances before supply".
I assert that Canada may most accurately compared to a rough-around-the-edges asylum (built on a gold mine), under absentee-ownership of the Crown and being 'stewarded' by inmates who run things much like the "4 legs good, 2 legs better - some animals are more equal than others" era of Pig administration described in George Orwell's Animal Farm (as you may recall from this modern classic, the "Leader Pigs" kept changing the rules to further their own position, authority and comfort).
Not following the as-written hierarchical powersharing format: Monarch (since 1982, no longer "in Council"); Executive Power (GovGen + Privy Council); Legislative Power (Upper House-Senate + Lower House-Commons), whether through benign neglect, purposeful intent, nescience, cowardice or bald-faced "ignore-ance"/defiance on the part of our Representation Stewards, our present-day (and as long any anyone can remember) system of a juggernaut Prime Minister's Office(PMO)/ Privy Council Office(PCO) dominating the entire governance system is the antithesis of the intent of the Fathers/Mothers of Confederation AND wholly contrary to the as-written text of 1867.
Consider the chickens-coming-home-to-roost ramifications of another "Similar in Principle" defiance of the foundational laws of Canada by past Stewards of the Crown regarding the First Nations/ Indians/ Aboriginal People.
In the Proclamation of 1763, the lands won/ceded from France (plus the unexplored, contiguous land mass beyond those "watershed boundaries") were claimed for "the Crown"  - everything and all things were declared to be possessed in the Monarch's name (also deemed to be under the care and protection of same) and were to be administered, licensed, granted, leased, bought, sold etc only by authorized Stewards of the Crown ie officials duty-bound to protect, safeguard, save harmless the Assets of the Crown and make recommendations for the development and prosperity of those Assets and (to a collateral degree) the peoples living upon those assets.
Until the Calder case of 1973, most Canadians (and most of the Crown's authorized Stewards, it now appears) thought very little about the existing peoples living on the thus-claimed Crown Land Assets "beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the West and North West, or upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us" (para 17) ...we now see that NOT paying attention (aka ignoring) to the foundational laws and as-written provisions of Canada's first Crown law proved embarrassingly costly, hugely dis-honourable to the autochthonous people's sovereignty and wholly disgraceful through the lens of modern eyes. The Steward's tacit policy of assimilation and eradication failed and now an era of lawful compensation, apology and restitution reigns, overseen by and underpinned by shame.
Why didn't the Stewards just follow the as-written rules regarding our Native/Autochthonous peoples? Even further, why didn't the scholars, Judges, Editors, bleeding-heart liberal types, Lawyers, Members of the Legislative powers in Ottawa or in any province kick up a stink?
Bottom line ..... why didn't some member of the non-native-blood public say something?
Was it deference to authority and elite accommodation (they must know what they're doing...), and/or plain old "I'm all right Jack, that's not my worry ... I got kids to feed.
Robert Ede,
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860)
“Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.” Howard Aiken, U.S. Computer engineer & mathematician (1900-1973)
Typical mis-understanding of Privy Council AND its role vis a vis the Cabinet
Editorial comments/corrections noted in Red

Excerpt From Mapleleafweb -Jay Makarenko - U Calgary

Queen’s Privy Council for Canada

The Privy Council Office is an administrative arm of a larger body, referred to as the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada (or “Privy Council”). Established at Confederation under Constitution Act, 1867 (later renamed the Constitution Act, 1982), (NB ed Jay has BOTH Acts incorrectly cited - s/r respectively Br N Am Act 1867 and Const Act 1867) the Privy Council is formal body which is intended to advise the Canadian monarchy on policy and government issues. Privy councillors are appointed for life by the Governor General of Canada on the advice of the prime minister, (NB -de facto but not de jure) and include the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, provincial premiers, former and present cabinet ministers, speakers of the House of Commons and Senate, and distinguished public figures or public servants.
The Privy Council is primarily a ceremonial body. (Wrong, unless author means calling a meeting of ALL PC members) An important exception is the federal cabinet, which is a body of mainly elected representatives (referred to as “cabinet ministers”), led by the prime minister of Canada. The cabinet decides the policies and directions of the nation and administers the day-to-day operation of government(and submits these for approval by a) Commons, Upper House & GG). It is, in sum, (Wrong) the pinnacle of federal executive political power in Canada. It is important to note, however, that the cabinet is simply a committee (Wrong) of the larger Privy Council. Moreover, only those specific individuals that have been appointed to the cabinet by the Governor General, on the advice of the prime ministers, may exercise the power associated with it (an expansive personal interpretation by author that is based on his abovenoted misunderstandings, but does have a shred of truth in the midst of it).


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Politics Blog Top Sites