Transcription
Well, good afternoon everybody and welcome back to the show. So today's guest is Shawn Buckley and uh Shawn is a lawyer and we are going to shock you today with some constitutional truths. Sean is also the uh president of the natural health products protection association which we shared some of that information with you just recently. Um but today we really want to talk about the constitution. We want to talk about what's been going on in BC as well with the transfer potential land uh transfer there with the Muskete nation as well as a $750,000 fine that's been issued by the BC um Human Rights Commission. So, welcome to the show, Sean.
>> Oh, so glad to be here, Nadine. Absolute pleasure.
>> Wonderful. So, we have so much to cover. I thought we would just jump right in and you have some constitutional truths you want to share with us. So, why don't we start there?
>> Yeah. And so, first of all, this is a bit of a fun show because um most people they're shocked like and I'll just have to say you can go and read the Constitution. It's on the, you know, the Department of Justice website. It's very easy to access. But if you know if I'm lecturing and let's say we're in a room of thousand people and I ask okay um everyone who has read the constitution the Canadian constitution please put up your hand nadine I will get some hands up not many but I'll get some hands up and then when I clarify and say no wait a second I'm talking about the entire constitution I'm not talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which you know people have read a very small part of the constitution. I'm talking our constitution like so let's ignore the charter of rights and freedoms. How many of you have read the constitution? There won't be a single hand up. And Nadine, there won't be a single hand up even if there's lawyers in the audience.
>> That's scary.
>> Okay, now let's think about this for a minute. There's no document that affects your life more than our constitution. So let me just say that again. There's no document that affects your life more. It's the most important document governing your life. It literally gives governments the authority, you know, over your life, over your property. It sets out which governments have what control over you. It sets out, you know, this charade that we um that we makes us think that we're actually a doc uh uh democracy or representative of government. Like I mean, when you read the constitution, it's like that you you can't see it. It's not there. And I mean, you don't even have to read the constitution. You just can actually think about it and it's not there. I'm happy to go into that in a minute. But the point I'm trying to make is there's nothing more important to you. And we've all had to go through public education at least 12 years. And many of us then have gone through publicly funded college and university. You would think the government would be requiring us to start learning about this in kindergarten and reading it over and over and over again. And it's the most like there's no dispute. This document affects your life more than any other. How is it that not a single literally not a single Canadian has read it? Now, this is by design. You haven't read it because they don't want you to read it. They don't want you to know what it says because we've got this um this political charade that we call Canada.
So let's let's just unpack this a little bit. So if you ask almost any Canadian is is like Canada a democracy? Well, we've all been taught of course like we'll just answer whether of course Canada's a democracy. I mean I refer to Canada quite frequently as you know a western liberal democracy. But Nadine what's a democracy? A democracy describes where the citizens of a country or you know some smaller polity be that a province or a city actually get to vote on issues of importance. Well, literally any issue but I mean democracy um describes where citizens actually decide issues. Well, let's ask your audience. Has anyone federally ever gotten to vote on an issue? Like, so have we ever had a federal referendum? Not in my lifetime. And I'm working on decade 7. I'm not aware of one prior to my birth where we actually had a referendum on any issue. So, how can we call that a democracy? I don't recall. Well, in BC, I was involved in a referendum on harmonized sales tax. And in the city of Cam Loops, I was I got to vote on do we get these smart water meters? And the citizens overwhelmingly voted no, let's not get them. And then the city got them. So, I voted in in two referendums. um you know both on really and I shouldn't say non-important things but so we we're not in a democracy like federally I've never been able to vote on anything well the next the next lie is we're trained well we have a riding and you elect like your MP
>> I can tell you that's an illusion
>> your MP it's like well my MP is right like my MP because well we're into geographical writing And what we're taught is is well that MP represents our geographical writing, but we have a party system and your MP gets to parliament and has to follow the party line. We even have what's called party whips.
>> It's even worse than that. Before they get to parliament, they have already been pre- selected and prevetted by the party. And for those individuals who do not pass that hurdle, um, they don't even get to participate.
>> Right? But we're just talking about how the lie is is that you have representation based on, you know, your area that you elect an MP to represent that area. But unless there's what's called a free vote in parliament where MPs are allowed to vote how they want, they have to follow the party line. like they have they have no choice. They'll get kicked out of caucus. They never like when's the last time your local MPs actually like held a meeting. Tell me how to vote. I want to represent my writing. Like I I've never heard of that. So, you know, so that's a lie. We're not in a democracy. We don't have representative government. But thank goodness at least we can elect the party that runs the country, right? So, does our federal cabinet run the country? Let's explore this. Let's explore this a little bit because we're all of the belief that the federal cabinet runs the executive part of our country. But when we look at our constitution, so the main part of our constitution and anyone can find this like in five minutes, British North America act 1867. You you can go to the department of justice website and get a consolidated copy of our constitution. Look at section 9. So when we talk about government, you know, we have legislative branch. So that's, you know, House of Commons and Senate have passing legislation, but the executive is who runs government. So like in the United States, the president's the executive. Well, in Canada, the federal cabinet, we we're taught, well, it's the federal cabinet that runs the executive. So we'd expect we open our Constitution and it'll say, well, the executive power is vested in the federal cabinet. Doesn't say that. Read section N. The executive power is vested in our monarch. It reads the queen. But back when in 1867 we had a queen when when the British Parliament drafted the act. So I I need to back up Nadine. So I think every Canadian has to understand that our Constitution in Canada is a collection of statutes passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. So they're not passed by the Canadian Parliament. Well, and of course they're not because we're a colony. So our Constitution is a collection of statutes passed by the British Parliament plus some orders and councils. um by the British cabinets. So first of all when we talk about our constitution they are um they're British statutes. So why do we even call it a constitution? I mean well we call it a constitution because they are the documents that give powers to the different levels of of government and say what we can do. But it's not a constitution in the sense of the United States where they got together and said here are our guiding principles. Here is our founding document. It's a fact that the United Kingdom Parliament could repeal our constitution could change our constitution because we're our constitution are just acts that they have passed and according to their constitutional law parliament can't bind itself. So, they're perfectly free to repeal them. They're perfectly free to amend them. And and why wouldn't they if um his majesty directed them? So, but anyway, just back to the fun of our constitution, just bearing in mind they're they're UK statutes. They're not passed, not a single one is passed by the Canadian Parliament.
Now, Sean, I want to touch on that for a second because so many Canadians believe that Canada is a sovereign country and what you've just said is we're not sovereign and and we're going to talk touch on this
>> and so so you know the democracy side of it and how we vote and elected, but we're not even a sovereign country. And mo so many people say, "Oh, but the king, formerly the queen, it's just figurative." Well, if it's figurative, you see the problem is this is if there's a dispute, then it's going to be decided by courts. So, you know, since 1949, um we've we've had the Supreme Court of Canada be the final arbitar. Um but that doesn't mean the UK Parliament couldn't pull it back to the House of Lords in the UK. that used to be the final decisionmaking body before 1949. But the courts are bound to follow the law. And so they'll pull out these British statutes that govern and say who can do what and they're going to follow them because that's what they're supposed to do. The courts are supposed to look at the law and then apply the law to the facts. So we can say, well, this is but this is the political theater. Of course, we have to be told that this is just kind of proforma, but really the king's not in control. Well, that's true until it matters, right? Like I mean, I was initially shocked this week. I'm not quite sure when the show is going to air, but this week Iran was attacked. And this week, our prime minister that really um publicly does shows a display of not liking Trump supported the bombing of Iran. And some of us might go, well, that's kind of odd. But it's not odd when you consider the UK is involved in the bombing. And who who is it that is head of our military? It's not our federal cabinet. Let me read to everyone section 15 of the British North America Act, the first part of our constitution. the command and chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and military forces of and in Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the queen. You can substitute king for that. So it's extremely important to understand that the king commands our military forces. So when the king of the United Kingdom who is our king as a you know vassal state of a colonial state of the United Kingdom when the king of the United Kingdom um is involved in bombing through the United Kingdom uh Iran Canada doesn't have the independent option of opposing that so understand of Of course, Carney has to support his king and master, our executive and our command and chief of the armed forces in what our commander-in-chief is doing. You don't go against your manager. That's bad form, Nadine. So
>> So
>> get fired.
>> Well, absolutely you can get fired. the governor in general at any time can dismiss the prime minister.
>> There's Can you repeat that statement because people honestly again because these these are issues around sovereignty and and Canadians have been educated like we have been I think it's a we're displaying here a smoke and mirrors game but we have been deliberately educated or at least left to believe that we are a sovereign country. We are our own people. We live in a democracy. But what you just said is the exact opposite of that.
>> Well, and we haven't even gotten into it yet. I mean, what we're going to talk about is going to absolutely shock people. So, we're a sovereign nation. Then, why do we have a foreign king? I found it very ironic when it was the the protest, remember no more kings protest was in the United States when it's actually Canada that has a foreign king as its commanderin-chief and as its uh head of state um not Donald Trump.
>> Well, and in all everything is done in the name of the monarch. I mean, you get charged criminally. It's Rex versus you. The, you know, Rex is just Latin for king. Everything is exercised in the name of the king. Like, you know, tune in. Just wait. We're a sovereign country. Well, then, Nadine, if we're a sovereign country, why does a foreign king own all our land, including your home, if you've paid the mortgage off? Can I say that again? You've bought a house. You've struggled over the years, sacrificed to pay the mortgage off. Do you own your land? No. Who owns your land? The king. The king owns your land. What? But I get to buy it and sell it. So, get a copy of your title. What it's going to say is, you know, assuming you're not on Aboriginal property and have a lease, it's going to say that you have a fee. Simple. It doesn't say you own the land. So, what a fee is is it's a grant. It's a grant permitting you to use the land subject to the words that follow. A grant from the king, by the way, allowing you to use the king's land subject to what follows. And simple just means without restriction. So you have the king has granted you the right to use your land without restriction. Would do you think for a moment the king can't take that right away? You might want to talk to, you know, 2 million people in the lower mainland in Vancouver. Um, and see how realistic that is. And I mean, listen, you stop paying. You're you're elderly woman. You know, you're 94. Your husband's died. You're on a survivor's pension. You're hardly making ends meet and your property tax goes up and you can't pay it. Within a year, they will sell your house without your consent. And you'll see how much title you have, how much ownership you have. None.
>> Yeah. And people don't understand the power there because that is it may not happen within a year. Um, they may grant you, you know, two or three years there had you not paid. But the government can and will take your property and sell it.
>> It's outrageous. Like, you know, if we were a rational, if you owned your property, the government would not be able to sell it under you. Now, if you couldn't pay a tax bill or something, then, you know, well, why not let the government register a judgment against your land like like, you know, we can do. Um, but then don't make those services mandatory right because most um, you know, most of us it's law that we have to use city water that we have to use electricity. you know, so don't lock us into a control grid. you know, the price of which we can't control this Sean, you're frozen There
>> you back.
>> Are we Are we back now?
>> We're back. So it we left off.
>> I don't know what happened there.
>> Yeah. Don't lock us into a control grid after there.
>> Yeah. So, I mean, if you're going to lock us into a control grid where we have to access services, then, you know, we have no control over the price of those services, and if we can't afford them, it's a little rude to be evicting widows out of their homes. Um, you know, people that have basically contributed their whole lives to our society. And it just points to the fact that we don't own our property because you just asked, you just said, well, people think we're sovereign nation. And I'm just making the point, then why do we have a foreign king? And why does the foreign king own all our land? Why is the foreign king the head of our military as head of our military? And the and I've read section 15 of our British North America Act that basically says the monarch is the head of our armed forces. Well, if we're not a colony, if we're an independent nation, how is it that a foreign king is head of our military? So now let's talk about how the foreign king is head of our executive cuz like I say, you know, we have legislative branch of government. That's the branch that pass laws. The executive, well, that's the branch that runs government. So these the laws are passed. There's these structures who runs it. In the United States, that's the president. In Canada, we're taught it's the federal cabinet. and Nadine, in day-to-day affairs that don't matter, it is the federal cabinet. I mean, I'm gonna I'm gonna read section 54 of the Constitution in a moment, which is just it absolutely blows the mind. But so, in day-to-day affairs, you know, I I think the cabinet is allowed to run things, but they're not in control. So section nine of our British North America Act, the main part of our constitution that sets out who can do what clearly states the executive is the monarch. Okay. So the king runs our government. Well, how does the king do this? Well, then in section 11 of our British North America Act, it basically says that there's this office called the Privy Council Office that is to advise the government, the governor general and counsel. And it's appointed by the governor general and counsel. Who is whose representative?
>> The kings.
>> Oh, the king. The king's representative appoints this privy council office. to advise the executive. So, our executive and so, just so you know, the Privy Council Office has been around as long as Canada's been a so-called nation, as long as we've had this political theater so that we don't rebel against the British crown, so that we don't become an independent nation. We have to believe everything's great. And the greatest belief, the biggest belief is well, we are an independent country anyway, so why? You don't have to do anything. It it's it's a total and absolute deception. So most of us most of the people watching this, Nadine, will never have heard of the privy council office.
>> Correct.
>> And if I if I was to be asked, well, who's the most powerful person in Canada? Is it the prime minister or the clerk of the privy council office? It's the clerk of the privy council
>> office to the clerk of the privy council office
>> and most of us had never heard that. So the privy council office is an office. So it's a group of people appointed by the governor and general to advise the governor general in running Canada. But I thought the federal cabinet ran Canada. Now, it is a constitutional convention that the federal cabinet, while they're still cabinet ministers, do form part of the privy council office, but the privy council office contains a number of people that are not elected.
>> Now, many of them are consultants that have been appointed,
>> right? And I have no doubt the federal cabinet sits down and they make decisions which are largely followed. But that doesn't mean that they have the power. So section 12 of the British North America Act makes it very clear that all of the powers in this union of Canada are vested in the Governor General in council and then proincially in the lieutenant governors who basically exercise this power with the advice or with the advice and consent % of the respective executive council. So proincially lieutenant governors are supposed to govern with the advice andor with the advice and consent of the exe executive councils. They're referring to the provincial legislature. But the governor general in Canada is to run Canada with the advice andor consent or in conjunction with the Queen's Privy Council Office.
>> And the key word there being consent.
>> Well, it doesn't have to be. It's with the advice andor with the advice and consent. It doesn't have to be the consent. In fact, section 14 of the British North America Act, and listen to this, Canadians. So, our Constitution allows the Governor General to appoint unelected people to basically run Canada to exercise the Governor General's powers. Now, we all think that that's only going to happen if there's an emergency or a constitutional crisis. Well, a constitutional crisis is um the governor general, meaning his majesty, disagreeing with our government, why does the king through the governor general and council basically have the authority to step in and run Canada? If we're independent of the king, if as we're taught, the cabinet runs Canada. Now,
>> now I think most Canadians though might argue that, oh yes, but that's never been done, Sean. The king stays out of Canada's business. He, you know, this is again a paper exercise. And
>> okay, but here's the trick. So, you're the prime minister and the governor general and council says, "I want you to do this. This is this is what we're doing." And you say, "No, you can be dismissed." Like, here we are. You tell me that liberal supporters are not shocked that our prime minister Mark Carney just endorsed the bombing of Iran by Donald Trump and Israel. You tell me liberal supporters think this is a great thing but be but he doesn't have a choice because the head of our armed forces and his boss is the king and the king is participating in the bombing in Iran through his armed forces in the United Kingdom. So, of course, our prime minister is going to support this because that's what the way this works. So, what would happen if our prime minister was was publicly voicing opposition to this? Well, maybe our prime minister would be dismissed. Let me read to you section 54 of the British North America Act. So this is part of our constitution and this goes into legislative powers because we think oh wait our government our cabinet federal cabinet can decide well we're going to go and do this and so this is going to require us to raise taxes or spend money a certain way. We're creating this program and we think that our elected representatives are legally free to do this. In fact, in parliament, like if you're not part of the government and so you're a private member and you introduce a bill, it's convention that you cannot a private member's bill cannot spend money, right? Only government bills can spend money. And we may assume, oh well, the federal cabinet is free to to spend public money. Okay, so listen to section 54 of the British North America Act. this this part of our Constitution. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue that is spend money or of any tax or imposed to any purpose that has not first been recommended to that house by message of the Governor. general in in session in which such vote resolution address or bill is passed. So what our constitution is saying is that it's not even legal for the House of Commons to pass a spending bill unless prior to that the governor and general has messaged to the house saying I want you to pass the spending bill.
>> Now Sean, this is the opposite of how people think. They think the work gets done in the legislature and bills go up to get you know uh approval basically an approval process. Now what you've just done though is completely flipped that money top down
>> for money bills any bill spending money.
>> Let me just read it again. I mean, it's pretty strong language and this governs this has this this is our constitution. And this is a British statute that forms our constitution. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons. Okay, that's pretty clear, isn't it? It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue. So, meaning our public purse. So, you can't spend money. It shall not be lawful or any tax or impost to any purpose that has not first been recommended to that house meaning that house of common. So that session of parliament by message of the governor general in the session in which the vote resolution address or bill is proposed. So that section of our constitution is clearly saying govern it's illegal for the government to pass a spending bill unless the governor general has first sent a message to the government saying I want you to pass this bill. Now this isn't my opinion. This is the clear wording of our constitution which is and it's pretty clear. And so what you were talking about earlier is is well, you know, we all know that the government will pass a bill and then it doesn't become law. We're taught this in our high school constitutional law class. It doesn't become law until then the lieutenant governor proincially or the governor general signs the bill.
>> Well, that that in itself pretty funny, isn't it? In fact, they don't and they don't they don't have to sign it.
>> So, it it sounds to me in this one, and correct me if I'm I'm getting this wrong, but it sounds to me that all the taxes, all the public money that is collected belongs to the king.
>> Goes into the king.
>> It's all done. Listen,
>> hold on.
>> goes into the king's purse and he directs how he wants that money spent as opposed to the Canadian people voting on how that money should be spent.
>> Yeah. Which is really fascinating, isn't it? Well, this is what our constitution says. Now, every member of parliament swears allegiance to the king.
>> Carney,
>> not to the British statutes that govern us, not to the people of Canada.
>> Correct.
>> that they swear allegiance to the king. It's the king's house of commons.
>> So the power is the power is vested in the king. Now our house in commons and senate does have the power to pass legislation. The king approves legislation. Now the the house of commons cannot legally pass a law according to section 54 of our constitution. the House of Commons, it says it shall not be lawful. So, they can't pass a law. The government can't pass a law spending money unless the governor in general has sent a message saying, "I want the money spent that way. I want that law."
>> Yeah. And if anybody thinks,
>> And remember, the Privy Council Office is our executive. The Privy Council Office is our executive power.
>> Yeah. And so just give me a second here because currently right now there is a little clip of Mark Carney's oath. So for anybody who seems to think and I have saved this clip, anybody who seems to think that our elected members of parliament and our prime minister do not take an oath to the king, you are completely wrong. And and this is now publicly circulating with Mark Carney swearing his oath to the king. And so without a doubt, this is 100% accurate and factual.
>> Well, and without a doubt, anyone can go to the Department of Justice website and read a copy of our Constitution. You are trained not to because we have this political theater. And you you said it yourself, Nadine. Most Canadians think that we're a sovereign country. Well, what sovereign country has a foreign king that owns all their land? And which is what sovereign country has a foreign king that is head of their armed forces? And what sovereign country is governed exclusively by laws passed by a foreign country? And what foreign country I mean is subject that another foreign country can change their basic laws and constitution? What like what what sovereign country is in like all of that by definition? You are not a sovereign country like by definition. So like let's say you know Britain said we'll have nothing to do with Canada ever ever again. We're done. Like don't don't even visit us. And so we all got together and said okay let's draft our constitution. So um from now on Luxenberg is going to pass our governing documents. So we'll have to petition the parliament in Luxembourg and they they can pass our governing constitutional documents. um the king or somebody else in Luxembourg will own all of our land. The king or somebody else in Luxembourg will be the executive power, will appoint this privy council office. um will be head of our armed forces and can basically dismiss government. Um Oh yeah. And the Canadian government can't pass any spending bills unless that person's representative first asks for those bills to be passed. And of course, every member of parliament and senate is going to have to declare allegiance to that foreign king. Now, if we Canada did that, would any of us say, "Yes, we're a independent sovereign nation."
>> Yeah. Absolutely not. And so, Sean, how did we end up here? Because we literally I mean, Canadians are taught something that as you have now made explicitly clear is not our reality. And and if you talk to Canadians and I know because I I get fought on this ferociously that Canada is indeed a sovereign nation. In 1982, the queen came and we went through this little ceremony and we had a constitution. So in 1982 the British the United Kingdom Parliament passed another document that forms part of our governing documents that we call constitution. So it's another act passed by the United Kingdom car parliament called the constitution act of 1982. So, and then what happened is is the queen came over for political theater and I I remember I was in high school and we all the whole we all gathered um and we watched Pierre Trudeau and the queen um signing this political theater, this act that had already been passed. Well, the Queen has to has to sign acts passed by the UK Parliament for them to become law, just like Canada. So, we're witnessing the the Queen of Great Britain signing into law a act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament that governs the vassal state of the UK um which we call the Dominion of Canada and it's just a small part of our constitution like most of it is the British North America Act of 1867. So now it it is important in that like the United Kingdom is um you know is a very big colonial power. They're not as big as they used to be but when they go and conquer all these territories and then start administering them to different degrees um they would have to create local bodies to administer um you know if for no other reason is is they didn't have good communications. I mean it it could take six months for a problem to arrive by ship, right? So you had so they would pass different laws granting authority locally. And the reality is is once Canada got to a certain point, we had had um we had just witnessed you know the American Revolution and there was a real strategic we had two two strategic problems. So there's a real strategic part problem of the United States then starting to invade um or convince British territories to join them. And then we also had you know this cultural problem between upper and lower Canada which now we call Quebec and Ontario. Am I still there? I Okay. So, so basically what we did is is is we created a constitution that was very centralizing for strategic reasons. We needed a country so that we would kind of be a defined polity and not want to join the United States and then also granting enough autonomy over your kind of civil affairs so that the Quebec could flourish without its culture being threatened. So those really the two main reasons why our constitution got drafted the way it did. And you know, when we talk about our founding fathers and that, I mean, they did participate in sorting out what it should look like. Um, but you know, if you think for a second that the UK authorities weren't in there like a dirty shirt either. And I mean, at the end of the day, it it's a United Kingdom bill because we're a colony. So what's happening is is for strategic and political reasons it made sense for them to to have a become a so-called so so you know we didn't consider ourselves a nation back then we you know we understood that you know we're a bigger entity and would call ourselves a country but we didn't consider ourselves independent I mean first world comes along of course we're at war the UK is at war and same with the second war, of course we're at war. And when Europe goes to war this year or next year with Russia, of course we're at war. I mean, even without Article 5 of our NATO treaty, well, we'd be at war because our king's going to be at war and our king's head of armed forces, like, of course, we're at war. But as the 20th century progressed and now into the 21st century um it became necessary to have a different political theater because I gave you this example with Luxembourg like so let's say we found ourselves a drift free of the United Kingdom because they wanted nothing to do with us. No Canadian would consent to Luxenberg passing our governing documents and being able to amend them or repeal them at any time. No Canadian would consent to Luxembourg monarch owning our property. No Canadian would consent to a Luxembourg monarch being our the head of armed forces and you know cabinet be or government be damned you know whatever that person says our armed forces are being used for legally and no person would consent to to a foreign king basically their representative is our executive government and we have this political theater and and again the theater includes I I have no doubt that our federal cabinet really directs the ship in most ways. But you're not in power under our constitution. You're we suffer. The king suffers our government to do this because it's necessary for the king to remain in charge because if we understood the real state of affairs, we would go, "Wait a second. We're we how did we arrive here?" And we wouldn't consent to it. So, you know, and I people say, "Oh, well, you know, it's just it's all just um the king will never exercise that power." Well, I How do you even know? Because you're not privy to that information. A king might have exercised it this week with Iran.
>> And and that's exactly it. People that assume that people who have power won't exercise it seems like a foolish thought. Well, and then how's that our law then? So, if it really doesn't if if our government's really in control, then why don't we have a constitution saying our government's in control?
>> Exactly.
>> It's not what it says.
>> Yeah. Our government, it seems to me, is nothing but an appointed team to manage a resource of the United Kingdom,
>> the king.
>> Well, it's political theater and it works.
>> Yeah. Listen, when I'm worried that we're going to be at war with Russia this year or next year because Europe Europe needs a war for financial reasons and they likely even think they can win a war. I would disagree with them.
>> So would I.
>> If and and how you get us into a war is not you don't just ramp us up saying, "Well, let's go attack Russia." You basically create what's called a false flag. Like almost every war starts with a false flag. So you basically stage an attack against yourself. I mean a an example that that can't be argued anymore is I mean Vietnam war well North Vietnam attacks some US warships in the Gulf of Tonkan and and so they go to war. Well now it's declassified that no the CIA the US attacked their they staged that. It wasn't the North Vietnamese. It's declassified. That's called a false flag. Surely nobody believes that the communists burned the rice egg in Germany um which led Hindenburg to basically sign emergency powers over to Hitler. Like find me a historian who actually believes that that wasn't a false flag. So that's but this is how you get get war started. So what I'm worried about is is that we're going to arrange for an attack on ourselves and it'll be a horrific attack and then you know against a NATO country and then under section five of our the NATO treaty then we're all at war. One of us has been attacked so that means we're all attacked and we're all at war and that doesn't matter anyway because the UK is going to be in there and the UK king is is head of armed forces. So we're there anyway. We'll just say it's NATO article 5 and all of a sudden we're at war and what's going to happen Nadine is our mainstream media which is funded by the government. I mean the independent media is funded by the government. It's not just the CBC. They're going to be beating the war drums and Canadians will be supporting this and volunteering and supporting you know our young people going over and and fighting Russians whether that's in Ukraine or elsewhere. um we buy into this political theater. It works and it's worked wonderfully well. I mean, I was I I believed the lie. I believed we're an independent country. I I was very patriotic. I you know, like unless you have reason to believe otherwise, what happens is and every nation does this is you create um they're called political myths. Like in so in the area of political science, we create political myths which are really helpful. What they don't have to be true, but they can be true and they're really helpful to have us all cohesive. So you know when I was a little kid I went to Disneyland and and I mean I experienced they were very patriotic then like Canada they are now dro they're now destroying their myths and destroying their culture because like Canada there's powers that want to remake us. um you know as as communist nations. So we're in the middle of destroying our political myths, but up till now our political myths have been we're an independent country. We have uh we're democracy and we dealt with that earlier on. We have representative government. We elect people to represent our writings. I' I've debunked that myth. And um that basically federal government exercises executive power. Well, that's part of a political myth. Um, and that um, even our government has power to spend money without the consent of the government general council. And I've read section 54 of our constitution, British North America act twice now um to show that it's actually illegal for our government house of comments to pass a spending bill without the governor in general messaging them it
>> in in so what you've expressed here today right now what ramifications implement implications would this have around the Alberta independence movement
>> oh you see That's that's just a wonderful question because if because that really the question then is is how how can a province you know secede from Canada under our parliamentary structure because our constitution doesn't really allow for that. So, um, and you know, when Quebec was wanting to secede, or at least, um, they were holding referendums on that, the federal government actually did a reference to the Supreme Court saying, you know, like how does how does the province do this? Now remember we have political theater but our Supreme Court um which you know likely would feel bound to follow its own decision um although it doesn't have to basically said listen if you have a sizable majority voting in a province to secede in a fair process then that would create a moral obligation because we don't have any legal obligation that would create a moral obligation on Canada to negotiate in good faith. Now, who's Canada in this situation? Because the king owns our land and the king the governor general is the king the executives vested in the king which is exercised by the governor general um with the advice andor advice and consent of the privy council office federally not even with the federal cabinet although the federal cabinet is part of the privy council office while they're sitting as cabinet members. So who who is it that negotiates? And Nadine, the real question is at the end of the day is will the king suffer Alberta leaving? But, you know, the fun part is is that um you know, I don't think that Quebec could possibly support um Canada, you know, using armed forces to keep a province like Alberta in the Dominion because the province of Quebec would be looking over its shoulder going, well, I don't want to create a precedent for, you know, if we decide to leave, right? So, but I don't think anyone really knows the answer. What does this look like if you know a sizable majority in one of the king's provinces in the Dominion of Canada vote to leave the Dominion? What does that look like? It we're in total unchartered territory. And and this is the the I think the point that we've been trying to make um in particular, you know, myself and Bruce party is that we are in uncharted territory. But I think the referendum uh and a vote yes I think is so almost essential at this stage if for no other reason than exploratory reasons so that we can get to the depths and the inner understanding and workings of you know exposing the truth about our government right now like could you imagine like and I think this is why there's so much um push back on this from the east. Um because this will literally blow the lid off of much of what we're talking about today because much of this would have to come out.
>> Well, I mean the east has has a huge financial incentive. You know, it's funny. I my father's visiting and he was sharing with me an American um financial commentator who has recently just basically come out and said, you know, the province of Saskatchewan should be as rich as Dubai. I mean, they only have, you know, 1.1 million people. They have oil like Alberta. Like most Canadians think Alberta. No, no. Saskatchewan's got tons of oil.
>> Saskatchewan has uranium. Saskatchewan has pod ash. and Saskatchewan has agriculture. It should be much richer than Alberta. So why, you know, why is there poverty in Saskatchewan? And you know, well, it's because the the money is siphoned off to the east. And you know, with Alberta, the money is siphoned off to the east
>> or it's left in the ground.
>> Could could the you know, could Quebec and Ontario continue to function the way they're functioning without the money taken from, you know, central Canada? I I won't say the west because we're not we're not speaking about BC. So I mean it's likely that they they can't I mean so politically the east has no choice and certainly the east will be getting directed by his majesty. I would expect um to do all that they can to to quash this rebellion. I mean, it's basically an in a proposed you know peaceful insurrection. How can you call it anything else from the perspective of the king and the national government? Mhm. Now, let let's bring in I want to bring in the indigenous here because as you and I have alluded, um there was a ruling in uh BC in which it wasn't even the province. This was federal this time around that Richmond, I do believe Burnaby and all of Vancouver. So, the Vancouver metro area is now being handed over the property, the land, upsetting potentially 2 million property owners to the Mesque tribe. So this is an undrip because I mean the province did their own damage I think with the Richmond ruling that came through the the provincial courts through DRIPA, right? They they made that but now we have the federal government that has you know handed over more property substantially more property to the Muskete tribe.
>> Yeah. So, you know, um, Nadine, I find this very interesting and and it's just I mean, I'm I'm firmly of the opinion that, um, that Canada's is under a, you know, deliberate creative destruction. And so there's several elements to that, but you, you know, you basically have to completely undermine the the foundations of a nation if you want to rebuild it in a different image. and that almost everything that's happening around us can be explained this way and and this is part of it. So when you talk about UNRIP you're talking about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and this is a treaty and that the federal government signed. Now, everyone can get a copy of this treaty, and there's lots written on this treaty. Um, but basically, this treaty obligates countries that signed this treaty to vest property in um into the the ownership of the indigenous people that preceded European colonization. And it it's funny that we even use the word colonization because all of history is one people coming and displacing another. And the indigenous tribes would have done that too, including to each other. And yet we're not going, oh, we're going to go back in time and figure out well, who had it before them. So Canada, without
telling people what this treaty says, and without telling people that well, it obligates us to basically transfer ownership, especially of unseated territory to indigenous people. But it's not just unseated territory. That's just, you know, the BC decision. It was unseated territory. So, you know, where I live, we've got treaty six. It's seated. So, I have no doubt that eventually um because this is all by design, if we allow it to keep happening, then the next step legally is is for the courts to say, well, okay, unseated territory that the natives or the indigenous people, I mean, they they have the property, they own it. But with the seated territory, they were really duped. They didn't understand our legal structure. They didn't understand what they were giving up. They didn't even have that conception of ownership. So these are invalid treaties. And because they're on valid invalid treaties, then it then really all of Canada's unseated land. And we're going to follow this UN treaty that we've signed and vest ownership. So it's really the king transferring ownership from himself to indigenous tribes. Now I expect at the end of the day the king still is is you know somehow vested but let's say it does all go to the indigenous tribes. What sane government in Canada has the authority? So if we assume that you know elected governments and I've already indicated to you that's an absolute fraud farce anyway. But what government would possibly do that let alone do it without a public debate? And it's not by accident. So here we've got the Liberal government basically giving the Lower mainland to a a band with my understanding is less than 2,000 members. How does that do anything but destabilize the province of British Columbia and Canadian finances? Because the the legal fallout from that will be is you won't be able to refinance your property or get a mortgage and you don't even know now um what you know that band is going to do. Are they going to kick you out? Are they going to lease the property to you? I mean, what does this look like? And can you imagine? I mean, and the commercial properties, what what is this what is this going to do to destabilize Canada? Like, who knows?
And so, how does this happen without a public debate? And and to make matters worse on this particular one, uh the government will not even release the agreement. So, the terms to which you know they have agreed so that people can see it for themselves. Well, not yet. So, you know, surely we're going to get a copy of the agreement. So, but it's just how do you do that? So, you know, let's say you accept that. I mean, we we took over can Canada. I mean, but even that history like to assume that there wasn't cooperation and consent and it's not like the Aboriginals didn't want the technology like I mean we we basically rewrite history for this narrative when history is multifaceted and it doesn't conform to just a single narrative. But let's say you even assume oh no this was awful and completely exploitive. Well, how do you do you solve this by saying no, there's no property rights or do you compensate some other way? Like I have difficulty viewing this because so here you've got a band of 2,000 people and let's say you say, you know, well, what we did was awful. Well, you don't destabilize an entire province and perhaps an entire nation financially. Do you not just compensate those 2,000 people and and come up with some agreement that is like really generous and fair?
Well, I I I guess to to go back further than that though, because I mean here in Alberta, you know, we do have supposedly signed treaties. Um but now you're setting very dangerous precedent. Um and to your point earlier, you know, how far back do you have to go? Every nation has been conquered. every nation has is a mixture of different peoples at different times. How far back do you want to go, you know, and so this is the problem with I have with a lot of these treaties is you know what we keep throwing money at the problem. Well, money is not the answer. That's not the solution. But yet that seems to be what we do. Give them more land. Give them more resources. give them more money to the point where Canada is going to basically be nothing but indigenous people with indigenous resources with so turn us into a national park because that's it seems to be this managed decline that the path of which we're on that's exactly the path in which we're headed and so I I'm curious as to who is this serving right because it's not serving Canadians
Well, remember I I told you that the goal is is to turn us into a communist in this nation. Well, to do that, you have to take away property rights.
Exactly.
And so under UNGRIP, if the um if the bands that you know end up owning the land can't administer them, then my understanding is the UN can step in as the administrator. Now we have communism.
Canada right now, in my opinion, is a one world order experiment. We are at the I think we are we are the nation, you know, the western supposedly liberal free world that is being used as and I mean people may think this is a little bit conspiratorial but the the reality is all the facts all the actions are pointing to that. No, I mean my my expertise aside from constitutional law is in the area of food and drug regulation and Nadine I'm now firmly of the opinion that Canada has the most dangerous food supply of any nation in the world. So we have the most toxic food supply and the food supply that is most devoid of nutrients. We used to be tied with the United States that but because of what Kennedy is doing south of the border removing toxins and requiring basic nutrition in the foods Canada's now stands alone in my opinion as having the most toxic and dangerous food supply in the world.
Yeah. What nation would want their population to be sick? What what nation would want their population to be broke? what na what nation would want their population to be ignorant because none of those things benefit the nation the people so you have to ask yourself you know I I used to say you know god had a plan for human beings you know healthy wealthy and wise right the government also has a plan and it's sick broke and ignorant um and because it's about control in my opinion um and how do you get to a one world you know governance um and a communist state, especially where people were supposedly taught and and raised to believe you were sovereign and free, and yet we just keep continually handing over or the government just continually takes our our liberties, our rights, and our freedoms. So, with that in mind, I tell let's talk a little bit about the $750,000 fine that was administered.
Oh, it's very very newfelt.
Yes.
I'm curious. I'm curious um what your thoughts on that are. I I you know and I'll give your before maybe your thoughts. I'll I'm just going to give the context because everyone's heard Barry Newfeld school trustee fined $750,000 by a human rights tribunal for basically you know questioning as a school trustee um you know this gender ideology pro-education program in the school district for which he was a school trustee. Um but let's fill in the blanks a little more because Barry Newfeld is a very interesting person. So first of all, he had been a school trustee for a long time and you know he was a respected school trustee and he took his job very seriously and remember your job as a school trustee is to basically protect the students um within your district that you're elected and you know to help manage to make the education system as good as possible within your school district. I mean, you have a fiduciary duty there. But professionally, Barry Newfeld was a probation officer for decades and decades and decades, I think over 30 years, and his expertise is in sex sex offenders. So, I know I I um called him as a witness under oath at the Vancouver hearings of the National Citizens Inquiry back in October of 2024. Well, he was still participating in sex offender groups then. So he he meets with sex offenders and his testimony was really interesting because he was sharing and and this would have been part of his concern with this SOGI initiative is that the sex offenders that he you know they have to as part of their treatment participate in these groups and he's an expert so he's he's one of the facilitators here but the sex offenders he was sharing with us report to them him that is so much easier for them to sexually abuse kids now because before kids were being sexualized with this soji and gender ideology in schools, they didn't know about sexual acts. Like so sex offenders, if you're going to, you know, groom a child to be able to sexually abuse them, you actually have to introduce them into the concept of sex, into the concept of body parts being used for different things. And you have to actually educate them about the sexual acts you want them to participate in. Let alone, you know, manipulating them so that you can get them to do that. And this education process we call grooming in the area of, you know, criminal sexual exploitation of children and sexual assault. So it's called grooming. So sex offenders are reporting to him, but they don't have to groom the kids anymore because the the school systems already educated them about sexual acts and normalized sexual acts, you know, with same sex and with like all of this. So So the sex offenders are reporting Barry Newfeld, who is an expert who works with them, that they don't the grooming's done by the school system. Well, obviously this is of concern to him and he's just basically doing what school trustees are supposed to do, which is to have a dialogue with the other school trustees. Is this a good idea? Is this not a good idea? And here's the fun part, Nadine, is so now that it's public and every school trustee in Canada can see if I raise questions about something that is political, not only will I be destroyed financially, because you know what school, what person generally can survive a $750,000 after tax fine? But you're going to be publicly destroyed also your reputation. You're going to be ridiculed. So now you will be hardressed to find a school trustee that is going to stand up and ask questions about things that genuinely concern them that go against the political narrative. And that is the real tragedy. I mean it's a tragedy what happened to Barry Newfeld. I I in my opinion he was performing his fiduciary duty. He had particular expertise in that. Um but the real tragedy is is you know it's like everything else you know we go after constipal groups so that all other police officers know you know if I go after something politically I'm going to be destroyed.
Yeah. wrote, you know, religious exemptions and discipline them publicly so that everyone knows, you know, go after the Dr. Hoffers and that even though they didn't succeed and and you know, thanks for all the people that supported his legal defense and boy, Lee Turner, his attorney, my gosh, did he ever go to town, but it still was public. Doctors will be afraid, right? And that's what this is with Barry Newfeld. I mean, I I think that, you know, the human rights decision, you know, took into account quite strongly the need to deter others. You know, you can you can negligently run into somebody and cause them to be a quadripollegic and they're not likely to get a $750,000 judgment against you.
Yeah. And I think here this is uh for lack of a better word or words um the process becomes the punishment. So this is they are being made an example of whether you're a doctor who disagree with the public narrative or a school trustee who agre disagrees with the public narrative or a a you know police officer who has specific skills in investigation and brings up things that are contrary to the public narrative. Um it it's they are making an example of these individuals, I think, to instill fear purposefully. Um making an example of them and then even though they're not found guilty or they're they're, you know, everything's dismissed years down the road, it's years. It's dollars and cents, you know, somebody's entire retirement, you know, somebody's career and and and the process itself becomes the punishment.
Yeah, I mean this um you know this whole administrative tribunal process and even our court process. So um yeah, it's it's um the whole thing needs to be reformed. But you're so right is the process itself is the punishment. So um it it destroys people. It destroys them spiritually and emotionally and physically and financially. And um you know there's a an Arab saying that justice you know delayed is justice denied. And you know, if we ever get a chance to reset how we settle disputes, I mean, it has to be it has to be fast and it has to where where you don't have to pay and where people can't pay for high dollar lawyers. Like, you know, I I've gone against the government in civil court on constitutional matters. And I mean I expect there to be eight to 12 lawyers against me, maybe only two to four sitting at council table, but a whole team. And these will be people in special units, cream of the crop, with unlimited resources and support staff behind them to ensure that a court does not dare to limit the government's ability to encroach upon our rights. And isn't that interesting because um what in our constitution act of 1982 and I think it's section 35 says that or no it's section 52 of our constitution act of 1982 says that the constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada and any law that is inconsistent with the constitution is to the extent of the inconsistency of no force and effect. So that basically says that our constitution or this collection of British statutes that we call our constitution is the supreme law. So you know our attorney generals are supposed to uphold the law and our supreme law is our constitution including our charter of rights and freedoms. But instead, our our minister of justice that swears allegiance to the king and not our constitution basically directs the department of justice to do all they can to restrict our laws and get judgment after judgment and make it more and more expensive and more ownorous so that no person will go against the government twice. We don't have rule of law. So a a professional department of justice be I've formed the opinion uh long-term is not consistent with a liberal democracy and an attorney general uh cannot be directing. You can't have the attorney general directing the police. You basically have the government directing the police. Well, how do you have rule of law visa v the government when the government directs the police? It's like everything we've done once you start looking at it is just an illusion. It it's political theater. We have a power structure that is meant to have us believe that we're free to believe that we have rule of law. Um and in some and in minor things we do. It's actually works wonderful for minor things except that most of us can't access it because of the cost. Um but it's an illusion. It's not real.
That's very sad. So, I think we'll end things there today because I think that's a lot of information for people to digest. A lot of myths that people honestly believe to be truths, not even myths anymore. Um, I think that people need to fully understand. I mean, we we've you've basically stated we're not a sovereign country. Our commander-in-chief is the king. The king owns all the lands of Canada, which means he owns all the natural resources. um which has implications not only for Canadians but particularly here in Alberta. Um any last final words?
Um, no except I mean I think people need to just start understanding that almost everything that they believe to be true is needs to be questioned and you know definitely we've been totally gamed in the area of of you know how our government is structured and where power lies and so just you know understand that there's a reason why you haven't read the constitution. There's a reason why your lawyer hasn't read the constitution. There's a reason why likely nobody you know has read the most important document governing their lives and and that's because you're not supposed to know because it would be inconvenient and it would break these political myths which are are completely untrue. So um and unfortunately most there aren't very many people talking about this. So you know if I can plug certainly follow me on X at Shanbuckley Law and Substack at Shan Buckley Law. just started that Substack channel, but we're going to start publishing on things like this. And then also you can follow me at nhppa.org. So Nadine, thank you.
Oh, I'd like to say this was pleasurable, but you are always a pleasure to speak to uh you know, but realistically this is because this poses significant problems. Um you know, it's one thing
Inconvenient.
It is very inconvenient.
Inconvenient. And it it's interesting the internet's working fine, you know, when we talk about, you know, UNRIP. It's fine when we're talking about Barry Newfeld, but boy, when we were on some sensitive parts uh on constitutional truth, we were sure having some some internet interruptions.
Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, thank you so much, Sean. And um, we're you know I I have a funny feeling that you and I are going to be talking again about either say the same conversation just more in depth or the continuation as this has so many ramifications in so many different areas of our public private life. So thank you again so much.
Well everybody I hope you enjoyed that. Um, again, some myth busting going on here. Things that you have been told were absolute truths. Things that you've been educated from the time that you were probably in kindergarten all the way up through grade 12 that have not necessarily um been true, but you've been told they were true. We are living under a lot of different illusions. And I would love to hear your comments, your thoughts. Please do share and like this video. Please do follow along with uh Sean's work that he's doing and releasing this information. And I can assure you there are other people out there um who are aware of this but it is just so difficult to speak to because when you speak to people about these things again it's hard to believe. We've been taught, we've been educated, for a lack of better word, we've been groomed to believe these things to be true and therefore we never question them. So to Sean's point here, this is the awakening. This is the exposure. This is the awareness. We need to start questioning these things that matter. As Sean pointed out, the most important document in our lives is the Constitution supposedly, and we don't even know who's in charge. On that note, God bless.