Are We Living in a Nation or a Company?

Behind the Maple Leaf: The State, the Crown, and the Corporate Control of the People

For the last 15 years or so I have been exploring various topics orbiting around “Sovereignty” — free man on the land, natural law, common law, reclaiming rights through affidavits, rescinding government contracts, and the broader legal and spiritual dimensions of what it truly means to live as a sovereign individual. Over the last while I have recently dug back into some of this and have started to make some sense of things as I take action in an effort to reclaim my Sovereignty.

In my last article I unpacked the whole concept of “human capital”. Demonstrating how birth certificates (and other forms of government-issued documentation) are quietly being used as collateral in global debt markets. You can read that here for background context:

Now, building on that foundation, I want to shift the focus from individual monetization to something equally profound: the true nature of Canada itself. We’ve all been taught to see Canada (and the Western world at large) as a free and sovereign nation; a democracy rooted firmly in the rule of law and accountable to its citizens. But what if Canada was never truly established as a sovereign nation-state? What if that belief is based more on appearances than reality? What if Canada only looks like a country on the surface, while underneath it operates more like a corporation — complete with directors, shareholders, and commercial interests?

Before dismissing this as fringe theory, let’s clarify one thing: this is not about politics or ideology. It’s about legal structures, documented facts, and the realities hidden in plain sight. This is about understanding the difference between a system that appears to represent the people, and one that was never truly built for them in the first place. And in a time of rising authoritarianism, digital ID systems, central bank control, and global governance, that difference has never mattered more.

The British North America Act: A Colonial Corporate Charter

To truly understand how Canada came to function more like a corporation than a sovereign nation, we need to look at its original founding document: the British North America Act (BNA Act) of 1867.

Contrary to popular belief, the BNA Act was not written by Canadians, nor was it debated, voted on, or ratified by the people. It was a piece of British legislation, passed by the UK Parliament, that created an administrative framework for governing several British colonies under one centralized authority. It unified Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into what it called a new “Dominion” of Canada — not an independent nation-state, but a Crown-managed corporate entity within the British Empire.

The word “Dominion” itself is revealing. It doesn’t mean sovereign or self-governing in any real sense. It refers to a possession — something ruled over, not something freely constituted by the will of its people. There was no constitutional convention, no referendum, and no mechanism through which the people gave lawful consent. In that sense, Canada wasn’t founded — it was incorporated.

Another, simpler way of saying this is that the BNA Act was never ratified by the people. This is a term often thrown around in Sovereignty circles.

This corporate-style framework isn’t unique to Canada. Many other Commonwealth countries — including Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa — followed a strikingly similar path. Their so-called “independence” was often granted through British legislation rather than born from lawful, people-driven constitutions. In most cases, “independence” was simply top-down legal restructuring under the continued authority of the Crown. What emerged were not truly sovereign republics, but self-governing administrative units operating within a broader imperial-commercial network. In that sense, Canada is not an outlier — it’s a model. A nation in name, but a corporation in structure.

From day one, Canada was built to manage colonial assets and serve Crown interests — a framework that bears more resemblance to a corporate charter than a national constitution.

And that foundational structure? It never changed — no matter how much we were taught to believe otherwise.

Bills in Canada must still achieve “Royal Assent” before they become law. The Governor General of Canada is the federal representative of the Crown — aka, King Charles the 3rd — in Canada. It should noted that King Charles is the monarch for 15 other commonwealth realms; many of which have a similar origin story to Canada.

Lastly, when current Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was sworn in as PM, he swore allegiance and service to King Charles — “the King of Canada.”

Canada Has Never Lawfully Declared Independence

One of the most persistent myths in Canadian education is the idea that we peacefully “evolved” into an independent, sovereign nation. The truth is far more complex, and far less empowering.

Canada has never lawfully declared independence from the British Crown. There is no declaration of independence, no ratified constitution created by the people, and no founding document that severs our legal ties to the UK. From a legal standpoint, we remain tethered to the Crown.

This becomes even clearer when we examine the Constitution Act of 1982 — often cited as Canada’s moment of true independence. But as researcher Matthew Ehret shared in a recent podcast with me, this Act did not establish a new sovereign foundation. It merely amended and expanded upon the existing British North America Act of 1867. The 1982 Act was not created by the people, nor ratified through any public referendum. It was a top-down statutory update — not a foundational break from colonial rule.

Watch the full podcast here

To drive this point home, it is important to point out that Quebec never actually signed the 1982 Constitution. Quebec’s refusal to sign the 1982 Constitution further exposes the illusion of national unity. Despite lacking full provincial consent, Canada proceeded as though it had unanimous agreement — reinforcing a legal structure never legitimized by the people.

Source: Government of Canada

To this day, the foundational structure of Canada rests on the BNA Act — a British piece of legislation passed by the UK Parliament and never ratified by the Canadian people, for the Canadian people. The 1982 updates, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, were additions to that colonial legal architecture. They may have offered the illusion of sovereignty, but not the substance.

We have laws. We have flags. We have elections.

But a true declaration of independence — lawfully initiated, publicly ratified, and free from foreign allegiance — has never happened.

For those looking to explore this subject further, I highly recommend the documentary Canada: The Illusion. It offers a compelling overview and pulls together a wealth of historical and legal resources that complement the themes explored in this article. You can access their materials directly through their website.

The Crown as a Corporation Sole

If Canada has no lawful, ratified constitution of, by, and for the people, then what — or who — holds legitimate authority over this land?

The answer often given is “the Crown.” But this concept is misunderstood by design.

Contrary to public perception, “the Crown” does not mean the monarch. It does not refer to King Charles III as a sovereign man, but to a corporate fiction — a legal entity created to centralize and perpetuate control without lawful public consent. In legal terms, the Crown is what’s known as a corporation sole: a continuous legal office that never dies, and whose powers pass from one office-holder to the next, regardless of who wears the crown.

This structure was explored in Royal Succession and the Canadian Crown as a Corporation Sole (2014), which states:

“The Crown is a corporation sole, a legal person represented by a single office-holder (the Sovereign), who acts in a continuous capacity despite changes in the natural person occupying the office.”

— 2014CanLIIDocs33539, p. 7

But even that explanation misses a more unsettling truth: there is more than one “Crown.”

• The Crown in Chancery is the legal executor of state power under the British system — holding the Great Seal of the Realm, not the monarch.

• The Crown in Right of Canada is a corporate derivative, created and managed by statute.

• And the Crown Corporation of the City of London operates commercially, controlling land, law, and finance under corporate rule — not sovereign authority.

Being “governed by The Crown” does not mean a symbolic allegiance to a monarch — it is in fact a multi-layered corporate hierarchy, rooted in British imperial law, and designed to function above democratic oversight.

Source: House of Commons Library UK

When Canada was federated in 1867 under the British North America Act, all land, assets, and powers were placed under Crown ownership — not the people’s. Even after the Statute of Westminster in 1931 offered the possibility of real sovereignty, no constitutional convention or ratified declaration followed.

Instead, in 1947, Canada received new Letters Patent, allegedly redefining the powers of the Governor General — but they were signed not by the King or the Lord Chancellor, but by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, and sealed not with the Great Seal of the Realm, but with the Great Seal of Canada, which has no lawful authority under British law. This means that the entire executive authority of Canada may be resting on an invalid foundation — unauthorized by the true Crown, and unratified by the people.

The real-world implications of this are astounding:

• Continuity of control: Corporate-style governance ensures an unbroken chain of authority — from monarch to monarch, prime minister to prime minister — without requiring public approval.

• Centralized ownership: All Canadian land, resources, and public institutions are held “in trust” by the Crown — not the people — in a system more akin to a colonial holding than a sovereign nation.

• Allegiance to a foreign office: Public officials swear allegiance to the Crown, not to Canadians. As seen during Prime Minister Mark Carney’s swearing-in above, this means loyalty is pledged to King Charles as “King of Canada”, not to the people or any lawful constitution.

Canada does not operate as a sovereign republic. It functions as a Crown-controlled administrative unit, using the facade of democratic governance to obscure its corporate structure. These findings shatter the illusion of Canadian sovereignty and demand a serious reevaluation of the state’s relationship to its people.

Unless we confront this head-on, any discussion of rights, freedoms, or national self-determination remains fundamentally hollow.

The paper trail tells the real story — not in founding charters, but in commercial registries…

SEC Filings & DUNS Numbers: Canada as Commercial Entity

While many Canadians still believe they live in a sovereign nation governed by democratic principles, the commercial paper trail tells another story — one that points directly to Canada’s corporate structure and operations.

Canada is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under CIK #0000230098 — the same kind of registration that applies to publicly traded corporations. Its listed address? The Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. This is not symbolic. It confirms that Canada, at the highest level of international finance, is treated as a foreign corporate entity engaged in commerce on U.S. soil.

Source: SEC.gov

It doesn’t stop there.

Virtually every department of the Canadian government — including Health Canada, the RCMP, the Department of Justice, and even the Supreme Court of Canada — has an active D-U-N-S® number, a proprietary identifier used by Dun & Bradstreet to catalog and track business entities worldwide. DUNS numbers are not assigned to sovereign governments — they are issued to corporations.

These listings are not benign. They confirm that federal institutions in Canada are registered as business entities capable of engaging in contracts, issuing bonds, and participating in global trade — much like subsidiaries of a multinational conglomerate — in this case “The Crown” as a corporation sole.

The Legal and Financial Implications

When viewed through the lens of commercial registration and corporate structure, the operations of the Canadian government begin to resemble those of a multinational holding company rather than a sovereign democratic state.

Canada’s legal architecture — from unratified founding documents to Crown corporate authority — enables a system where individuals are treated not as citizens with inherent rights, but as assets managed within a public-private framework.

As outlined in my previous article, every Canadian’s birth certificate generates a corresponding legal fiction — a commercial entity used to access credit, issue bonds, and collateralize national debt. In this model, the state does not serve the people; it monetizes them.

Government departments issue “sovereign bonds” backed by the productive capacity of the population — effectively leveraging human capital. These debts are not issued in the name of a nation, but under a corporate structure flowing from the Crown as a corporation sole — not from the consent of the people.

Parliament operates less like a legislative body and more like a corporate board — managing assets, liabilities, and optics. Ministries function as departments within this enterprise, prioritizing compliance with global financial systems over the public interest.

There is no true separation of powers when all branches serve the same incorporated Crown. And without a lawful, ratified constitution, the people have no recognized legal mechanism to challenge this structure.

In short, the Canadian people are not sovereign stakeholders — they are managed participants in a corporate framework that profits from their compliance and silence.

De Facto vs De Jure Governance

In a lawful republic, power flows from the people upward — grounded in consent and a ratified constitution. But that is not Canada’s reality.

Instead, Canada functions as a de facto regime — one that holds power and enforces laws, but without the lawful foundation of a de jure government created by and for the people. A de jure government derives its legitimacy from a valid constitution, ratified by the people. A de facto government, by contrast, exists in fact (hence the name de facto) but not in lawful right. It operates on bureaucracy, institutional momentum, and the public’s passive compliance.

Outwardly, Canada has the appearance of a democratic state — elections, legislatures, courts, constitutions — but this structure masks a deeper legal reality: a corporate governance model under Crown authority (as explained throughout this article).

This is why rights can be suspended with emergency orders. Why courts rarely challenge Crown authority. And why no meaningful mechanism exists for the people to revoke consent or demand lawful redress.

Until Canadians reckon with this foundational truth — and understand the difference between lawful governance and corporate administration — true sovereignty will remain out of reach.

Conclusion: The Illusion of Sovereignty

What emerges from this exploration is not an abstract theory, but a plain accounting of deeply embedded, structural truths most Canadians have never thought to look into.

Canada presents itself as a nation — flags, anthems, elections, and charters all reinforcing the narrative of independence and democratic governance. But beneath that narrative lies a continuity of Crown authority, commercial registration, and corporate control — a framework never lawfully ratified by the people, and never severed from its colonial roots.

There is no founding moment of national sovereignty. No declaration of independence. No ratified constitution. The structures that govern this country were not built by the people, for the people — they were inherited, enacted, and encoded by statute, serving Crown interests that continue to operate behind the veil of public institutions.

This isn’t about nostalgia or rebellion. It’s about seeing things as they are.

The question is no longer whether Canada operates like a company. The evidence speaks for itself.

The real question is whether the Canadian people are ready to confront that reality — and what they will do with it.