Which Former Separatist City Will Head Up The NAU
Standardizing Quebec
The Election from Afar
Brent Jessop - Knowledge Driven Revolution.com
March 28, 2007
A three party race? The separatist party falling fast with an incompetent leader? An emerging conservative party? What is happening in Quebec? I am not an expert on all the subtleties of the political scene in Quebec. But, sometimes knowing less detail about something as deceptive as politics can add some clarity.
Taking a step back. Canada is currently being merged with the US and Mexico under the Security and Prosperity Partnership or more properly the North American Union (think European Union or Soviet Union). How does Quebec sovereignty fit into this amalgamation of the Americas?
Remember back in November? When all major federal political parties supported the concept of Quebec as a nation within a nation? Does that sound better as a nation within a super-state? This concept of Quebec as a nation within a nation was solidified well before November, in May 2006, Stephen Harper and Jean Charest signed a role for Quebec ñ separate from Canada - in UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization).
How does the North American Union, the fall of separatists in Quebec and Quebec as a nation within a nation all fit together? An idea, I first heard from Alan Watt, was that Montreal was chosen as the future capital of the North American Union. This information came from Shelley Ann Clark back during the NAFTA negotiations. I have not been able to confirm this, but here is a transcript of an interview with Shelley Ann Clark that is worth reading.*
The idea of Montreal as the capital of the NAU does however pass the smell test. An American city would leave the impression that Canada and Mexico were being absorbed into the US [1]. What better place then a nation within a nation which is culturally distinct from the rest of Canada? To make that happen a calming or even silencing of Quebec independence would be necessary.
Some food for thought.
[1] This impression would be quite false. Canada and Mexico are not being pulled in under US law (ie. the constitution or what is left of it). The three are being merged under a separate bureaucratic system. The American citizens are loosing their sovereignty as much as the Canadians and Mexicans.
*
NESARA INTERNATIONAL
NAFTA
Canadian-American Free Trade Deception
Taped Interview with Shelley Ann Clerk (#2)
This taped interview with Shelley Ann Clark has been abstracted from the book 'NEW WORLD ORDER CORRUPTION IN CANADA', by Professor Robert O'Driscoll [now out-of-print]. Ms Clark played a key role in the 1987/88 Free Trade Negotiations in which Canada's future was secretly bartered away...
Shelley Ann Clark: I was hand-picked for the position as Germain Denis' Assistant. I was told from the beginning that the interview was just a formality. How true that turned out to be! After Germain Denis had interviewed me only for about 3 minutes, he asked me when I could start work. Wanting this challenge, I agreed to become his executive assistant.
I was hired in July and by September we had a computer system called GEAC. This system had been brought in by one Peter Hines, today a millionaire, and I discovered quickly that he and Germain Denis were very tight. I wondered why? It certainly wasn't the technical expertise that bonded them: Germain Denis was a person who refused to have a computer in his office. "No," he was heard to say, "this is far too complex for my mind. Shelley Ann will have the one computer installed in my area." Mr. Denis was not telling the truth, as we shall discover later.
Germain Denis was, as is indicated above, in charge of critical aspects of the Free Trade negotiations. At the time I had two secretaries working for me who were inputting top secret material into this computer. We had no hours: when you entered the building, you never knew when you would leave.
Late one Friday, actually at 6.30 p.m., a rather demanding lady, Sylvia Ostry, telephoned, demanding a copy of a particular document that was on the computer: in two hours, she told us she was boarding a flight to the United States, and she needed this particular document. Unfortunately, I was the only one left in the office. The secretaries had gone home. Each person with access to the computer had a password: nobody knew the other person's password and this, I was told, was for security purposes. What I imediately did was to check with the person who had installed the GEAC system - Peter Hines - and fortunately found him still on the job. My first question was to ask him whether anything could be done to accommodate the urgency of Sylvia Ostry's request. I said there must be a way to break the programme codes of the computers and if anyone would know it would him. "Don't tell a soul, Shelley Ann," he said, "but the only way that we can get into the computer system at Trade Negotiation Office is to contact the president of GEAC. He has the "God" password." "The "God" password? What in heaven's name is that?" "Well," he answered, "that is what the president has termed it and he is the only one that has it." "Are you telling me that the president of GEAC has access to all of our information within our computer system?" "That's right. He can access Simon Riesman's computer. He can access everyone's computer on the seventeenth floor at 50 O'Connor." I felt like saying: "Who the hell is the president of GEAC ?" But for the moment I registered the thought internally, saying: "Can you contact this guy, Peter, I really need the document." Suddenly - bingo - I had the document in my hands.
"And he's in Toronto, Peter - the president of GEAC?" "That's right!" "And we're here in Ottawa?" "That's right!" "But he can do the commands from Toronto?" "That's right."
The implications, I thought, are enormous. Here we are negotiating this top secret trade deal between Canada and the United States - so secret that secretaries in the same office don't know each other's password to the computer - while the President of the Computer Company registering the information - has access to that information. What kind of security is that? Or are the results of the negotiations a foregone condusion? More likely the latter, I thought. Not to speak of Big Brother, invisible but watching all the time. Tuning in, no doubt, from time to time to see if everything is on track - especially the Canadians.
The very next morning - I've been a Foreign Affairs Diplomat all of my life; I was hand-picked by them right out of business college when I was sixteen years old; so my entire life has been with Foreign Affairs and top-secret clearance with everything involved when you have access to that kind of knowledge, what to watch out for, etc. - the first thing I did (I was a good Foreign Services Officer and playing it according to the book] was that I immediately went to the head of security of the Free Trade Division. While Germain Denis was at this point still Head of Multilateral Trade, Memoranda to Cabinet, usually labelled "Secret" or "Top Secret" and outlining the negotiating tactics to be used with the Americans, would be viewed prior to reaching the Negotiating Table.
So I went to the head of security, Guy Marcoux, and demanded that he investigate. Who really owned this GEAC firm. Was it a Canadian company or was it American-owned with a Canadian subsidiary as a front? The head of the security suggested that I was making a mountain out of a molehill, that I was seeing a problem where it didn't exist, that he would not investigate.
I immediately went to the second-in-command, Gordon Ritchie, the Deputy Chief Negotiator and reported that the head of security did not want to proceed with the investigation. Ritchie ordered that the investigation take place: the end result was that "Yes, GEAC was an American Company," and while the investigation was being conducted, three representatives of GEAC requested via the Deputy Chief Negotiator - Gordon Ritchie - that they see me in order to convince me that nothing was wrong with the system. When Gordon Ritchie came to me I said, "Why me?". "You were the one who discovered it - I will even lend you the famous round table" - where he held all his important meetings - "in my office to meet these GEAC representatives." And sure enough the GEAC representatives came and talked to me for two solid hours using all the high-tech language at their command - language though that I didn't understand: I did not operate a computer at the time - I had two secretaries who did that.
So I sat and I listened and when they had finished I looked at each one of them in turn and said: "After everything you have said, I want one of you to guarantee me that no one can be across the street, in another city, or anywhere else and have access to any of the documents contained within this computer. Guarantee me this in writing and I will be satisfied." I knew they couldn't because a few days before their president had provided me with a top-secret document from the computer. They had to admit it - "No", they said, they couldn't guarantee that. And that was the end of that.
I went back to Gordon Ritchie with that information and forty-eight hours after the complaint had been made, the entire 12 million dollar system that had been installed into the Canada/US Free Trade Office was removed.
My impression was that Simon Riesman and Gordon Ritchie were applauding my efforts. What I couldn't understand at that time - and which is no longer a question mark in my mind - was the reaction of Germain Denis: it was one of complete and total anger: he lost his temper, went out of control, was absolutely enraged. What I am telling you here is in my report to the Public Service Alliance of Canada dated 22 July 1988, because it wasn't untiI that notable day that the reason for the man's rage became apparent to me, that I had indeed made a discovery, and that I had done something about it.
Germain Denis shouted at me: "Who do you think you are - someone at your level certainly doesn't handle such issues as this one - I won't have it." After this outburst he did not speak to me again for the next two weeks. Thank goodness for the co-operation of my colleagues that kept me briefed during that period or I would have had an extremely difficult time in completing the various tasks that had been assigned to me.
I had, though, the absolute evidence: without the president of GEAC, Sylvia Ostry would have had to leave the country without her document.
Mr. Kealey: Of course, removing the computer and replacing it with another does not mean that the problem was resolved. All it means is that Shelley Anne Clark couldn't prove any more that somebody else had access to the computer.
Shelley Ann Clark: Exactly! A new computer came in - IBM compatible, I was told. After my first discovery, they were very attentive to my reactions, explaining that the main disc was right there on the seventeenth floor. They even showed me where it was and that everything that we inputted into the computer would be held on this main disc which would - at the end of the negotiations - be transferred to the archives. So, fine - I took their word for it.
Then came a leak in the press about having no Francophone on board the Free Trade negotiations, so Simon Riesman appointed Germain Denis as the third-in-command, giving him the five major areas of interest to this country: Subsidies, Agriculture, tariffs, Intellectual property (the main umbrella for social programs, copyrights, pharmaceuticals, etc.), and Government Procurement.
Obviously Germain Denis couId not do all of it himself. So he appointed heads for each sector: Michael Gifford was placed in charge of agriculture; Germain Denis held the area of subsidies back for himself; and the person that he put in charge of intellectual property and pharmaceutical was a person who had a lot of control but whom we all thought was a wimp at the time.
All of this started in October 1986. In January 1987, the main negotiators went ahead to Washington for the first negotiating session. Each "chief" put together his working group - a working group on agriculture, a working group on tariffs, a working group on subsidies, etc. Throughout the negotiations, these groups travelled to Washington and met with their US counterparts. The first time Monsieur Denis came back from the US, it was explained to me that we would have to start briefing the Provinces. At the time I thought - rather stupidly - that the briefing would be done by Alan Nimark who was in charge of Federal/Provincial Relations. "No," Monsieur Denis said, "No, Federal/Provincial Relations are exactly that: PR work, smoke-screens, smoke-jobs, call it what you will." "Smoke-screens," I asked? And he said -"Yes - PR. I'm the one who's going to be looking after the Premiers and when they come they'll be needing private dining rooms. There'll be some official briefings right here in the TNO board room, but a lot of the time I'll be meeting the reps on a one-on-one basis." It was the Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan representatives especially that he met on the one-on-one basis.
After the first main negotiating session was planned, I was reeling with the explanations as to how he would be handling the particular briefings, and at ten o'clock went home, thinking it was the end of the day. I arrived home at ten-thirty: one hour later Germain Denis called, telling me to meet him at TNO, not to go by the Front desk, that he would be waiting for me in the garage with a key to the elevator. Security, therefore, was being avoided; anyone going in the front door would normally have to pass through security, sign in the time, and you would be watched on the television cameras until you reached your destination. The way Monsieur Denis arranged it meant that we were observed by nobody. It is relevant that the building is owned by Metropolitan Life - i.e. under Rockefeller control.
The other thing I was told was that I must not "tonight or at any time in the future ever tell your family where you are going: if you do, there will be a heavy price to pay." Again - because of my background in Foreign Affairs and security matters - he didn't have to repeat himself. I understood perfectly well that I was in a tight spot. I didn't know how tight until the negotiations moved into full swing in January '87 and he began altering figures and deleting paragraphs in a sigmificant way.
I would be called in at night - remember I was not allowed to tell anyone where I had gone, and I would often be there until four in the morning. The first thing I had to do was to learn how to operate the computer but was not allowed to tell anybody because I had a secretary to do precisely that. I learned to create a duplicate file from the main disc in the room on the seventeenth floor which contained everything. I was shown how to delete from the main disc once I had finished. This proves Denis was no computer illiterate.
I would arrive and call up the document that they had negotiated in Washington. If it was "Subsidies" that they had worked on, I would call up the "Subsidies" document, duplicate it, and rename it "Provincial". Then my superior would go through it step by step; if they had negotiated 30% or 40%, the figure would be brought down - to the lowest possible figure which was around 10%. This was because he wanted the manoeuvrability to move them upwards: the negotiating provinces would have got rather suspicious if the figures remained the same: an impression of negotiation had to be given where, as it now seems, everything had been decided on beforehand.
Energy? The paragraphs on energy would be methodically deleted. The book, "Faith and Fear", by Professors Doern and Tomlin, confirms what I have already disclosed to the media. They say that the energy chapter was not thrown into the agreement until the last famous weekend of 3 October 1987. I know why the chapter wasn't included until the very end. It was there all the time: in the American version, in the Canadian Federal version but not in the Provincial version - we kept deleting the energy chapter from the Provincial version.
Mr. Kealey: Yes, the Premiers of all of the provinces, except two, did not realize that the country was being given away. Remember what Shelley Ann stated at the beginning: that there were private meetings between some Premiers and Germain Denis. Those were specifically the Premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta, whom Mulroney had designated "moles" in the group: to surreptitiously find out what the other Premiers were thinking, what their bottom lines in the negotiation would be, and other sensitive data which could be manipulated to the Federal Government's advantage over the provinces.
This information they would then pass on to Germain Denis so that he would be able to put figures in the document that matched what the Premiers were prepared to give away. So there never was a problem of presenting figures that were too far above what the Premiers were prepared to accept. If there was, the solution was quite simple: change the figures in the document. Mulroney and his cohorts knew ahead of time because of the two moles, the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of Saskatchewan.
Shelley Ann Clark: That's right. I was able to prove to CJOH beyond a shadow of a doubt that these meetings took place. I had locked away my appointment book for '86 and '87, and when it was produced every meeting that took place was marked, the rooms that were used, the times, etc. I brought a witness with me - John Bowlby, an executive member of Citizens Against Bad Law. We photocopied the documentation in front of a lawyer. It was submitted to Charlie Greenwell of CJOH TV, so that he and his lawyers knew that when they aired the programme there was sufficient evidence - between the July 1988 Public Service Alliance document and this appointment book - to indicate that I was telling the truth.
May I return to the second "doctored" document produced for the Provinces. Following Germain Denis's directives I would produce a hard copy, make the specified deletions from my hard drive in addition to making those on the hard disc in the main room at 50 O'Connor. This done, I would then create ten copies for ten briefing books. The ten briefing books were numbered because I had to be sure in whose hands each book went just in case one would go astray. So they were numbered one to ten; Alberta would have #1, Manitoba #2, Saskatchewan #3, etc. No matter what pressure was put on me by the Prime Minister's Office, by the Privy Council Office, by Federal Provincial Relations - and I was warned that there would be excessive pressure and complaints by the Premiers for not getting their books several hours ahead of the briefings - I was ordered to give out the books literally minutes before the briefings took place. At the end of the session, Germain Denis would bring back the books himself or, if he didn't, I would be called in and the minute they left the room I would go and collect them, bring them back, and lock them in Monsieur Denis's vault.
Then at midnight I would undo nine of the briefing books and shred them in the shredder. It had to be done at midnight: you couldn't afford to be caught by security and we had been ordered under a special memorandum emanating from the Minister's Office that no documents used in the Canada/US negotiation were to be destroyed without the authorization of Riesman or Ritchie. It took that level of authorization to shred anything: we were allowed to shred Telex Packs that came in from Foreign Affairs but any negotiating document could not be touched. The only time I could shred these was between the hours of midnight and 3 am. I would shred nine books, holding one complete set back which I would put in the vault so the next time they negotiated on that particular subject with the Americans we would pull out that one set and Monsieur Denis would know how far he had proceeded. If he had negotiated 10%, the next time it would show up as 12% and so on and so on.
The next development was that Maude Barlow and John Turner started making accusations against Mulroney: that he was selling out the country, that our social security programs were in jeopardy etc. etc. Working directly on the Social Security programs and some of the other issues - as I was - I knew these individuals were telling the truth. The more I realized the illegality of what I was doing the more frightened I became: what this meant for the country and how it would be held over my head as a sort of blackmail control - completely, forever and ever and ever.
My first thought, therefore, was to escape the office, to give up doing what I was doing. I started by asking the Foreign Ministry to transfer me: they wouldn't. Not only that: they wouldn't touch me with a ten-foot pole: "You have to stay there", they said. "Why?", I said."This is Foreign Affairs, after all: to rotate is a normal part of existence here. I've rotated all my life. Why can't you rotate me now?" "No we can't touch you."
Another position opened up with the Trade Negotiations Office as the head of Protocol and Hospitality, an interesting position which I was more than qualified to deal with. Richard Levy, Head of Operations at the TNO, agreed: "Shelley Ann," he said, "you would be great for the position. Go ahead, speak to the Director General of Operations. If he'll give it to you - you've got it." I met with the Director General of Operations and he, being an honest guy, looked at me: "Shelley Ann, are you out of your mind? Germain Denis will never let you go. It would only be over his dead body that it would be possible for me to remove you from your present position."
ROD: But why?
Shelley Ann Clark: The secrets involved. Remember that Germain Denis, the Prime Minister and I were about the only ones who knew the intricacies and the implications of the free trade deal for Canada at that point. I was vulnerable. The more midnight meetings that were forced the more my marriage was completely falling apart. I was becoming vulnerable, a single parent, needing the job, scared to death and as mad as all hang.
So I created a fuss. The honest guy who told me he wouldn't be able to remove me from my position except over Germain Denis's dead body was immediately posted to Rome. It told certain people he had said too much. Remember that Germain Denis knew I was seeking to remove myself. Everyone had been told not to facilitate this move. Whenever I would go to my Personnel Officer who gave out assignments, I would arrive in that office; within five minutes the phone would ring, Germain Denis would be at the other end of the line. My Personnel Officer would say, "It's Germain. You have to talk to him." And he would beg me and order me to return to TNO immediately. The Personel Officer had never seen anyone of his level beg anyone or order someone back.
ROD: Do you have any piece of evidence we can print?
Mr. Kealey: What you have to consider here is: had she taken any document that was part of their documentation she would be in prison. That would have been a federal crime - removing secret documents - and so she would have been no further ahead if she actually took documents. What she did however was to file a formal complaint with her union. She has the complaint and their covering letter that tells her to destroy the complaint. She is the eye witness - the smoking gun is the Real Free Trade Deal, the one buried in canisters outside Ottawa that Canadians have never seen. What we have to do as a people is to apply pressure upon our so-called independent politicians to see what those canisters contain.
ROD: But can this evidence ever come out? If, for example, we put it in this book we are preparing, with other evidence pointing to the same proposition, will it ever get more than a very limited circulation ?
Mr. Kealey: We have an example right here. Shelley Ann gave her story to one weekly paper. They've written the story in much detail and already people are coming to them saying, "I also worked in that area. I have seen the documentation being transferred from one place to another. I can vouch for what she's saying." The more that is published, the more hands it gets into, the more chance you will have of it circulating. By publishing, by circulating the material you remove fear - you take away that fear and more people will come forward.
Shelley Ann Clark: On 6 January [1994] I was on a talk show that crossed all of Alberta. I stated quite bluntly that what we are dealing with here is treason. The reaction has been extraordinary. I sincerely believe that the book you are preparing, 'NEW WORLD ORDER: CORRUPTION IN CANADA', should be published as soon as possible: that is the way we can reach more Canadians.
Mr. Kealey: They may have their implementation schedule and have set dates by which certain phases of the deal had to be completed, but it is a fraudulent contract and a fraudulent contract does not have legal validity once it has been proven it's a fraud. Whatever dates, therefore, that have been arbitrarily set, are not ultimately important.
Shelley Ann Clark: I have been wanting to cross Canada, to tell Canadians what I know, and try to get them to do something about this. A hundred or two hundred letters are not enough. What is needed are massive demonstrations, hundreds of thousands of letters. Once they realize on Parliament Hill that the entire country knows then they will have to do something.
I thought in the last election that I could do something with the backing of the National Party, that a person like Mel Hurtig would make maximum use of someone like myself. I have the information first-hand: I did the fraudulent act under orders. What did Mel Hurtig and the National Party do? Nothing! I was provided with $1,000 for my fee, but nothing for advertising or all the other considerable expenses that are necessary in order to get your points across to the voters. I went into my riding to be asked: "Why, with what you have to tell, can you not get any backing? Why aren't you on those billboards all over the place?"
Mr. Kealey: We already know why, because after the election we received some documentation and I've been in touch with a number of National Party candidates. I found out. I got the evidence that the National Party manipulated certain ridings to keep their candidates from winning. If they didn't have much of a chance they were given four or five thousand dollars. If they had a chance of winning they were limited to one thousand dollars.
The documentation we now have is that in 1972 Mel Hurtig was a candidate for the Liberals. He had also been in association with the Canadian Institute for International Affairs [NOTE: Canada's "twin" to the CFR in the States]. He was on a programme following recommendations of the Bilderberger meetings that had been held both in the Laurentians and in Vermont. When you link Mel Hurtig directly with the New World Order Gang, you arrive very quickly at the reason why he was where he was during the recent election. He was delivering the Canadian West to the same group that Mulroney and his Gang had given away the rest of the country to.
Then you have Bill Loewen. We have evidence that Bill Loewen, who owned a company called Comcheq, sold his company to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce For $16O million just a year before the election. I would be prepared to bet that Bill Loewen sold his company for $150 million and got $10 million from the Bankers to set up a political party with one purpose - to remove the free trade dissent from the NDP party in the West so that the Liberals would be able to squeak through.
This is exactly what happened all across the West and why today the Liberals have a majority. It's because of the amount in votes taken away from the NDP by the National Party which allowed the Liberal to squeeze by.
I know Bill Loewen personally because he paid my rent for six months. He stopped paying when he asked me to join his political party. He acted just like a banker: when you do the things he wants you to do he will support you; otherwise he won't.
I have, as I said, spoken to a number of National Party candidates and there is general consensus out there that they were manipulated in a way as to prevent them from being successful.
What are we left with? With Brian Mulroney equipped with the cash he stole from Canadians during his years in office, he was able to buy the entire 1993 election. Here in my view is how he went about doing it:
He introduced Lucien Bouchard to Quebecers and made him into a separatist hero by faking a public fight with him over Quebec's role in Canada. Bouchard eventually became the most loved politician in Quebec and led his Bloc Quebequois, with Mulroney's financial support, to victory in Quebec. The Bloc even became the Official Opposition in the Canadian Parliament following the 1993 elections.
He used his considerable influence and money to convince all the Tory "big guns" to drop out of the 1993 election. This guaranteed the Liberals (TEAM 2) under Mitchell Sharp (the banker's man in Ottawa) and Jean Chretien (a Charlie McCarthy dummy like Ronald Reagan) a really good shot at majority government.
He collaborated with Conrad Black's plan to finance the Reform Party in Ontario (while limiting its chances and influence there) by allowing Preston Manning (a leader with links to the CIA in 1967-68) to address the Canadian Club and others on the condition they warn Quebecers to act just like the other provinces or "go away". This message was a total reversal of Alberta's position during the 1981 referendum on separation in Quebec when Quebecers were told they were loved and wanted).
He collaborated with bankers (CIBC) in order to finance Bill Loewen's creation of the new National Party. This new political party, with Mel Hurtig its leader (a 1968-72 former member of the elite Canadian Institute for International Affairs), would mislead 200,000 anti-free trade Canadians away from the NDP thereby allowing the Liberals and Refonmers to win many key NDP ridings.
He destroyed Kim Campbell, the new Tory leader, by using the controlled Media to, at first, build her to heights of popularity she could not be expected to maintain, and then, along with his sleazy team of Montreal Tories, he produced the famous anti-Chretien TV spots to destroy whatever credibility she had left. The end result was that only two Tories were elected, and the most hated politician in French Canada led the only political party with members from coast-to-coast to majority government in Canada.
Once Quebec separates from Canada he will be in position to fund the construction of Simon Riesman's Grand Canal project ($10O-200 billion dollars) and other northern water diversion projects. He will own, control and move fresh water for a price, down into the USA and Mexico.
So what we have here is a plan for the break-up of Canada put together by Mulroney and the Bankers: The first step is to get Quebec to separate; the second to integrate the rest of Canada into the US; the third to get the natives of Northern Quebec to revolt; the fourth to send in the Military from Fort Drum with blue berets; and the fifth to build the Grand Canal.
Shelley Ann Clark: Some of this I have seen confirmed in documents. In March '88 a Memo was circulated around the Free Trade office ordering that all documents used in the negotiating sessions be given to this particular person who was going to catalogue them for the archives. Within an hour of receiving that memorandum, Germain Denise brought me into his office, told me to shut the door, to sit down and pay very close attention to what he was going to say: if I deviated in any way he declared he would destroy me within the Government service within Ottawa - everywhere!
MC: Do you not feel you are in a rather tenuous position?
Shelley Ann Clark: My life is apparently in danger at all times. If I were in the United States now, everyone believes I would be dead [It so happened that Marcel Masse and Stephen Lewis tried to get her transferred to New York]. But you have to understand that we're not part of the United States yet, that we still live in the blessed country of Canada. Apart from Mulroney, Germain Denis, and Gerald Shannon (at the time the Deputy Minister in International Trade), I do not know who else knew, but I do know now that behind the scenes things are happening, that people want me to disclose what I know. That might actually include the RCMP, or maybe even CSIS - I am not sure. Messages have been sent to me that I do not understand: that the safest thing that could do was to disclose.
MC: Maybe you are being set up to be some sort of sacrificial lamb.
Shelley Ann: Maybe. By August or September of last year I gave up fear. I had lived in fear for six years, more than fear - absolute horror: I feared for my children, I feared for myself. It reached a point where I preferred to be dead rather than livinq. Mere existence reaches a point where you can't see how you can go on. I mean, if you are going to be killed, you are inclined at a certain point to say, "Do it now. I am not going to worry about it." It took me six years to reach that point. And then I began to think to myself that we have a duty to the people who brought us into the world, to the people we will leave behind, and to the land that has remained constant. I made a decision not to be frightened any nore, and suddenly I had no fear. I decided to let the world around me know what I know.
George Kralik: You passed the fear barrier.
Shelley Ann: I went through the fear barrier. Now I am back with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a very high profile position, where if anything happens to me with the way I am known across this country now, can I be so bold as to say that revolutions would break out - I mean there is a limit.
Mr. Kealey: By putting Shelley Ann back in position, the liberals are now saying, "We had nothing to do with it."
Shelley Ann: Within a month of being elected, the Liberals were attempting to rectify my situation. I met a Reform Party MP on the Hill and realized that I had to do this because I had promised Canadians that I would do this.
The full story may never be told. When we got the Memo to send all material relating to the negotiations to the archives Germain Denis ordered me to remove all the negotiating documents from his vault to the trunk of his car. He handed me his car keys. I was told to remove them at two-hour intervals and if I found the speed too slow to increase it up to one-hour intervals, but not to get caught or to say anything. "When they come around to you, Shelley Ann, and ask you to give up the documents for the Archivist..." "Yes, what happens when I have nothing to give her?" "You say, Sorry, we started to shut down before the memo came around. Monsieur Denis ordered me to shred everything."
These were my orders and sure enough it took me from about 10:30 in the morning till about 6:30 at night. I removed a total of seven big Xerox boxes to that official's trunk. On the first trip I ran into Simon Riesman's chauffeur who happens to be a gentleman. He asked what I was doing - whether I had found another job, or was moving out of the office. In any case, he asked to carry my box. I refused. He insisted, and when he took the box, he said "What the hell do you have in here?" I replied. "Seven major proof readers have been assigned to read the final text as it was going to legal text. I am one of the seven, and that I am bringing home the full selection of Random House dictionaries with me." I had to make up that story, but, of course, I was going to Germain Denis' car. What do you do when you have Ambassador Reisman's chauffeur carrying the boxes to the wrong car? We reached my car: I just slapped myself on the forehead and said: "Oh God, Phil, stupid me, I'm so exhausted and run down that I have come all the way down here and I've forgotten my car keys. I can't put the box in my car." What else could I have said?
I then realized that I would have to make up a line in order to get rid of Phil. That is when I told him that Simon Reisman was probably looking for him at that very moment since I had overhearsd Simon's Executive Assistant say that Ambassador Reisman had an appointment with the Prime Minister that very morning. Phil, being the gentleman that he still is, insisted that he remain at my car with the box while I went to get my car keys - this is when I told Phil to put the box under the front of the car that was up against the back wall - there it would not be seen and would be safe from theft. Finally, he left. I proceeded with the illicit deed.
What else do I say now? That truth has an indirect but steady course; sooner or later, like a mountain spring, it shakes itself free from its underground imprisonment and runs down the hillside. A few minutes ago someone was talking to me about conspiracy theories. Theory? This is fact. I was there.
The Election from Afar
Brent Jessop - Knowledge Driven Revolution.com
March 28, 2007
A three party race? The separatist party falling fast with an incompetent leader? An emerging conservative party? What is happening in Quebec? I am not an expert on all the subtleties of the political scene in Quebec. But, sometimes knowing less detail about something as deceptive as politics can add some clarity.
Taking a step back. Canada is currently being merged with the US and Mexico under the Security and Prosperity Partnership or more properly the North American Union (think European Union or Soviet Union). How does Quebec sovereignty fit into this amalgamation of the Americas?
Remember back in November? When all major federal political parties supported the concept of Quebec as a nation within a nation? Does that sound better as a nation within a super-state? This concept of Quebec as a nation within a nation was solidified well before November, in May 2006, Stephen Harper and Jean Charest signed a role for Quebec ñ separate from Canada - in UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization).
How does the North American Union, the fall of separatists in Quebec and Quebec as a nation within a nation all fit together? An idea, I first heard from Alan Watt, was that Montreal was chosen as the future capital of the North American Union. This information came from Shelley Ann Clark back during the NAFTA negotiations. I have not been able to confirm this, but here is a transcript of an interview with Shelley Ann Clark that is worth reading.*
The idea of Montreal as the capital of the NAU does however pass the smell test. An American city would leave the impression that Canada and Mexico were being absorbed into the US [1]. What better place then a nation within a nation which is culturally distinct from the rest of Canada? To make that happen a calming or even silencing of Quebec independence would be necessary.
Some food for thought.
[1] This impression would be quite false. Canada and Mexico are not being pulled in under US law (ie. the constitution or what is left of it). The three are being merged under a separate bureaucratic system. The American citizens are loosing their sovereignty as much as the Canadians and Mexicans.
*
NESARA INTERNATIONAL
NAFTA
Canadian-American Free Trade Deception
Taped Interview with Shelley Ann Clerk (#2)
This taped interview with Shelley Ann Clark has been abstracted from the book 'NEW WORLD ORDER CORRUPTION IN CANADA', by Professor Robert O'Driscoll [now out-of-print]. Ms Clark played a key role in the 1987/88 Free Trade Negotiations in which Canada's future was secretly bartered away...
Shelley Ann Clark: I was hand-picked for the position as Germain Denis' Assistant. I was told from the beginning that the interview was just a formality. How true that turned out to be! After Germain Denis had interviewed me only for about 3 minutes, he asked me when I could start work. Wanting this challenge, I agreed to become his executive assistant.
I was hired in July and by September we had a computer system called GEAC. This system had been brought in by one Peter Hines, today a millionaire, and I discovered quickly that he and Germain Denis were very tight. I wondered why? It certainly wasn't the technical expertise that bonded them: Germain Denis was a person who refused to have a computer in his office. "No," he was heard to say, "this is far too complex for my mind. Shelley Ann will have the one computer installed in my area." Mr. Denis was not telling the truth, as we shall discover later.
Germain Denis was, as is indicated above, in charge of critical aspects of the Free Trade negotiations. At the time I had two secretaries working for me who were inputting top secret material into this computer. We had no hours: when you entered the building, you never knew when you would leave.
Late one Friday, actually at 6.30 p.m., a rather demanding lady, Sylvia Ostry, telephoned, demanding a copy of a particular document that was on the computer: in two hours, she told us she was boarding a flight to the United States, and she needed this particular document. Unfortunately, I was the only one left in the office. The secretaries had gone home. Each person with access to the computer had a password: nobody knew the other person's password and this, I was told, was for security purposes. What I imediately did was to check with the person who had installed the GEAC system - Peter Hines - and fortunately found him still on the job. My first question was to ask him whether anything could be done to accommodate the urgency of Sylvia Ostry's request. I said there must be a way to break the programme codes of the computers and if anyone would know it would him. "Don't tell a soul, Shelley Ann," he said, "but the only way that we can get into the computer system at Trade Negotiation Office is to contact the president of GEAC. He has the "God" password." "The "God" password? What in heaven's name is that?" "Well," he answered, "that is what the president has termed it and he is the only one that has it." "Are you telling me that the president of GEAC has access to all of our information within our computer system?" "That's right. He can access Simon Riesman's computer. He can access everyone's computer on the seventeenth floor at 50 O'Connor." I felt like saying: "Who the hell is the president of GEAC ?" But for the moment I registered the thought internally, saying: "Can you contact this guy, Peter, I really need the document." Suddenly - bingo - I had the document in my hands.
"And he's in Toronto, Peter - the president of GEAC?" "That's right!" "And we're here in Ottawa?" "That's right!" "But he can do the commands from Toronto?" "That's right."
The implications, I thought, are enormous. Here we are negotiating this top secret trade deal between Canada and the United States - so secret that secretaries in the same office don't know each other's password to the computer - while the President of the Computer Company registering the information - has access to that information. What kind of security is that? Or are the results of the negotiations a foregone condusion? More likely the latter, I thought. Not to speak of Big Brother, invisible but watching all the time. Tuning in, no doubt, from time to time to see if everything is on track - especially the Canadians.
The very next morning - I've been a Foreign Affairs Diplomat all of my life; I was hand-picked by them right out of business college when I was sixteen years old; so my entire life has been with Foreign Affairs and top-secret clearance with everything involved when you have access to that kind of knowledge, what to watch out for, etc. - the first thing I did (I was a good Foreign Services Officer and playing it according to the book] was that I immediately went to the head of security of the Free Trade Division. While Germain Denis was at this point still Head of Multilateral Trade, Memoranda to Cabinet, usually labelled "Secret" or "Top Secret" and outlining the negotiating tactics to be used with the Americans, would be viewed prior to reaching the Negotiating Table.
So I went to the head of security, Guy Marcoux, and demanded that he investigate. Who really owned this GEAC firm. Was it a Canadian company or was it American-owned with a Canadian subsidiary as a front? The head of the security suggested that I was making a mountain out of a molehill, that I was seeing a problem where it didn't exist, that he would not investigate.
I immediately went to the second-in-command, Gordon Ritchie, the Deputy Chief Negotiator and reported that the head of security did not want to proceed with the investigation. Ritchie ordered that the investigation take place: the end result was that "Yes, GEAC was an American Company," and while the investigation was being conducted, three representatives of GEAC requested via the Deputy Chief Negotiator - Gordon Ritchie - that they see me in order to convince me that nothing was wrong with the system. When Gordon Ritchie came to me I said, "Why me?". "You were the one who discovered it - I will even lend you the famous round table" - where he held all his important meetings - "in my office to meet these GEAC representatives." And sure enough the GEAC representatives came and talked to me for two solid hours using all the high-tech language at their command - language though that I didn't understand: I did not operate a computer at the time - I had two secretaries who did that.
So I sat and I listened and when they had finished I looked at each one of them in turn and said: "After everything you have said, I want one of you to guarantee me that no one can be across the street, in another city, or anywhere else and have access to any of the documents contained within this computer. Guarantee me this in writing and I will be satisfied." I knew they couldn't because a few days before their president had provided me with a top-secret document from the computer. They had to admit it - "No", they said, they couldn't guarantee that. And that was the end of that.
I went back to Gordon Ritchie with that information and forty-eight hours after the complaint had been made, the entire 12 million dollar system that had been installed into the Canada/US Free Trade Office was removed.
My impression was that Simon Riesman and Gordon Ritchie were applauding my efforts. What I couldn't understand at that time - and which is no longer a question mark in my mind - was the reaction of Germain Denis: it was one of complete and total anger: he lost his temper, went out of control, was absolutely enraged. What I am telling you here is in my report to the Public Service Alliance of Canada dated 22 July 1988, because it wasn't untiI that notable day that the reason for the man's rage became apparent to me, that I had indeed made a discovery, and that I had done something about it.
Germain Denis shouted at me: "Who do you think you are - someone at your level certainly doesn't handle such issues as this one - I won't have it." After this outburst he did not speak to me again for the next two weeks. Thank goodness for the co-operation of my colleagues that kept me briefed during that period or I would have had an extremely difficult time in completing the various tasks that had been assigned to me.
I had, though, the absolute evidence: without the president of GEAC, Sylvia Ostry would have had to leave the country without her document.
Mr. Kealey: Of course, removing the computer and replacing it with another does not mean that the problem was resolved. All it means is that Shelley Anne Clark couldn't prove any more that somebody else had access to the computer.
Shelley Ann Clark: Exactly! A new computer came in - IBM compatible, I was told. After my first discovery, they were very attentive to my reactions, explaining that the main disc was right there on the seventeenth floor. They even showed me where it was and that everything that we inputted into the computer would be held on this main disc which would - at the end of the negotiations - be transferred to the archives. So, fine - I took their word for it.
Then came a leak in the press about having no Francophone on board the Free Trade negotiations, so Simon Riesman appointed Germain Denis as the third-in-command, giving him the five major areas of interest to this country: Subsidies, Agriculture, tariffs, Intellectual property (the main umbrella for social programs, copyrights, pharmaceuticals, etc.), and Government Procurement.
Obviously Germain Denis couId not do all of it himself. So he appointed heads for each sector: Michael Gifford was placed in charge of agriculture; Germain Denis held the area of subsidies back for himself; and the person that he put in charge of intellectual property and pharmaceutical was a person who had a lot of control but whom we all thought was a wimp at the time.
All of this started in October 1986. In January 1987, the main negotiators went ahead to Washington for the first negotiating session. Each "chief" put together his working group - a working group on agriculture, a working group on tariffs, a working group on subsidies, etc. Throughout the negotiations, these groups travelled to Washington and met with their US counterparts. The first time Monsieur Denis came back from the US, it was explained to me that we would have to start briefing the Provinces. At the time I thought - rather stupidly - that the briefing would be done by Alan Nimark who was in charge of Federal/Provincial Relations. "No," Monsieur Denis said, "No, Federal/Provincial Relations are exactly that: PR work, smoke-screens, smoke-jobs, call it what you will." "Smoke-screens," I asked? And he said -"Yes - PR. I'm the one who's going to be looking after the Premiers and when they come they'll be needing private dining rooms. There'll be some official briefings right here in the TNO board room, but a lot of the time I'll be meeting the reps on a one-on-one basis." It was the Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan representatives especially that he met on the one-on-one basis.
After the first main negotiating session was planned, I was reeling with the explanations as to how he would be handling the particular briefings, and at ten o'clock went home, thinking it was the end of the day. I arrived home at ten-thirty: one hour later Germain Denis called, telling me to meet him at TNO, not to go by the Front desk, that he would be waiting for me in the garage with a key to the elevator. Security, therefore, was being avoided; anyone going in the front door would normally have to pass through security, sign in the time, and you would be watched on the television cameras until you reached your destination. The way Monsieur Denis arranged it meant that we were observed by nobody. It is relevant that the building is owned by Metropolitan Life - i.e. under Rockefeller control.
The other thing I was told was that I must not "tonight or at any time in the future ever tell your family where you are going: if you do, there will be a heavy price to pay." Again - because of my background in Foreign Affairs and security matters - he didn't have to repeat himself. I understood perfectly well that I was in a tight spot. I didn't know how tight until the negotiations moved into full swing in January '87 and he began altering figures and deleting paragraphs in a sigmificant way.
I would be called in at night - remember I was not allowed to tell anyone where I had gone, and I would often be there until four in the morning. The first thing I had to do was to learn how to operate the computer but was not allowed to tell anybody because I had a secretary to do precisely that. I learned to create a duplicate file from the main disc in the room on the seventeenth floor which contained everything. I was shown how to delete from the main disc once I had finished. This proves Denis was no computer illiterate.
I would arrive and call up the document that they had negotiated in Washington. If it was "Subsidies" that they had worked on, I would call up the "Subsidies" document, duplicate it, and rename it "Provincial". Then my superior would go through it step by step; if they had negotiated 30% or 40%, the figure would be brought down - to the lowest possible figure which was around 10%. This was because he wanted the manoeuvrability to move them upwards: the negotiating provinces would have got rather suspicious if the figures remained the same: an impression of negotiation had to be given where, as it now seems, everything had been decided on beforehand.
Energy? The paragraphs on energy would be methodically deleted. The book, "Faith and Fear", by Professors Doern and Tomlin, confirms what I have already disclosed to the media. They say that the energy chapter was not thrown into the agreement until the last famous weekend of 3 October 1987. I know why the chapter wasn't included until the very end. It was there all the time: in the American version, in the Canadian Federal version but not in the Provincial version - we kept deleting the energy chapter from the Provincial version.
Mr. Kealey: Yes, the Premiers of all of the provinces, except two, did not realize that the country was being given away. Remember what Shelley Ann stated at the beginning: that there were private meetings between some Premiers and Germain Denis. Those were specifically the Premiers of Saskatchewan and Alberta, whom Mulroney had designated "moles" in the group: to surreptitiously find out what the other Premiers were thinking, what their bottom lines in the negotiation would be, and other sensitive data which could be manipulated to the Federal Government's advantage over the provinces.
This information they would then pass on to Germain Denis so that he would be able to put figures in the document that matched what the Premiers were prepared to give away. So there never was a problem of presenting figures that were too far above what the Premiers were prepared to accept. If there was, the solution was quite simple: change the figures in the document. Mulroney and his cohorts knew ahead of time because of the two moles, the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of Saskatchewan.
Shelley Ann Clark: That's right. I was able to prove to CJOH beyond a shadow of a doubt that these meetings took place. I had locked away my appointment book for '86 and '87, and when it was produced every meeting that took place was marked, the rooms that were used, the times, etc. I brought a witness with me - John Bowlby, an executive member of Citizens Against Bad Law. We photocopied the documentation in front of a lawyer. It was submitted to Charlie Greenwell of CJOH TV, so that he and his lawyers knew that when they aired the programme there was sufficient evidence - between the July 1988 Public Service Alliance document and this appointment book - to indicate that I was telling the truth.
May I return to the second "doctored" document produced for the Provinces. Following Germain Denis's directives I would produce a hard copy, make the specified deletions from my hard drive in addition to making those on the hard disc in the main room at 50 O'Connor. This done, I would then create ten copies for ten briefing books. The ten briefing books were numbered because I had to be sure in whose hands each book went just in case one would go astray. So they were numbered one to ten; Alberta would have #1, Manitoba #2, Saskatchewan #3, etc. No matter what pressure was put on me by the Prime Minister's Office, by the Privy Council Office, by Federal Provincial Relations - and I was warned that there would be excessive pressure and complaints by the Premiers for not getting their books several hours ahead of the briefings - I was ordered to give out the books literally minutes before the briefings took place. At the end of the session, Germain Denis would bring back the books himself or, if he didn't, I would be called in and the minute they left the room I would go and collect them, bring them back, and lock them in Monsieur Denis's vault.
Then at midnight I would undo nine of the briefing books and shred them in the shredder. It had to be done at midnight: you couldn't afford to be caught by security and we had been ordered under a special memorandum emanating from the Minister's Office that no documents used in the Canada/US negotiation were to be destroyed without the authorization of Riesman or Ritchie. It took that level of authorization to shred anything: we were allowed to shred Telex Packs that came in from Foreign Affairs but any negotiating document could not be touched. The only time I could shred these was between the hours of midnight and 3 am. I would shred nine books, holding one complete set back which I would put in the vault so the next time they negotiated on that particular subject with the Americans we would pull out that one set and Monsieur Denis would know how far he had proceeded. If he had negotiated 10%, the next time it would show up as 12% and so on and so on.
The next development was that Maude Barlow and John Turner started making accusations against Mulroney: that he was selling out the country, that our social security programs were in jeopardy etc. etc. Working directly on the Social Security programs and some of the other issues - as I was - I knew these individuals were telling the truth. The more I realized the illegality of what I was doing the more frightened I became: what this meant for the country and how it would be held over my head as a sort of blackmail control - completely, forever and ever and ever.
My first thought, therefore, was to escape the office, to give up doing what I was doing. I started by asking the Foreign Ministry to transfer me: they wouldn't. Not only that: they wouldn't touch me with a ten-foot pole: "You have to stay there", they said. "Why?", I said."This is Foreign Affairs, after all: to rotate is a normal part of existence here. I've rotated all my life. Why can't you rotate me now?" "No we can't touch you."
Another position opened up with the Trade Negotiations Office as the head of Protocol and Hospitality, an interesting position which I was more than qualified to deal with. Richard Levy, Head of Operations at the TNO, agreed: "Shelley Ann," he said, "you would be great for the position. Go ahead, speak to the Director General of Operations. If he'll give it to you - you've got it." I met with the Director General of Operations and he, being an honest guy, looked at me: "Shelley Ann, are you out of your mind? Germain Denis will never let you go. It would only be over his dead body that it would be possible for me to remove you from your present position."
ROD: But why?
Shelley Ann Clark: The secrets involved. Remember that Germain Denis, the Prime Minister and I were about the only ones who knew the intricacies and the implications of the free trade deal for Canada at that point. I was vulnerable. The more midnight meetings that were forced the more my marriage was completely falling apart. I was becoming vulnerable, a single parent, needing the job, scared to death and as mad as all hang.
So I created a fuss. The honest guy who told me he wouldn't be able to remove me from my position except over Germain Denis's dead body was immediately posted to Rome. It told certain people he had said too much. Remember that Germain Denis knew I was seeking to remove myself. Everyone had been told not to facilitate this move. Whenever I would go to my Personnel Officer who gave out assignments, I would arrive in that office; within five minutes the phone would ring, Germain Denis would be at the other end of the line. My Personnel Officer would say, "It's Germain. You have to talk to him." And he would beg me and order me to return to TNO immediately. The Personel Officer had never seen anyone of his level beg anyone or order someone back.
ROD: Do you have any piece of evidence we can print?
Mr. Kealey: What you have to consider here is: had she taken any document that was part of their documentation she would be in prison. That would have been a federal crime - removing secret documents - and so she would have been no further ahead if she actually took documents. What she did however was to file a formal complaint with her union. She has the complaint and their covering letter that tells her to destroy the complaint. She is the eye witness - the smoking gun is the Real Free Trade Deal, the one buried in canisters outside Ottawa that Canadians have never seen. What we have to do as a people is to apply pressure upon our so-called independent politicians to see what those canisters contain.
ROD: But can this evidence ever come out? If, for example, we put it in this book we are preparing, with other evidence pointing to the same proposition, will it ever get more than a very limited circulation ?
Mr. Kealey: We have an example right here. Shelley Ann gave her story to one weekly paper. They've written the story in much detail and already people are coming to them saying, "I also worked in that area. I have seen the documentation being transferred from one place to another. I can vouch for what she's saying." The more that is published, the more hands it gets into, the more chance you will have of it circulating. By publishing, by circulating the material you remove fear - you take away that fear and more people will come forward.
Shelley Ann Clark: On 6 January [1994] I was on a talk show that crossed all of Alberta. I stated quite bluntly that what we are dealing with here is treason. The reaction has been extraordinary. I sincerely believe that the book you are preparing, 'NEW WORLD ORDER: CORRUPTION IN CANADA', should be published as soon as possible: that is the way we can reach more Canadians.
Mr. Kealey: They may have their implementation schedule and have set dates by which certain phases of the deal had to be completed, but it is a fraudulent contract and a fraudulent contract does not have legal validity once it has been proven it's a fraud. Whatever dates, therefore, that have been arbitrarily set, are not ultimately important.
Shelley Ann Clark: I have been wanting to cross Canada, to tell Canadians what I know, and try to get them to do something about this. A hundred or two hundred letters are not enough. What is needed are massive demonstrations, hundreds of thousands of letters. Once they realize on Parliament Hill that the entire country knows then they will have to do something.
I thought in the last election that I could do something with the backing of the National Party, that a person like Mel Hurtig would make maximum use of someone like myself. I have the information first-hand: I did the fraudulent act under orders. What did Mel Hurtig and the National Party do? Nothing! I was provided with $1,000 for my fee, but nothing for advertising or all the other considerable expenses that are necessary in order to get your points across to the voters. I went into my riding to be asked: "Why, with what you have to tell, can you not get any backing? Why aren't you on those billboards all over the place?"
Mr. Kealey: We already know why, because after the election we received some documentation and I've been in touch with a number of National Party candidates. I found out. I got the evidence that the National Party manipulated certain ridings to keep their candidates from winning. If they didn't have much of a chance they were given four or five thousand dollars. If they had a chance of winning they were limited to one thousand dollars.
The documentation we now have is that in 1972 Mel Hurtig was a candidate for the Liberals. He had also been in association with the Canadian Institute for International Affairs [NOTE: Canada's "twin" to the CFR in the States]. He was on a programme following recommendations of the Bilderberger meetings that had been held both in the Laurentians and in Vermont. When you link Mel Hurtig directly with the New World Order Gang, you arrive very quickly at the reason why he was where he was during the recent election. He was delivering the Canadian West to the same group that Mulroney and his Gang had given away the rest of the country to.
Then you have Bill Loewen. We have evidence that Bill Loewen, who owned a company called Comcheq, sold his company to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce For $16O million just a year before the election. I would be prepared to bet that Bill Loewen sold his company for $150 million and got $10 million from the Bankers to set up a political party with one purpose - to remove the free trade dissent from the NDP party in the West so that the Liberals would be able to squeak through.
This is exactly what happened all across the West and why today the Liberals have a majority. It's because of the amount in votes taken away from the NDP by the National Party which allowed the Liberal to squeeze by.
I know Bill Loewen personally because he paid my rent for six months. He stopped paying when he asked me to join his political party. He acted just like a banker: when you do the things he wants you to do he will support you; otherwise he won't.
I have, as I said, spoken to a number of National Party candidates and there is general consensus out there that they were manipulated in a way as to prevent them from being successful.
What are we left with? With Brian Mulroney equipped with the cash he stole from Canadians during his years in office, he was able to buy the entire 1993 election. Here in my view is how he went about doing it:
He introduced Lucien Bouchard to Quebecers and made him into a separatist hero by faking a public fight with him over Quebec's role in Canada. Bouchard eventually became the most loved politician in Quebec and led his Bloc Quebequois, with Mulroney's financial support, to victory in Quebec. The Bloc even became the Official Opposition in the Canadian Parliament following the 1993 elections.
He used his considerable influence and money to convince all the Tory "big guns" to drop out of the 1993 election. This guaranteed the Liberals (TEAM 2) under Mitchell Sharp (the banker's man in Ottawa) and Jean Chretien (a Charlie McCarthy dummy like Ronald Reagan) a really good shot at majority government.
He collaborated with Conrad Black's plan to finance the Reform Party in Ontario (while limiting its chances and influence there) by allowing Preston Manning (a leader with links to the CIA in 1967-68) to address the Canadian Club and others on the condition they warn Quebecers to act just like the other provinces or "go away". This message was a total reversal of Alberta's position during the 1981 referendum on separation in Quebec when Quebecers were told they were loved and wanted).
He collaborated with bankers (CIBC) in order to finance Bill Loewen's creation of the new National Party. This new political party, with Mel Hurtig its leader (a 1968-72 former member of the elite Canadian Institute for International Affairs), would mislead 200,000 anti-free trade Canadians away from the NDP thereby allowing the Liberals and Refonmers to win many key NDP ridings.
He destroyed Kim Campbell, the new Tory leader, by using the controlled Media to, at first, build her to heights of popularity she could not be expected to maintain, and then, along with his sleazy team of Montreal Tories, he produced the famous anti-Chretien TV spots to destroy whatever credibility she had left. The end result was that only two Tories were elected, and the most hated politician in French Canada led the only political party with members from coast-to-coast to majority government in Canada.
Once Quebec separates from Canada he will be in position to fund the construction of Simon Riesman's Grand Canal project ($10O-200 billion dollars) and other northern water diversion projects. He will own, control and move fresh water for a price, down into the USA and Mexico.
So what we have here is a plan for the break-up of Canada put together by Mulroney and the Bankers: The first step is to get Quebec to separate; the second to integrate the rest of Canada into the US; the third to get the natives of Northern Quebec to revolt; the fourth to send in the Military from Fort Drum with blue berets; and the fifth to build the Grand Canal.
Shelley Ann Clark: Some of this I have seen confirmed in documents. In March '88 a Memo was circulated around the Free Trade office ordering that all documents used in the negotiating sessions be given to this particular person who was going to catalogue them for the archives. Within an hour of receiving that memorandum, Germain Denise brought me into his office, told me to shut the door, to sit down and pay very close attention to what he was going to say: if I deviated in any way he declared he would destroy me within the Government service within Ottawa - everywhere!
MC: Do you not feel you are in a rather tenuous position?
Shelley Ann Clark: My life is apparently in danger at all times. If I were in the United States now, everyone believes I would be dead [It so happened that Marcel Masse and Stephen Lewis tried to get her transferred to New York]. But you have to understand that we're not part of the United States yet, that we still live in the blessed country of Canada. Apart from Mulroney, Germain Denis, and Gerald Shannon (at the time the Deputy Minister in International Trade), I do not know who else knew, but I do know now that behind the scenes things are happening, that people want me to disclose what I know. That might actually include the RCMP, or maybe even CSIS - I am not sure. Messages have been sent to me that I do not understand: that the safest thing that could do was to disclose.
MC: Maybe you are being set up to be some sort of sacrificial lamb.
Shelley Ann: Maybe. By August or September of last year I gave up fear. I had lived in fear for six years, more than fear - absolute horror: I feared for my children, I feared for myself. It reached a point where I preferred to be dead rather than livinq. Mere existence reaches a point where you can't see how you can go on. I mean, if you are going to be killed, you are inclined at a certain point to say, "Do it now. I am not going to worry about it." It took me six years to reach that point. And then I began to think to myself that we have a duty to the people who brought us into the world, to the people we will leave behind, and to the land that has remained constant. I made a decision not to be frightened any nore, and suddenly I had no fear. I decided to let the world around me know what I know.
George Kralik: You passed the fear barrier.
Shelley Ann: I went through the fear barrier. Now I am back with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a very high profile position, where if anything happens to me with the way I am known across this country now, can I be so bold as to say that revolutions would break out - I mean there is a limit.
Mr. Kealey: By putting Shelley Ann back in position, the liberals are now saying, "We had nothing to do with it."
Shelley Ann: Within a month of being elected, the Liberals were attempting to rectify my situation. I met a Reform Party MP on the Hill and realized that I had to do this because I had promised Canadians that I would do this.
The full story may never be told. When we got the Memo to send all material relating to the negotiations to the archives Germain Denis ordered me to remove all the negotiating documents from his vault to the trunk of his car. He handed me his car keys. I was told to remove them at two-hour intervals and if I found the speed too slow to increase it up to one-hour intervals, but not to get caught or to say anything. "When they come around to you, Shelley Ann, and ask you to give up the documents for the Archivist..." "Yes, what happens when I have nothing to give her?" "You say, Sorry, we started to shut down before the memo came around. Monsieur Denis ordered me to shred everything."
These were my orders and sure enough it took me from about 10:30 in the morning till about 6:30 at night. I removed a total of seven big Xerox boxes to that official's trunk. On the first trip I ran into Simon Riesman's chauffeur who happens to be a gentleman. He asked what I was doing - whether I had found another job, or was moving out of the office. In any case, he asked to carry my box. I refused. He insisted, and when he took the box, he said "What the hell do you have in here?" I replied. "Seven major proof readers have been assigned to read the final text as it was going to legal text. I am one of the seven, and that I am bringing home the full selection of Random House dictionaries with me." I had to make up that story, but, of course, I was going to Germain Denis' car. What do you do when you have Ambassador Reisman's chauffeur carrying the boxes to the wrong car? We reached my car: I just slapped myself on the forehead and said: "Oh God, Phil, stupid me, I'm so exhausted and run down that I have come all the way down here and I've forgotten my car keys. I can't put the box in my car." What else could I have said?
I then realized that I would have to make up a line in order to get rid of Phil. That is when I told him that Simon Reisman was probably looking for him at that very moment since I had overhearsd Simon's Executive Assistant say that Ambassador Reisman had an appointment with the Prime Minister that very morning. Phil, being the gentleman that he still is, insisted that he remain at my car with the box while I went to get my car keys - this is when I told Phil to put the box under the front of the car that was up against the back wall - there it would not be seen and would be safe from theft. Finally, he left. I proceeded with the illicit deed.
What else do I say now? That truth has an indirect but steady course; sooner or later, like a mountain spring, it shakes itself free from its underground imprisonment and runs down the hillside. A few minutes ago someone was talking to me about conspiracy theories. Theory? This is fact. I was there.
posted by Moxie Molly at 7:04 pm
