Edu-Sante Research Inc.
January 17, 2017
My Freedom 2017 Power Shift, The End of Canadian Political Oppression
Fair warning to all International Trade Countries negotiating with Canada. “My Freedom 2017” has arrived! While the Canadian Government is getting ready to celebrate 150 years of Canadian Dictatorship rule, Canadians and Indigenous Nations launch “My Freedom 2017” marking the beginning of the end of Political governance oppression.
Canadians and Indigenous Nations initiate the launch of the myfreedom2017.com website and officially implement the eSigning of the Canadian Citizen’s Convention of Consent, legal eform that will serve as Canadian Convention of Consent Proxies, finally placing the People as being the official Final Decision Makers for Canada once majority of the signed agreements has been reached within the Provinces and Country, retroactive to the implementation of the 1931 Statute of Westminster.
Governance Research and Canadian Judicial Court precedence prove that Queen Elizabeth II, all of the Governor Generals, the Judicial System and all other Canadian Governance officials and Politicians are guilty of dictatorship, misrepresentation and of defrauding the Trade Countries, Canadians and the Indigenous Nations in Canada since 1931 and the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982. Other charges include, misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance. That is just a beginning.
Given what has transpired in Canada, Countries should be made aware that the Canadian governments for the most part had no jurisdiction to negotiate any trade deals concerning our natural resources or the use thereof. Given historical facts, Canada in all corporate aspects has been fraudulent in regards to the Indigenous Nations, Territories and Treaties and to the Canadian Citizens in regards to indigenous negotiations. The only ones who can remedy these facts are the Canadian Citizens and the Indigenous Nations themselves. Therefore, possibly rendering all previous International, National, and Provincial negotiations of all aspects treasonous by all levels of our governing bodies as early as the implementation of the British North America Act of 1867 since the Canadian People and the Indigenous Nations were conveniently continuously mislead to this very day of January 17th, 2017.
No Legal Fiduciary Obligations held by Police, Politicians, Judges and Governments to Citizens. No such Law exists in Public Law for Canadian Citizens (except for Indigenous peoples under sec 35 of the Constitution of Canada and to Veterans) in Canada or any Citizens in Commonwealth Countries such as New Zealand and Australia as well as with the USA. It only exists in Private law.
Here are just a few examples of what has been transpiring in Canada at the hands of our Governing and Judicial bodies against Canadians and Ontario Citizens. What do they tell Canadians in regards to their incompetence?
The answer: No recourse, if done in good faith.
- The Canadian Government and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), which do not represent the Indigenous Nations as most of the representatives under AFN are band Councils which are in fact Agents of the Crown and do not have authority to speak for the Indigenous Nations in Canada. They have further illegally negotiated land claims and International Trade Deals without the Indigenous Peoples consent.
- Canada and AFN, launched a huge ceremony in July of 2016, misleading the National and International Communities by going through the motions of signing onto a non dated agreement which states in the fine print that it is also nonbinding. This is fraud against everyone affected by misleading theatrics.
- Canada is the most sued Country in the world since the launch of NAFTA and worse since the launch of the international trade deals.
- Ontario Hydro One being sued for feed-in tariffs programs by international companies stating that they can’t compete. read more
- Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne while being investigated for the over charges of Hydro One public utility by the Ombudsman and the Ontario Auditor General, created new laws preventing both offices from being able to further investigate hydro one.
- Premier Kathleen Wynne, further gave authority to OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Systems) to now be in charge of Municipal Economic Development in Ontario communities which given their many other subsidiaries, also helps inflate the municipal employees pension funds at the cost to Ontario tax payers. She has also been invited worldwide to other countries wanting to her to help implement this fraud in their cities. see: NY, NY USA.
- Kathleen Wynne is also selling parts of hydro One and she is also implementing the Public Private Partnerships (3 P’s) along with the other Premiers across Canada and the Canadian Government which again, according to the Auditor General of Ontario is a huge waste of Ontario and Canadian tax payer money.
If Canadians and Indigenous Nations knew the whole truth, what else could we possibly uncover? But, given what we already have and know within Supreme Court precedence, we have more than enough for Canadians to lawfully make the required changes without having to beg anyone. Precedence within Federal and Provincial Laws, will provide all that Canadians need to launch our legal Proxies, Direct Democracy Rights which will give us, our much desired, final decision making authority as the true stakeholders and shareholders of the Crown Corporation of Canada
Canadians and Indigenous Nations as the UNOFFICIAL, official stakeholders and shareholders of the Crown and all of its Crown Corporations and contested un-ceded lands in Canada, needed to initiate a lawful activation of their proxies regarding Supreme Court precedence; as the official shareholders and to demand the right as shareholders their direct democratic rights to determine their governance and how they want their crown corporations to operate in order to end a 150 year dictatorship rule.
To do this, once the Proxy Conventions of Consent are signed by the majority of the people in the Provinces and territories, then both the Canadian Citizens and the Indigenous nations can move forward together in building a new Two Row Canadian Constitution 2017 given the Constitutional changes we need. Then, the only thing standing in the way of Canadians and Indigenous Nations to having Final Decision Making Authority is the much needed removal of the text, “the Queen in right of Canada” and “the Queen in right of the Provinces” in exchange for “the People in right of Canada” and “the People in right of the Provinces” as it should have been done in 1931 or at least in 1982.
To achieve this, the removal of the Queen in right of Canada and the provinces will revoke any needs to a referendum as it should be an automatic right as the official stakeholders and shareholders of Canada and all it encompasses since 1931 and again in 1982 notwithstanding the fact that People have never had referendum to determine that the Queen could represent us or that we agreed to such a political party electoral system of governance.
As it presently stands, the citizens can only get referendums when the Premiers and the Prime Minister agree to allow us referendums and the questions can only be determined and structured under their approval, not ours.
Until the Canadian Citizens and the Indigenous Nations secure their proxies, all previous trade deals and negotiations of all aspects should by all rights, be null and void and revert to the exclusive authority of the Canadian Citizens and the Indigenous Nations together to determine and negotiate especially in regards to International Corporate Laws and International Trade Deals.
Canadians were told in 1982, that they could now amend their Constitution. This statement made by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau is only an illusion since Canadians have little to no recourse to enforce any Constitutional changes let alone, launch referendums without having to jump through hoops or beg even to instill something as simple as “recall” in regards to elected members removal from office. Thus far we know of only BC, to have “recall” however, it is only for individual representatives and you have to wait 18 months before filing the request and do too much to make it worthwhile. Given the red tape agenda, to discourage, one may as well wait for the next election.
Corporate power manipulation of the justice system and sovereignty courtesy of P.E. Trudeau
Adding insult to injury, the addition of the charter of rights was also when P.E Trudeau and his globalization cohorts saw an opportunity to instill the Corporation’s status as having the same rights as “person” in Canadian law, which in most likelihood would never had been passed if Canadians had the choice to a referendum in its regard. Canada was also very instrumental in launching the World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act as we were the first country in the world to do so.
Furthermore, the United Nations documentation states that Canada has long been decolonized. This originally happened with the Statute of Westminster in 1931 unbeknownst to most of the Indigenous Nations and Canadians until 1982. So why would the now, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau state that: his government will lead a wide review of all federal laws and policies to “decolonize” Canada and its relations with First Nations, without reigniting the constitutional squabbles of the past.” unless he is afraid of letting the truth out of the bag.
The truth is that Canadians and Indigenous Nations and all other Commonwealth Nations at the time, have been under an official “coup d’état” since the Imperial Conferences of 1926. This has created Canada’s De Facto Governance system because Canadians have not created a new constitution reflecting the changes to officially take place on the 11th of December 1931 through the Statutes of Westminster. Therefore, the BNA Act 1867 remained in use and the British Parliament would intervene if asked by the Canadian legislatures.
Why did our politicians refuse to create a new constitution? In a nutshell, our research indicates that what our politicians at that time have done, was to simply make various changes to the obligations of the Governor General et al. and switch themselves to become the same as the British Parliament and to avoid constitutional changes until they knew how to do it in a manner as to remain in complete control.
Adding to the confusion the fact that with the “coup d’état” performed by most of the colonial countries, the Imperial Crown Sovereign (Elizabeth II , also Queen of Canada – never proclaimed Queen of Canada by the People) became the head of the newly created Commonwealth of Nations. Again, changes were seamlessly made so as to not evoke awakening by the People and the Indigenous Nations in these countries. However, this would have allowed the People (citizens) and Indigenous Nations the ability to renegotiate the Treaties.
This dictatorship reasoning, indicates that it is why it has taken so long to see Constitutional changes to the British North America Act of 1867 or the lack of referendums and why they have maintained the control over the representative political party electoral system, referendums and created laws that made certain that the People and the Indigenous Nations couldn’t overrule and to further deny Canadians the right to hold them accountable to fiduciary duty given the management of our governance, human, financial and natural resources. So it is no surprise that Justin Trudeau or the Courts will not want to open constitutional debates or let alone offer Canadians anything other than their delusional false version of representative democracy such as proportional representation.
And thus, the dictatorship continues even if we were officially decolonized and Canada became an independent Nation unless we find a remedy for our dictatorship governance.
Canada like many of the Commonwealth Nations is viewed by the United Nations and the rest of the world as having Democracy. This could not be further from the truth as it depends on what definition and context being utilized to determine what the word “democracy” is being referred to.
A pure and true democracy is determined by the rule of the People. This does not truly exist in Canada nor most Countries or even in Switzerland. This statement is made true by the mere fact that when a small group of People or governing bodies have VETO powers over the People, that is not TRUE democracy.
The same could be said for the United Nations Governance when the 5 Veto powered Security Council Countries like; the USA, China, Russia, France and the UK can veto the rest of the world it’s a game changer that forces everyone to realise that, even the United Nations is far from democratic even though they portray themselves to be.
This little known fact begs the question: If you were the main leader in creating the United Nations as did the USA and paid the biggest share to the United Nations out of all the Countries in the world, would you give VETO power to 4 other Countries the power to veto your Country and it’s decisions? This reality would only make common sense, when you already control these Countries.
Like Canada and all other Countries, it is the People in all Countries that need to have VETO power over the legislations determined and brought forth under International Law and not by unelected chosen committees who presently determine International Laws. These committee drafted laws are superseding our own governing structures and overriding our rights. They further participate in the controlling of natural resources and business dealings within our own Country such as being done through the International Trade Deals within the UN and the World Trade Organization with the infiltration and the further dictatorship rule of UN Global Corporate Governance.
Given all of this, what can Canadians and Indigenous Nations do to ensure the protection of our Country and our People? Do Canadians and indigenous Nations even have a remedy?
Yes, Canadians and indigenous Nations have a remedy. The answer is simple and not that complex . The remedy is Education and by officially eSigning an online legally binding Citizen’s Convention of Consent to Political Decolonization, self-determination and self-governance document which can be found on www.myfreedom2017.com and other various partner websites.
We will also explain how, we can keep all of our administrators and even governments in place as long as they do not have VETO rights over the People and our governance. We will also have to reinstate the bank of Canada to its original mandate of creating our own currency to supply our infrastructures as we used to do and other things we may financially need.
We will further explain how Vaughan Lyons and others have created methodologies for us to instill a collaborative, liquid, direct democracy for community constituency parliaments which is a bottom up approach to our existing governance. Nothing needs to be drastic, the main issue is for all peoples of Canada to be able to take control of their proxies and final decision making authority. There is no reason for our day to day operations within our Governance to not proceed while we move forward with our required changes.
Due to Supreme and federal Court precedence, Canadians have taken the initiative in signing the Convention of Consent document since our politicians will not do it for us. 150 year Canadian history proves that in itself. Therefore, doing this was our only viable option as Canadians and Indigenous Nations as being the official stakeholders and shareholders. It was time for all of us to formally determine and assert what we want. The removal of the Queen and Governor General in right of Canada and the Provinces and our politicians are the only things standing between us and our official proxies and we are now, lawfully doing so.
Educating Canadians and Indigenous Nations as to what has transpired in Canada since 1867 and as to how we can all strive to remedy our situation should be our utmost priority if we are to create change not only for Canada but also help other Countries to do the same in lifting the veils of deception layered in illusions like cancerous skins over top one another. With proper education, Canadians and the Indigenous Nations would end 150 years of dictatorship rule and stop Globalization from superseding our own laws such as being done under Agenda 21, COP 21, the UNPAN to name a few amongst others.
The lifting of these veils begin with our Canadian and North American history and governance. Canada is referred to having a democracy through majority rule. This is an illusion accepted by Canadians and most People worldwide. Truth be known, the 2015 elections did not bring the Liberal Government a win through majority rule. No matter how we look at majority rule and its meaning, the Liberal party won the election with only 39.5 % of the vote, like many governments before that.
A true and pure democracy is when every voice and opinion counts and the People reach a 100% consensus since all opinions matter. Voting in an electoral political party system is not a democracy. It is only an illusion of one. An illusion which has been made to confuse the People into thinking that they have a democracy when they do not.
Misleading Democracy definition: The very concept of representative government and representative democracy signifies government by the People through their representatives. Translated into constitutional terms, it denotes that the sovereign power which resides in the People is exercised on their behalf by their representatives.
The above statement is misleading since representatives do not carry your opinions on matters to their assemblies. It is not the way the political party system works. It is only an illusion.
Voting in an electoral political party system who’s parties have their own mandates, often go against the original mandates of parliaments and governing institutions thus, often creating a “Political party control over the exercise of the parliamentary mandate”. Voting in this system of electoral governance only serves to give away the power of the People to a political party who cannot even carry the Peoples voices since votes are cast based on political party mandates.
If Canadians and Indigenous Nations were not under a dictatorship rule then Canada also being a Corporate entity as the Crown Corporation of Canada according to the Patriation of 1982, this statement that our government promotes would be true and not just an illusion.
on April 17, 1982, the Queen promulgated the Constitution Act, 1982, which includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, recognition of the rights of Aboriginal Peoples, the multicultural character of Canadian society, and patriation of the constitutional amending powers previously reserved to the British Parliament. Patriation reaffirmed the primacy of the rule of law and the sovereignty of the Canadian People over this country’s institutions and constitution. Read more:
Reality: If Canadians were placed above the Institutions (Governance and Parliament) and the Constitution within the 1982 patriation, why do we call it an illusion? If the statement was true, then Canadian Citizens and the Indigenous Nations would have control over their governance and the type of system they want. They could control their finances and resources and have final decision making authority in all decisions. They would further have an official proxy as official stakeholders and shareholders. Taxation would then become dividends instead of a burden.
What most Canadian citizens do not understand is that when we vote for a political party or even a Mayor and Councillors for that matter, we are giving away our proxy rights in final decision making authority in exchange for a political party dictatorship style of governance. Most Canadians do not even have a clear understanding of who or what the Crown is in Canada due to the double speak methodologies and brainwashing mechanisms used to hide the governing bodies dictatorship measures.
To be specific, this is what the government states about the Queen and Canada:
Queen: As a constitutional monarch, The Queen no longer “rules” the country. However, as Canada’s Head of State, she remains a fundamental part of Canada’s system of government and our sense of identity.
The Queen’s role
As the living embodiment of the Crown, Her Majesty unites Canadians gives a collective sense of belonging to our country and anchors our sense of national identity and pride.
New Canadians swear allegiance to The Queen, so do Members of Parliament and the Legislatures, military and police officers.
We do not swear allegiance to a piece of cloth (office), a document (a constitution) or a political entity. Rather we swear allegiance to a person who embodies all these as well as our collective values as a People. (
Canada (the CROWN)
In Canada’s system of government, the power to govern is vested in the Crown but is entrusted to the government to exercise on behalf and in the interest of the People. The Crown reminds the government of the day that the source of the power to govern rests elsewhere and that it is only given to them for a limited duration.
First of all, the Queen (Victoria nor Elizabeth II) were never proclaimed the Queen of Canada by the People (fraudulent as of 1931 and 1982) if the Queen no longer rules, but the Governor General and lieutenant Governors rule for her; how do they rule for her in right of Canada and the Provinces?
To better understand; the Queen and her representatives wear 3 hats so to speak:
- As the Sovereign and sole shareholder for us by representing 35 million plus citizens. (she does not own the Crown which is Canada.
- She and through her Governors represent the head of Military/ Commonwealth of Nations.
- Her sole sovereign being.
If these statements made by the Canadian Government were clearer and true, instead of luring to assumptions and presumptions, then the government’s statements in regards to our country being a free Country and that Canadians can amend their constitution by their will more easily. However, the Governments have created hoops that make it too hard for the People to achieve, then, it is without a shadow of a doubt that it becomes an obvious illusion and a product of dictatorship brainwashing mechanisms.
Especially when the research indicates that Canadians have no true recourse to fiduciary obligations by any sector of Canadian Governance, Judiciary or from the Queen or the Governor General and Lieutenant governors in right of Canada or the Provinces or Governors in Council, Board of Directors, Police, RCMP, Military, etc. under Public Law. Fiduciary duty only exists within Private Law.
Our research came to finalization once we were assured that we could not find anything in Canadian law that offered true recourse for Canadian citizens to protect themselves against political and legal tyranny within governance. This was further acknowledged through many legal scholars, legal advisors, lawyers and judges worldwide, whom have been debating the issue of ” lack of fiduciary responsibility in Public Law” for not just Canada but for many other countries as well.
The Proof of Dictatorship in Canada is to be found in the fact that Fiduciary duty liability is nonexistent in Canadian Public Law and that most Canadians confuse it with Private Law and codes of ethics set up by self-regulating governing bodies, Crown Corporations and Public Services.
Deceitful, purposeful confusion maintained by all levels of Government and Courts simply by the non removal and the obvious refusal of the Canadian Government and Courts to change the constitutional texts, to reflect all Constitutional changes of 1982 and 1931 such as Canadians being above the Institutions and the Constitution which means that we are the true stakeholders and shareholders of the Canadian Crown and Crown Corporations.
See more comments on the lack of Fiduciary Duty liability in Canadian Public Law
1. Fiduciary Duty and Members of Parliament
To the Crown
Canada’s status as a constitutional monarchy is evident in the oath of office sworn by members of parliament at the beginning of every term. As the Queen is the Head of State, parliamentary actions are carried out in her name. However, as Eugene Forsey points out, the authority for those actions flows from the citizens – the constituents – as we will discuss shortly. The oath, contained in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, requires that the member “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to the Sovereign, and was implemented in order to guarantee the supremacy of the British Sovereign over anything else.10 The oath of office is a formal, and essentially mandatory, manifestation of an obligation central to our system of government: the obligation to be faithful to the Sovereign. The presence of the Sovereign in the oath does not mean that loyalty is required to the Queen personally, but rather serves to evoke the Queen as “the symbol of personification of the country, its constitution and traditions, including concepts such as democracy.” As James Robertson writes, elected members are assuming positions of public trust and with the oath of office they promise to conduct themselves “patriotically, and in the best interests of the country.11”
This oath is clearly central to Canada’s political status as a constitutional monarchy. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the workings of the oath also emphasize the importance of the citizenry. As Robertson writes, Beauchesne’s Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada states that the object of the oath is to allow members to take their seat in the House12. However, in order to take the oath an individual must first be duly elected. It can therefore be argued that it is not the oath itself which bestows on an individual the role of “member of parliament”; rather the oath is what makes it possible for members, after a popular election, to adequately fulfill their duties. After all, without the oath members are not able to sit in the House and are therefore not able to participate in Parliament. The oath is a requisite and logical part of the undertaking of a member of parliament, and the allegiance to the Queen therefore an essential part of the job. But it must be noted that without the oath the elected individual is still considered a representative of his or her constituents. Read more:
2. Important article in regards to the oath pledging allegiance to the Queen:
New Canadian renounces oath to the Queen, pledges ‘true’ loyalty only to Canada.
Dror Bar-Natan has also set up website to allow other new Canadians to follow suit.
By Diana Mehta, The Canadian Press Posted: Nov 30, 2015 7:26 AM ET
Bar-Natan was one of three long-time permanent residents who challenged the constitutionality of making citizenship conditional on the pledge to the Queen, her heirs and successors.
In upholding the requirement, Ontario’s top court said the Queen remains Canada’s head of state and the oath was a “symbolic commitment to be governed as a democratic constitutional monarchy unless and until democratically changed.”
The court also found, however, that all citizens have the right to espouse anti-monarchist views and new Canadians could publicly disavow what they consider to be the message conveyed by the oath. see full article here: Read more:
What this article does, is to indicate that until we democratically change our oaths, etc., the courts and the governments have to implement procedures just as though we were still under these rules and regulations since none have been technically constitutionally changed. Lawfully and morally, the oath should be in reality made to the people and not the Queen.
Lack of Liability
3. The State as Fiduciary and the Rule of Law
18 Nov, 2011
The prevailing view in Canada is that the fiduciary principle can have no general application to public law because such an application is inconsistent with the content of the duty of loyalty. There is an obvious tension between imposing rigorous and sometimes costly procedural safeguards, on the one hand, and concerns of administrative efficiency on the other. In some cases the affected individual’s interest is bound to conflict with the interest of the general public. From the standpoint of fiduciary doctrine, it is not immediately apparent that the state can be a loyal fiduciary of both the individual and the general public, because the duties owed to each may conflict. Read more:
Another great debate is found here:
4. Keeping the Promise of Public Fiduciary Theory: A Reply to Leib and Galoob
Evan J. Criddle & Evan Fox-Decent
26 OCT 2016
For centuries, prominent jurists and political theorists have looked to private fiduciary relationships such as trusteeship, agency, and guardianship to explain and justify the authority of public officials and public institutions. This tradition has attracted increasing interest over the past decade, as legal scholars have used fiduciary concepts to elucidate important features of public law, from the nature and design of constitutional government,2 to the legal obligations that attend public offices such as judge and legislator. We have contributed to this revival of public fiduciary theory by showing that fiduciary principles can explain and justify the structure and content of administrative law4 and international law.5 The great promise of public fiduciary theory, we have argued, lies in its powerful “criterion of legitimacy,” which links the legal authority of public officers and institutions to the principle that “state action must always be interpretable as action taken in the name of or on behalf of every agent subject to the state’s power.” Read more: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/keeping-the-promise-of-public-fiduciary-theory-a-reply-to-leib-and-galoob
No fiduciary responsibility or liability for the Bank of Canada to the Citizens.
Bank of Canada ACT – No liability if in good faith
30.1 – No action lies against Her Majesty, the Minister, any officer, employee or director of the Bank or any person acting under the direction of the Governor for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any powers or duties that under this Act are intended or authorized to be executed or performed.
The best example of the deliberate creation of laws that protect the politicians and those running Canadian Crown Corporations and assets is the “Comer vs. Bank of Canada” federal court case.
According to the rule of law and precedence, it makes me wonder why the lawyer filed the case with Comer when all lawyers know upon graduation and going to the Bar, that a court case cannot proceed unless the applicants are a person or a corporation and NOT an unregistered entity (group) with no legal standing.
Given this knowledge, this next question needs to be asked: why did the Federal courts keep up the charade for almost 5 yrs. since the judges are fully aware of this rule of law in regards to the legal right for filing? Did they not just waste everyone’s time and money on this technicality? How many times have the courts costs been incurred by Canadians on cases of mischief by the courts as obvious as this one?
If anything this court case proves that it was an illusion all along, a false hope only to be struck down in the end.
 COMER, as an unincorporated association, cannot benefit from the protection provided for the electoral rights of citizens provided by s 3 of the Charter. While this protection could apply to the two individual Plaintiffs, provided they are Canadian citizens, neither has plead such a cause of action. The Amended Claim makes no suggestion that the Plaintiffs’ access to “meaningful participation” in the electoral process – what the Supreme Court has determined is protected by s 3 – has been in any way affected: Figueroa v Canada (Attorney General), 
1 SCR 912 at para 27.
 The Plaintiffs have asked the Court to consider, as an alternative form of relief, that they be allowed to proceed on the declaratory relief in their Amended Claim, with leave to amend any struck portions with respect to the damages portion of the claim.
 As set out above, I do not think that, even for the declaratory relief sought, that the Plaintiffs have been able to raise their claim above a mere request for an advisory opinion. In addition, as further explained above, given that the Plaintiffs have not been able to rectify the fundamental issues I pointed out in my Order of April 24, 2014, and have not suggested any way in which they could be rectified, I see no point in allowing an amendment. Having previously permitted the Plaintiffs such an opportunity, their response convinces me that, for reasons given, they have no scintilla of a cause of action that this Court can or should hear. Without having any real legal interest at stake, the Plaintiffs remain a think tank seeking to have the Court endorse their political and academic viewpoint. Amendments are not going to change this.
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The Plaintiffs’ latest Amended Claim is struck in its entirety;
2. Leave to amend is refused;
3. Costs are awarded to the Defendants.
See Court decision here: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc cf/decisions/en/142581/1/document.do
Even with all of this within our present governance system, there is still hope.
The good news is that at least, Fiduciary duty is owed to the Indigenous Nations by our governing bodies. However, Canadians will need to enforce major changes since our research indicates that given the history of Canadian politics within the judicial and governance systems , that the Politicians and Courts will not give us control of our country and of our future. If they truly worked for the People they could have rectified it many times over since 1931 and in 1982.
Canadian Governance, treasonous complicity
The Federal and Provincial legislatures have created laws that prevent Canadians at every level of governance to be able to make their own decisions. Constitutional changes, referendums or plebiscites, can only be called upon by the Provincial or Federal Government.
PART V PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA (101) General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada 38.
- An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces. Read more
Although the Canadian Governments overtime, have made the arguments to justify their refusal for allowing a true direct democracy to exist in Canada, it was always due to the size of the Canadian population in order to maintain their dictatorship control over the People and resources.
More proof of their wanting to retain control and justification for their political party system alive, is in the Liberal government’s online survey on electoral reform and more evidence of that could be found during their consultation process. Not once, did they even entertain the notion of offering Direct Democracy as a choice or allow the People to add other types of Democracy within the survey through open ended questions.
With the introduction of new technologies and methodologies , a true Direct Democracy Governance system is extremely feasible and highly achievable. It all begins with education and a bottom up “power shift“ approach within each Community, Provincial and Federal levels of Governance.