|
|
KATHLEEN MOORE v. ELIZABETH WINDSOR
GROUNDS
ANNEXATION BY SECESSION:
The forced annexation of Canada to the United
States and Mexico to form a continental union under a
new form of government is being made possible by a
decades-long scam at all levels of government to
dissolve the Constitution of Canada by pulling Québec
out.
As all our Prime Ministers and their complicit
law firms know, secession is illegal in Canada, and
always has been.
Moreover, Parliament is the form of government
chosen by the Founders of Canada precisely because, by
its very nature, Parliament prevents and prohibits
secession. Parliament is one. There is no such
thing as a separatist in Parliament or in a Provincial
Legislature when government is lawfully constituted in
Canada.
Government has not been lawfully constituted in
Canada for some time.
These legal proceedings in HABEAS CORPUS will
make and prove these points before a competent court,
and assert them in a way that permanently enjoins any
measures at secession of a Province, and at
continental union.
KATHLEEN MOORE.
Annexation of
Canada - Critical Links :
THE
PLAN : Goodbye, Canada and
Goodbye, Québec !
Building a North American
Community (BANC) is the published
portion of the blueprint to annex Canada to the
USA and Mexico by the year 2010. The
annexation is underway now, being implemented by a
series of confidential working groups. You will
recognize names like Anne MacLellan,
John P. Manley, Pierre-Marc Johnson
— the latter being a former "separatist" Premier
of Québec.
|
|
CNN : NO
BOUNDARIES!
DOWNLOAD
REALPLAYER
|
Click here to
watch a streaming news extract from CNN
entitled "NO
BOUNDARIES".
Here is a CNN text transcript of that
broadcast. Scroll down about mid-way for the text
of this segment. It starts with the words "DOBBS:
Border security is arguably the critical
issue". |
|
The
continent
backwards:
Welcome to
Mexicanada!
Under continental union, the
populations of Mexico and the United States will
have full mobility rights in Quebec and Canada.
The border will be gone.
Quebec will be the
main destination for Mexicans for two reasons.
First, because Spanish is very similar to French,
thus aiding in their re-settlement. Second,
because the two ends of the urban corridor of
NAFTA bring Montréal, Canada to within a single
day’s journey by highway from Mexico. This
corridor passes through the industrial stronghold
of Canada and its largest market. In addition, a
NAFTA super-corridor called NASCO (being built now)
will add a highway four football fields wide
linking Mexico with
Canada.
|
Montreal will therefore be the
preferred entry point into Quebec for Mexicans. Do
you remember the film, "Titanic"? Well, go fetch
the orchestra: because not only Canada, but French
Canada, will vanish under the inrushing tide when
there are "NO MORE BOUNDARIES".
POPULATION STATS
2006:
United States: 320,000,000
Mexico:
107,000,000
Canada:
31,600,000
Quebec:
7,546,131
Montreal:
1,620,693
French Canada:
10,000,000
|
Spanish:
the
official
third language
of
Québec
Since
at least 2002, the Quebec Government has been
offering a Spanish version of its
official
Web-site.
Not one of the
numerous linguistic communities living in Quebec
for generations has had the honour of having its
language recognized as a
third "official
language".
So, why Spanish,
and
why now?
Here's a guess: if in
fact
it is not secession but annexation
that our "separatist" parties have been aiming
at—then the "constitutionalization" of
Spanish by the Government of Quebec as a
third official language must mean that continental
union is well underway.
It must also mean
that
the divisive French-only language "war"
mounted for the past three decades was largely a
political pretext to empty the "NO" vote out of
Quebec while consolidating a "YES", because
annexation cannot be completed without secession.
Should we recall that NAFTA's Brian Mulroney gave
us Lucien Bouchard, who gave us the 1995
Referendum and 86,000 spoiled "NO" ballots never
accounted for at law.
|
Remember that the plan for the
annexation of Canada to the United States and
Mexico entitled "Building a North American
Community" entails the removal of the
Canada/US border and full mobility for citizens of
the United States and Mexico up here, north of our
49th parallel.
Click here to visit the
Spanish-language version of the official
web site of the Government of
Québec.
Click here to visit the Spanish-language version of
the Quebec Provincial Library web site, which
now offers not a mere "Declaration of services to
citizens," but a "Declaración de Servicio a los
Ciudadanos". Do we have "Ciudadanos" in Canada?
No, we do not. We have Canadians, we have
canadien(ne)s, we have citizens and
citoyen(ne)s, but we do not have
"Ciudadanos," any more than "tacos" is a
national dish of Canada. Are the "Ciudadanos" a
founding people of Canada? No, not at
all. Therefore, this is all part of the
hijacking of Canada by the North American Union
junta.
We need an
immediate moratorium on Spanish-speaking
immigration before the Canadian identity and
Constitution are damaged beyond recognition by
this "stealth" Mexican invasion.
Click
here to read section 133 of the
Constitution of Canada, a section the Courts have
interpreted very strictly since 1867 to
protect the French and English languages in
Canada.
|
A
New
Parliament
Is
Born !
Here are the opening
words of the Press Release of 23 May 2005
grandly entitled: "A North American Parliament
is Born".
 The first North American
parliament will be held at the Canadian Senate on the
initiative of the North American Forum on
Integration (NAFI). Seventy university students
from Canada, the United States and Mexico will
take the political front seat and simulate a North
American Parliament, which does not yet exist.
From May 23 to 27, participants will recreate the
intense atmosphere of negotiations proper to
parliaments as legislators of a federal or
federate State. 
By "federal state," they
don't mean the federated States of the American
Union, or the federated Provinces of Canada.
Canada, as the federal government of the
provinces, will no longer be needed once its
imperial powers
"NAFI" is based in Montreal. You
might like to drop in and visit your new model
government:
NORTH AMERICAN FORUM ON
INTEGRATION SECRETARIAT
209, rue
Sainte-Catherine Est Bureau V-3110
Montréal
(Québec)
Canada H2X 1L2
Tél :
514-987-3142
Fax : 514-987-0347
INFO@FINA-NAFI.ORG
"Triumvirate," the 2008 model parliament for North America is being hosted at Montreal City Hall, thus placing current Mayor, Gérald Tremblay, squarely
in the camp of the annexationists. |
are
given to the new North American Parliament. Canada
as we know it will therefore cease to exist. It
will be reduced to parts, which will be
re-federated under the new central Parliament and
Government of the North American Union. As for
Quebec, it won't retain any of its new "imperial"
powers in the event of secession because,
obviously, the "separatists" intend to re-federate
Quebec in the North American Union. All told, the
Clarity Act was designed to "release"
all the provinces, not just
Quebec.
I think we now know why the 1980
referendum question was so "unclear". They were
not aiming for the independence of Quebec, they
were trying to plant the "European Union" in
embryo on this continent.
P.S. Prime
Minister Jean Chrétien's nephew, Raymond Chrétien, is the
Honorary President of the new model Parliament
which they had the gall to dry-run in the Canadian
Senate! So much for the Unity Fund and
"Plan B". Raymond Chretien's credentials
at his law firm's web site state that he is a
"Member of the Trilateral Commission".
|
South American Union
signed 23 May 2008 !
CANADA, USA AND MEXICO ARE NEXT !
WILL CREATE A
CONTINENTAL PARLIAMENT
CBS News: "South American Leaders Form Regional Union"
BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) - A new South American union was born Friday as leaders of the region's 12 nations set out to create a continental parliament.
Some see the new Union of South American Nations, known as Unasur, as a regional version of the European Union. Summit host Brazil wants it to help coordinate defense affairs across South America, and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez calls it a counterweight to the United States.
HCC: The official propaganda sets up South American Union as a foil to US aggression. This is a cover for the fact that the European Union is spreading world-wide, with intent to engulf all sovereign nations.
These "continental parliaments" will eventually be merged to form a one-world government.
This is the planned end of Canada, of the United States, and of all self-ruling nations.
These advances toward a global merger are not happening by accident. They are not the natural progression of affairs. They are not democratic in character.
They are being driven by supranational forces behind organized business. If they reach their goal, self-government everywhere will cease to exist.
|
There shall be
ONE PARLIAMENT
for Canada
Part IV, Article 17, Constitution Act, 1867
A few words from the Constitution of Canada will suffice in a competent Court to terminate the bogus model parliament for North America and consign its organizers on Montreal soil to jail for high treason.
The Canadian Constitution was called the British North America Act, 1867 and was re-named the Constitution Act, 1867 in 1982. In Part IV, entitled Legislative power, we have Article 17 under the subtitle "Constitution of Parliament of Canada". The text of Article 17 reads as follows:
17. There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.
The word "One" was employed for a reason: it doesn't mean "two". Moreover, Article 17 both establishes and defines Parliament. It limits the exercise of the "Powers of the Parliament" to the Queen, the House of Commons and the Senate acting as the One Legislative Authority for Canada. The legislative powers of the nation of Canada are found at Section 91, which reads, in part, as follows:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada [...]
The language of Article 17 is construed as follows: "shall" in statutory interpretation is "imperative", meaning it's a command. The provision subject of this command is compulsory. In other words, it is mandatory that there be ONE and only ONE Parliament for Canada.
The command effectively prohibits as expressly illegal, any other structural unit, internal or external to Canada, and of any composition other than "Queen, Commons and Senate" from usurping or exercising the powers of a Government, Cabinet, Privy Council and "Parliament" for Canada.
There is "ONE" Parliament for Canada because Canada is legally ONE. Article 3 of the British North America Act, 1867 established and defined Canada as ONE inseverable nation. Section 3 transformed the founding colonies, which had been separate, into ONE at the Union. Being thus formed into ONE, they are inseverable from one another and from the UNION:
II. UNION
Declaration of Union
3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.
That is the legal nature and character of Canada. Its nature is that it is ONE indestructible Union, designed to be a permanent, self-governing nation. Whenever the name Canada is used, the legal definition is invoked. "Canada" means the "UNION". At law, it is a contradiction to say the "Rest of Canada". The "Rest" of Canada has no Constitutional status, no Constitiutional rights, and no powers.
Only after the founding colonies were formed into ONE, were administrative boundaries drawn onto the map of Canada, creating the first four Provinces of the ONE nation. "Province" in the dictionary is defined as "The territory occupied by one of the constituent administrative districts of a nation". Canada is not merely federal; Canada is ONE legislative nation with federal subdivisions for provincial local purposes.
A Province or district could not use its provincial (local) amending power to convert its Legislature into a competing "Parliament" vying with the "One Parliament for Canada" for equal or similar powers to govern on Canadian territory.
By the way, there is such a statute, and it needs to be judicially nullified. It was "enacted" in Quebec on Trudeau's watch at about the same time he was co-signing the patriation with Elizabeth IInd. For, a provincial "Parliament" of a fledgling independent State forming inside Canada's national boundaries, would be a Foreign Power, incompatible with the Constitution of Canada. If not disallowed, it would destroy the nation established, defined and named "Canada" at law by the Constitution Act, 1867.
Relevant case law on the subject includes Re the Initiative and Referendum Act, [1919] A.C. 935 cited with approval by Mr. Justice Beetz at paragraph 110 of Ontario (Attorney General) v. OPSEU, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 2, as follows:
"Viscount Haldane, who delivered the reasons of the Judicial Committee, accordingly pronounced a deliberate and import- ant obiter at p. 945, reading as follows:No doubt a body, with a power of legislation on the subjects entrusted to it so ample as that enjoyed by a Provincial Legislature in Canada, could, while preserving its own capacity intact, seek the assistance of subordinate agencies [...] but it does not follow that it can create and endow with its own capacity a new legislative power not created by the Act to which it owes its own existence."
In other words, the Constitution created the Province as a Province; the Province did not create the Constitution, and therefore has no powers other than those conferred upon it by the Constitution for purely local provincial purposes.
This is one reason why we have a federal power of disallowance at Articles 56 and 90 of the Constitution: to ensure that structures do not arise in the Provinces which threaten the unity of Canada. Any law enacted by a provincial Legislature which purports to convert that Legislature into an illegal Second Parliament on Canadian territory, would be an attempt by the Province to exercise amendment outside its local sphere to restructure the federal level of Canada. Such a law would be void and invalid, and if not properly disallowed, would be judicially nullified by a competent Court seized of the question.
To make this clearer, Article 71 of the Constitution prescribes, also in compulsory language: "There shall be a Legislature for Quebec". While the style of governance at both the federal and provincial levels is "parliamentary", and while the provincial Legislatures in shorthand have some- times been called "provincial parliaments", legally, they are Legislatures, which differentiates them from the central national One Parliament of Canada.
Bogus "NAFI" Parliament:
Not only internal structures, but AN OUTSIDE FOREIGN STRUCTURE purporting, for example, to run "model parliaments" for North America, intent upon setting up a new level of government above the Provinces, and/or above Canada, would be a treasonous and illegal challenge to the Constitutional "One Parliament" of Canada.
The North American Forum on Integration (NAFI), which recently moved to offices at the Université de Montréal, has been running these bogus parliaments for North America in the Canadian Senate, in the Mexican Senate, at American University, and in 2008, is foisting another one on us in the municipal legislature at Montreal City Hall. This is a coup d'etat openly in planning, which is, of course, brilliant: perpetrate the most heinous acts of treason publicly, and pretend they're legal. That should fool almost everyone.
And when I say treason, I want to make clear what that means. It means treason against the people, because Parliament is the people of the nation in their political capacity. These bogus NAFI parliaments, concurred in by those detaining the federal, provincial and municipal levels, are a criminal act of assault upon the Crown of Canada, and a blatant contempt of the Constitutional right to vote, to run for office, and to be governed by those we elect, and by no others inside or outside of Canada.
|
|
The 1995 Referendum to Secede
was not
about Quebec Sovereignty and Independence:
It was to
bring in the European
Union
1995 - THE PLAN :
Joint
political institutions
European-Union
style:
In 1995, upon
the attainment
of a majority "Yes" vote to full
sovereignty and independence for Quebec, Jacques
Parizeau intended to offer Canada a new partnership under treaty.
Parizeau's Bill 1,
|
entitled An Act respecting the future of
Quebec, set out the general terms of that
treaty. The offer to Canada of an economic and political
partnership was to be based upon the three-party
agreement of 12 June 1995 among three political
parties: the Parti Québécois, the Bloc
Québécois and the Action démocratique du
Québec. The three-party agreement called for a
customs union, free movement of goods,
free movement of individuals, free movement of
services, free movement of capital, common
monetary policy, labour mobility and
citizenship.
|
Lastly, the offer was
to include
the
creation by treaty
of joint political
institutions needed for administering the partnership,
specifically the
creation of
a council, a
secretariat, an assembly and a
tribunal for resolving disputes.
|
Those treaty
terms and those political institutions are not original
to Parizeau and his fellow separatist pretenders. They
are all to be found in a 1957 document entitled The Treaty of Rome, also called
The Treaty Establishing the European
Economic Community. They are also to be found in
"Building A North American Community," the next
stage after NAFTA for terminating Canada by merging it
into the USA and Mexico under a "North American Union".
This — combined with the model parliament for North
America with planning offices in Montreal — is
the basis in North America for European-Union
institutions.
|
|
Lest we forget: "Mr. Parizeau indicated that he
is willing to entertain all ideas, including the PAD's
[the Parti Action démocratique] proposal for a
common parliament similar to that of the European
Union." The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Apr 28,
1995. pg. A.8. ProQuest document ID: 1119563611.
Not only was the idea of a European-Union-style parliament "entertained" by the obliging Mr. Parizeau, it was implemented in the Tripartite Agreement of 12 June 1995, and would have been carried out following a YES vote to "secede". You can click on that link to read the Tripartite Agreement, which says, if you scroll down to "Joint Institutions," "(2) The Parliamentary Assembly": "A Partnership Parliamentary Assembly, made up of Québec and Canadian Members appointed by their respective Legislative Assemblies, will be created." This is North American Union, NOT the "secession of Quebec". This is the "associate state" status that René Lévesque had been pursuing, along with Trudeau and other pretenders, since the 1960's, as you will read further below.
Also see an article by Anne McIlroy, entitled As the referendum campaign begins in earnest..., which reads in part: "The June 12 agreement cemented the alliance of Parizeau, Bloc Québécois Leader Lucien Bouchard and Mario Dumont of Action Démocratique. It says Quebec will make an offer to Canada -- both for an economic union and a joint Parliament -- before it declares independence." ProQuest document ID: 329411971. In other words, 'destroy Canada voluntarily, or we'll destroy it for you.'
And now, an amusing anecdote: on 11 July 1995, La Presse broke the infamous "lobster" story. In a private meeting with 15 ambassadors, Jacques Parizeau said that with a YES in the approaching referendum, Quebecers would be "like lobsters thrown in boiling water" ("comme des homards dans l'eau bouillante"). And who were those ambassadors? Every single one from member states of the European Union. See 11-12-14 July 1995, all on p. A1, by Chantal Hébert; Eureka database, News Document Numbers 19950711·LA·003; 19950712·LA·002; and 19950714·LA·004.
The "Distinct Society" Scam
was
not about Quebec's
"distinctness":
It was to
bring in the European
Union
— The 1992 Charlottetown
"Discord" —
THE
PLAN :
Pretend that Canada
is
not a Confederation
of distinct
societies:
In
1867, a federal union of the British North
American colonies into Provinces was chosen over a
legislative union (meaning a single country with
no provinces) not merely to "recognize" but to
constitutionalize—meaning to make permanent
basic law—the distinctness of French
Canadians... and of each and every one of
the four founding colonies, and of the
future colonies to be admitted to the Canadian
union.
|
In
Canadian Confederation, Quebec is distinct,
British Columbia is distinct, Nova Scotia is
distinct, Alberta is distinct, Manitoba is
distinct, Saskatchewan is distinct, and so on. The
creation of provinces, therefore,
constitutionally recognized the right of
the founding peoples of Canada—and there are more
than two—to a homeland for each within the nation
of Canada as the country of all.
The 1992
demand that Canadians officially recognize the
"distinct society" of Quebec was a scam to
artificially create a grievance by substituting
the words "distinct society" for "Confederation"
to pretend that Quebecers don't have what
they have had since 1867: constitutional
recognition of their
distinctness.
Emblems of the
four
distinct founding
colonies of
Canada
By tricking Quebecers into
destroying what they already have, by
pretending they don't yet have it, they plan to
bring in the European
Union. |
|
As for the term "rest of
Canada," sometimes shortened to "ROC," this is
another political trick. It refuses to
recognize the "distinctness" of each of the
other provinces of Canada.
"Now, as regards the comparative advantages of a Legislative and a federal union, (...) on looking at the subject in the Conference, (...) we found that (...) any proposition which involved the absorption of the individuality of Lower Canada – if I may use the expression – would not be received with favour by her people. We found too, that (...) there was as great a disinclination on the part of the various Maritime Provinces to lose their individuality, as separate political organisations."
-- John A. Macdonald, p. 29, Canada. Legislature. Parliamentary Debates on the subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, 3rd Sess., 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada. Quebec: Hunter, Rose & Co., 1865.
The false
conflict set up between these "two" artificial
groups, Quebec and "ROC", hides the fact that
all the provinces are "distinct," including
Quebec. Without the false conflict, they'd have no
reason to promote the break-up of Canada. By
artificially reducing all of Canada to "two"
nations, the battle is easier to set up and
control.
The politicians
necessarily ignore, as if non-existent,
the "distinctness" of each and every one of the
other provinces and territories. They reduce these
diverse provinces and their "distinct"
peoples to one imaginary "people" in one imaginary
place called the "ROC", with one imaginary
"culture".
This is a blatant fraud on the
Constitution of Canada, which was designed to
constitutionally guarantee and preserve for all
time the "distinct" nature of each of the
Provinces.
|
The 1980 Referendum to Secede
was
not about Quebec Sovereignty and
Independence:
"Sovereignty-Association"
was
a smoke-screen for bringing in the European
Union
1980
- THE PLAN :
Joint political
institutions
European-Union style:
The
government of René Lévesque was elected in
November 1976. Its program consisted in holding a
referendum in Québec to address its issue of a
Sovereignty-Association "project" with
Canada.
|
The
Sovereignty-Association project sought
Québec accession to political sovereignty within
the framework of a new agreement for economic
association with Canada. This meant establishing a
new relation between Canada and Québec where both
parties would be international entities and
relations between them would no longer be
governed by a constitution, but rather by a treaty
of association. However, they would continue
to have a single tariff and a single currency. The
nature of the proposed association would be that
of a monetary
union.
|
"In
addition, the creation of certain common
Québec-Canada institutions was considered,
institutions that would be admin-
istered under
the treaty."
|
"In
this respect, the project included the creation of
a Community Council, a Commission of
Experts, a Court of Justice and a
Monetary Authority (a parliamentary
assembly could have also been examined without per
se being included in the
project)."
|
|
Whether they call it a
"customs union" as in 1995, or a "monetary
union" as in 1980, they are just shuffling
the deck. It comes down to the same thing: the
European Union in embryo on this continent. This
is the end of Confederation, and of Canada, and of
the federal central Parliament and government
created by and for the 1867 Union of
Canada.
The annexationists who are posing
as separatists want to re-federate the provinces
as states, under new "institutions". They
intend to re-federate the states of Mexico, the
states of the United States, and the Provinces of
Canada under a new, so-called "parliament". In
effect, North American Union is
"sovereignty association",
continent-wide.
And so, we see that
Quebec's alleged wish to secede to have "unique
institutions" for its culture, or "more"
sovereignty for itself, is untrue. By secession,
those controlling Quebec and Canada hope to impose
"identical" EU-style institutions on all
the provinces, which will ultimately deprive
them of all their sovereignty. This is
happening right now to member states of the
European Union.
In the European Union,
there is less sovereignty for each state,
not more. Here is Pierre Elliott Trudeau—in the
course of extolling the EU—in 1991: "Well, look at
the European Community. Take France,
for instance; in the Parliament of the
Community at Strasbourg, it [France]
is retaining something like 18 per cent of its
sovereignty. The rest of it is shared with
Germany and Italy and the rest of the Community."
Source: Will Canada Survive? Federalism
in Peril, Edited by A.R. Riggs and Tom Velk,
Fraser Institute, 1992.
As for Britain,
signed on to the EC Treaty in 1973, they have
already lost 100% of control over their
environment, fishing, farming, and trade—all of
which are now completely subject to the
dictatorship of unelected officials at the
European Union Commission in Brussels. This is
what stands to happen to Canada, the U.S. and
Mexico if the planned attachment in 2010 goes
forward.
To understand how membership in
the European Union progressively destroys the
individual states, view the following video
entitled "The Real Face of the European
Union":
Even more importantly, view
the following video by Russian Presidential
candidate, Vladimir Bukovsky, entitled "The European Union - the New Soviet
Union?":
Want to copy these videos? 
|
Fidel Castro: Founding Father
of the
Quebec Liberation Front* (FLQ)
Turns
Belgian Immigrant to Montreal GEORGES SCHOETERS
into
a terrorist trainer
CASTRO 1959 :
On a
visit to Montreal
takes first step toward
founding the FLQ:
Fidel Castro in
Montreal
FLQ-Castro
Timeline
De-classified letters of the
Diefenbaker Government
at the time
of
Castro's visit
to Montreal in
1959:
"Fidel Castro and the Revolutionary
Government"
indicate a fear that
Castro
and his revolutionary
government were
becoming increasingly
Communist.
Georges
Schoeters
Logo of the
FLQ
The real
"Patriotes" behind the chosen logo of the
FLQ are described by François Xavier Desève in his
eye-witness account of the "rebellion" as it
unfolded at Saint-Eustache in 1837: Journal
historique des événemens arrivés à Saint Eustache,
pendant la rébellion... par un Témoin
oculaire.
Translation of
the
description given of the originial
"patriotes".
René Lévesque, ace reporter
for Radio-Canada, interviews Castro in Montreal on
26 April 1959, the day Castro will found the FLQ
with Georges Schoeters.
British Trade Commissioner James
Cross, held by FLQ terrorists in the hope of
ransoming their compatriots:
all made possible
by Castro.
Deputy Premier
of Quebec
and
Labour Minister
in 1970,
the
Honourable
Mr. Pierre
Laporte:
kidnapped and
brutally
murdered
in a car-trunk
by FLQ
terrorists
founded by
Fidel
Castro.
| THE
DICTATOR: shown at left on 26 April 1959, on a
visit to the Jeune Chambre de Commerce de
Montréal, by invitation. It has been three
short months since Castro's military overthrow of
the Cuban Batista regime.
Castro's actions
in Montreal on this date will result in War
Measures in Quebec in 1970, and the emergence of a
hardline so-called "separatist" movement to alter
the political and legal structure of Canada to
that of the European Union.
The two main
efforts in Quebec, in 1980 and 1995, led by the
Parti Québécois—thickly populated by
Castro-trained former FLQ terrorists returning
from jail or self-exile—were disguised as a demand
for independence for Quebec. However, in both
cases, the Quebec "independence" platform involved
a new political structure for Canada
tantamount to the EU.
The referendums in
Quebec have been arranged to exclude Canadians, on
the pretense that the "peuple Québécois"
alone has a right to decide its own destiny. But
clearly, this is a scam to manipulate Quebecers
into disposing of Canada's destiny,
leaving the majority of Canadians with no vote,
except to ratify a "yes" in Quebec.
Since
the collapse of the Soviet Union, the European
Union has become Castro's biggest trading
partner.
* Front de Libération du
Québec
Castro
and Trudeau
Castro at Trudeau's funeral
PIERRE ELLIOT TRUDEAU,
speaking of the election to power of the Parti
Québécois on 15 November 1976 (a party thickly
populated with Castro-trained former FLQ
terrorists):
TRANSLATION:
“Well
then, there you have it, in this enormously
changed country, the events of 15 November
[separatists elected!] oblige us to make a choice.
And for myself, I find that not only excellent, I
find that practically thrilling... The premier of
Quebec asks us the question: do you want Canada,
yes or no?... We must have the courage to ask
ourselves this question... We must not fear either
winning or losing the battle... I think we will
win. But I have to accept the game rules...
There aren't many countries that would give
democratic freedom to a party whose goal is to
destroy that country.”
Source:
La Presse, Éditorial, jeudi 15 août 1991, p. B2,
Le droit à la libre disposition du Québec a été
reconnu par P. Trudeau, Adam, Marcel.
Did Mr. Laporte die
for North
American Union?
Without the FLQ,
organized and trained through Georges Schoeters by
Fidel Castro, there would not have been War
Measures.
Without the FLQ and War Measures,
would the Parti Québécois have risen to
power on a platform of "Sovereignty
Association"—alleged "independence" for
Quebec—which was, in fact, a trick to replace the
Constitution of Canada with the political and
legal régime of the European Union. Prime
Minister Pierre Trudeau scheduled that first
referendum, and the second one. See
below.
|
|
After the death of Mr.
Laporte, British Trade Commissioner James Cross
was located, alive. Trudeau's federal govern- ment
"negotiated" for the release of Cross by giving
the FLQ who were holding him a free Cuban holiday
with Fidel Castro, who, in 1959, had founded and
trained the initial team of terrorists. Some time
later, Trudeau announced that Canada had no plans
to extradite FLQ terrorists who had left Cuba, and
were known to be in Paris. Trudeau and Castro
remained best friends all their
lives.
|
Prime Minister Trudeau schedules
two
referendums: 1980 and
1995
Now, that's showing the
separatists!
|
|
"Prime
Minister Trudeau, speaking to the Quebec Chamber
of Commerce Jan. 28 [1977] in Quebec City,
challenges Premier Réne Lévesque to hold a
single, binding early referendum on
Quebec's separation." Mr. Trudeau is also
reported to have said: "The choice must be
definitive and final.
If the referendum is
lost, it should not be reopened
for 15
years." Source: Reports on Separatism, Vol.
1.
|
|
It should be noted that
"definitive and final" is the opposite of
"reopened". And, indeed, it was
reopened in 1995 as forecast by Trudeau in
1977.
Trudeau, having called for both the
first and the second referendum, set the stage for
the first in 1980 by intro- ducing, on April 4,
1978, Bill C-9, entitled "An Act Respecting
Public Referendums in Canada on Questions relating
to the Constitution of Canada".
Here is
how the Trudeau government represented the
impending Bill to the press in late 1977:
"Referendum bill due next
session: Lalonde. Montreal PQ—MONTREAL
(CP) - Legislation to set up a federal
referendum on national unity will be
introduced during the next session of
Parliament, Marc Lalonde says. [Lalonde is
Trudeau's Minister of Federal-Provincial
Relations, and this is his Bill.] But the
Minister [...] did not reveal any more details
about the legislation during a speech to a
pro-federalist group in suburban Pierrefonds.
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau
said last week the referendum, which he says
would be legally binding on Ottawa, might be
conduct- ed only in
Quebec.
Source: The Globe and
Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Dec 1, 1977. pg. P.2.
ProQuest document ID: 1097343111.
First reading of the Bill was
October 18, 1978.
It was never enacted. It
was therefore never judicially reviewed,
most notably in terms of the ability of Parliament
or any Legislature of this country to attempt to
terminate this country by referendum. Trudeau's
statement to the national press that Ottawa would
be legally bound by a YES in Quebec, was
never judicially tested.
Here's another excerpt from Reports on Separatism, Vol. 1, No. 5, p. 34, 20 February 1977:
Premier Lévesque said after the meeting that it was time for the party [Québécois] to establish a referendum committee because the federal government had already begun setting up its own organization for the referendum campaign. 'Groups linked to ministers' offices have been set up,' he said. 'I know at Mr. Trudeau's they are organizing things.'
[...]
He said his government did not have a mandate to decree independence but it did have a mandate to consult the people through a law passed by parliament.
Mr. Trudeau's Office was clearly leading the Referendum preparations three years early. Bill C-9, the "law passed by Parliament" to "authorize" the Quebec Referendum, was never enacted. Had it been, the Courts would likely have been asked to determine if there was a federal power either to destroy the country, or to authorize a province to secede, or even a power to ask the people if they'd like it to be destroyed.
The Court would have been looking at Article 91 of what was then still called the British North America Act of 1867. But, Canada could not have been destroyed, because the object of the BNA Act was "... the Union of Canada..." and "Purposes connected therewith".
However, the mere fact of Marc Lalonde's announcing the Bill, from the Prime Minister's Office, must have given it the aura of legality.
|
You
don't know this man.
His name is Paul
Desmarais, Sr.
of "Power
Corporation"
and he has brought
you:
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Brian
Mulroney, Jean Chrétien, and Paul
Martin, to name just a few.
All were
his employees
before you "voted" for
them in campaigns
financed largely by
Desmarais.
That means that Paul
Desmarais
has brought you Free Trade, NAFTA,
and North American
Union.
|
1970 - THE PLAN :
"Fight separatism
in all its
forms"
"On April 19, 1970, a handful of Canada's most powerful businessmen—ram-rod federalists, every last one—met privately at the elegant Montreal home of financier Paul Desmarais. |
 | |
|
What brought them together was the worrying rise of the
Parti Québécois, a growing force in the
Quebec provincial elections that were about to be
held."
"
[...] it is safe to say that collectively, Desmarais and his guests managed billions of dollars in assets [...].
Within days of the gathering, a
secret anti-separatism fund was up and running. It
was controlled by a trusted Liberal Party
bagman. And it was underwritten by business leaders identified as having been at the meeting and others. The fund came to light more by
accident than design — as a result of theft
charges laid against the bagman. It briefly
illuminated a usually murky side of Canadian
politics — how confidential pools of money are
(often legally) raised, laundered, and spent."
[...] The $55,000, all of which had come from special company accounts, was a hefty sum in the days before the inflationary ravages of the late seventies and early eighties.
Most of the payments and their destinations were recorded only vaguely in the companies' books. Significantly, too, they were personally made by the heads of corporations themselves and handled "in a special way" by company accountants, recalls Rod Stamler, the then RCMP inspector who investigated the case in the 1970s. [...] Curious, too, was the fact that the money did not go directly to the separatist-fighting Liberal Party or into its regular account at Montreal Trust. Instead, the money went to veteran Liberal bagman Louis de Gonzague Giguère, Pierre Trudeau's first Senate appointment in 1968. He then deposited it into a special "in trust" account at a downtown branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia in Montreal. He was to use the funds as he saw fit; they were under his total control. Nor would any of the six businessmen subsequently ask what the money had been used for. [...]
According to Giguère, the contributions
stocked a secret fund to "fight separatism in
all its forms."
"On April 27, 1970, a
cheque for $3,000.50 went to JEAN CHRÉTIEN,
then a federal cabinet minister."
Source: Money on the Run—Canada
and How the World's Dirty Profits are
Laundered by investigative reporter Mario
Possamai, published in 1992 by Viking (Penguin Books of
Canada), with a paperback edition in 1993, and a
French-language edition in 1994.
[Note: Mr. Paul Desmarais, Sr., joined David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission in at least September, 1993.]
But, we're not done yet. The
"anti-separatist" fund-raiser at the
Desmarais home in April, 1970 may be open to
interpretation. Read the next
section:
 |
The Eurification
of
Canada:
Common project of DESMARAIS and the
"Separatists"?
Or, a big
coincidence?
|
It's hard to see how Mr.
Paul Desmarais could have been "worried" about
the rise of the Parti
Québécois. The PQ
platform in the 1980 referendum, and again in
1995—as we saw above—would have imposed on Canada
the same structures and government as those of the
European Union.
But, Mr. Desmarais
is a founding member of the Canadian
Council of Chief Executives (CCCE)
which plans to impose on Canada, and on the US and
Mexico, those same European-Union
structures. They call it "Building a North American
Community," or "North American
Union". Evidently, Mr. Desmarais
and our so-called "separatists" have a great deal
in common. Could they really have spent
decades at odds with each other, not knowing they
shared the same project?
Mr. Desmarais
apparently had no motive to raise $55,000 in 1970
to "fight" the Parti
Québécois. The question is, then,
what was he raising it for? And why did
Jean Chrétien, then a federal cabinet
minister, get the first chèque?
 And when
Liberal Party bagman, Louis de Gonzague
Giguère, confessed to RCMP investi- gators that the
$55,000 he was holding for Desmarais was to
"fight separatism in all its forms",
perhaps that was just quick thinking on someone's
part.
According to Possamai, nearly half the secret fund was taken out of circulation by Giguère in November 1970. That would be right after War Measures and the FLQ October Crisis. Would not those kidnappings and the slaying of Mr. Laporte, a Liberal Deputy Premier of Quebec, have been a particularly virulent "form of separatism" worth expending every last penny of that secret fund?
However, by November, Castro and his FLQ, and Trudeau's War Measures, had done their work.
The world now imagined that Canada, like Humpty Dumpty, was about to crack. And, had it cracked in 1980, or in 1995, the pieces would have been re-federated under EU-style institutions of the kind planned right now for all of North America by Mr. Desmarais' very own Canadian Council of Chief Executives.
The short history of the Council is that it existed for at least fifteen years as an informal gathering of businessmen before it was founded in 1976 (the year the Parti Québécois was elected) as the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI) by the CEOs of US-based Imperial Oil and Noranda with Desmarais and other CEO's as founding members. The organization took on its current name in 2001, and has had an increasingly intimate relationship with successive Canadian "Desmarais" governments.
For example, in 1976, Thomas d'Aquino became the "permanent president" of the BCNI—later renamed the CCCE. However, during the period of the Council's informal existence, Mr. D'Aquino served as Special Assistant from 1969-1972 to Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Mr. d'Aquino was therefore in the Prime Minister's Office when Trudeau's boss, Desmarais, raised what Giguère called the secret "anti-separatist fund" in April of 1970. He was also there through the FLQ October Crisis and War Measures, all of which ultimately fuelled "separatism" and the rise of the Parti Québécois.
And now, with North American Union planned and scheduled for 2010, we find the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the "separatist" Parti Québécois have, after all, discovered how much they share in common: they both actively support the new North American Parliament being set up at NAFI, on Montreal soil, by an ex-employee of the Quebec "separatist" government, Christine Frechette, under the Chairmanship of American citizen Robert Pastor. In 2004, Pastor wrote "North America's Second Decade" for the CFR, pointing out that NAFTA (which, as we know, was begun by Trudeau) was "merely the first draft of an economic constitution" for the fledgling continental state of "North America". In 2003, the first edition of the NAU Parliament was treasonably held in the Canadian Senate under Desmarais employee, Prime Minister 
Jean Chrétien, to an opening speech by Chrétien's nephew, former Ambassador to the US, France, Mexico and Belgium, and member of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, Raymond Chrétien.
Below: top row — Prime Ministers Trudeau (Free Trade),
Mulroney (NAFTA), Chrétien (Quebec UDI on his watch), and Martin (SPP to harmonize North America): otherwise known as the Pau | | | | |
