Sunday, December 27, 2009

Looking Back at Recent Canadian History

Could Rothschild Lawsuit Divide Canada?
Newfoundland/Quebec Court Case: Illuminati Plan to bring on the North American Union?

by Reg Porter
March 1, 2010
As reported Tuesday Feb. 24, the Canadian Province of Newfoundland is suing Quebec over a lopsided contract signed in 1969 over hydroelectric power from Churchill Falls in Labrador.
The background history of this case goes something like this: In the 1960s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada's most eastern province was also Canada's poorest. Fortunately, Newfoundland had a river in Labrador with great hydroelectric potential it wanted to develop and sell the power to the New England States. Unfortunately, the only way to get the power to market was to build a power line through Quebec.
So the Newfoundland Government set up a company called NALCOR to develop the project and negotiate a 'deal' with Hydro Quebec--and NALCOR was financed by the Rothschilds--Alarm bells now should ring!
Anyway here's the deal they signed in 1969, when energy was cheap with oil at two dollars a barrel: Newfoundland would sell the power to Quebec for $10 million dollars a year, and Quebec would sell it to the US--and the deal was signed for 60 years. It seemed like a good deal at the time; however, a few years later, the energy crises hit and Quebec made billions off the deal while Newfoundland, Canada's poorest province, got screwed. Quebec makes a billion dollars a year while Newfoundland only gets ten million!
Needless to say, the people of Newfoundland came to resent and even hate Quebec for this injustice. In 1988, the Newfoundland government even tried to challenge the contract in the Supreme Court of Canada but the court ruled in Quebec's favour.
All through it all, Quebec's line is that a contract is a contract--especially since they already resented Newfoundland for being granted ownership over Labrador based on a decision of the British Privy Council in 1929(the same Privy Council that gave the Northern BC coast to the US)--Quebec believes they really own Labrador and that THEY got screwed in 1929.
Now recently, the Premier of Quebec, alluded that it might be possible for Newfoundland to get some justice by suing Hydro Quebec in a Quebec Civil Court, and Newfoundland has decided to take the bait, which in my view, could be the beginning of the end of Canada.
The judge in Quebec's Court will be facing a very major dilemma: He could rule that the case was already decided by Canada's Supreme court; hence, Quebec is in the right. But if he does this, Quebec is acknowledging Canadian authority, and it could inflame the separatist movement in the next provincial election.
However, if the Judge rules in Newfoundland's favour, which is very likely to happen, then all of Quebec may want to separate from Canada. they'll elect a separatist government and a third referendum will be held and be successful this time. (The last referendum in 1995 only lost by less then one percent)
So there you have it: use this issue to make Quebec voters believe they got screwed by Canada, and within five years they vote to secede. When Quebec leaves Canada, the country is then geographically cut off from the four eastern provinces. Richer western provinces like BC and Alberta will then separate, Ontario will separate, and the remaining provinces will probably end up as American states, with the three richer ones soon to follow for the sake of unity and military protection.
And the suit is being launched by NALCOR--a Rothschild financed conglomerate!
Does this mean the Rothschilds were screwed by Quebec too?
No, Definitely not, it was part of their greater plan--what's a hundred billion a year when you already own half the world?--for all I know, they probably also financed Hydro Quebec--they probably own both companies and using them in their little chess game, like in 1914, and 1939 etc, etc. It's not a bad deal for them since they already own the whole pot, it's just a bad deal for Newfoundland, and possibly for Canada.
Canada's High Court OK's Gay Marriage
posted by The Wizard of 'OZ' @ Friday, December 10, 2004
(Ottawa) The Supreme Court of Canada this morning gave its approval to draft legislation to make same-sex marriage legal throughout Canada.
Gays and lesbians gathered outside the Supreme Court cheered when the decision was announced.
In a rare move the government sent the draft bill to the court asking if it met constitutional muster in both allowing same-sex marriage and at the same time permitting churches opposed to homosexuality to refuse to marry gay couples.
The bill was drafted after courts in Ontario and British Columbia struck down the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In the time it has taken to get the issue before the high court provincial courts in four more provinces and one territory have declared the ban on gay marriage illegal.
The court ruled this morning that the federal government has the right to legalize same-sex marriage.
In sending the draft bill to the court the government asked four questions of the justices. On the question of whether Parliament has the exclusive legislative authority to change the legal definition of marriage the court said yes.
The government asked if extending the capacity to marry persons of the same sex is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Again the court said yes.
It also asked the justices if religious leaders protected under the Charter of Rights from having to marry same-sex couples. The court answered yes.
A fourth question, asked by the new Prime Minister, Paul Martin, queried whether the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman was constitutional the court declined to answer, explaining the question became moot, noting that the federal government has already accepted lower-court judgments that excluding gays from marrying is discriminatory.
"The government has clearly accepted the ruling of lower courts on this question and has adopted their position as its own."
"The parties to previous litigation have now relied upon the finality of the judgments they obtained through the court process," the justices said.
The court ruling also said that times have changed and the legal definition of marriage should change with them.
"Several centuries ago, it would have been understood that marriage be available only to opposite-sex couples."
"The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today."
Gay activists who have fought for several years to get marriage rights were elated.
"This is a victory for equal rights in Canada," said Alex Munter of Canadians for Equal Marriage.
The two lawyers who successfully fought for same-sex marriage in provincial courts said they were not surprised by the ruling.
"The court has given a clear green light for immediate legislation," Mary McCathy told reporters outside the court.
"What was already clear is now unassailable - that the Charter protects the right of religious officials to choose whether or not to perform marriages for same-sex couples," said McCarthy. "The Charter is the highest law of the land and binds both the federal government and provincial and territorial governments."
Lawyer Douglas Elliott also called on Parliament to move quickly.
"It's now up to the Parliament of Canada to act to extend equal rights to every region of Canada," Elliott said.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said that the government will move with all due haste to enact the legislation. Cotler said that the legislation would be brought in early in January.
The opposition Conservative vowed a battle in the House.
"I personally favor having a system that respects both the religious definition, traditional definition, while at the same time puts in place a civil union that ensures that the rights, privileges, protections and responsibilities that flow from marriage are treated equally under the law," said deputy Tory leader Peter MacKay.
Despite having a minority government and with many in the Liberal party opposed to gay marriage Cotler predicted victory. The majority of Liberals, plus opposition New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois members will support the measure.
"Equal marriage is something whose time has come," said Gilles Marchildon, Executive Director of LGBT civil rights group Egale.
"Just last week, South Africa expanded civil marriage to include same-sex couples. Spain will soon follow. Around the world, people are realizing that discrimination against lesbian and gay people is just plain wrong. Here in Canada, same-sex couples have been marrying for over a year and a half, and support for equal marriage is higher than it's ever been."
The province of Alberta was the only one of the country's ten provinces and three territories to oppose the draft bill before the Supreme Court. The province's justice minister told reporters Thursday that the Alberta will wait to see details of the legislation before deciding its next step.
A survey released July 1 by the Center for Research and Information on Canada and Environics Research found that the number of Canadians agreeing that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry has increased by 9%. Currently, 57% agree, the highest level since CRIC first asked the question two years ago. The number disagreeing currently stands at 38%.
Canada wants to legalize same-sex marriages
The Bible and religious magazines could be banned as “hate literature”
Thérèse Tardif
This article was published in the May-June-July, 2003 issue of “Michael”.
Ottawa does not appeal
On June 12, 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal declared the current definition of marriage in Canada — “one man and one woman” — in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights. It ordered the City of Toronto to issue marriage licenses immediately to the same-sex couples involved in the case.
Five days later, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced that his Government will not appeal the decision of the Ontario Court, and will move toward legalizing same-sex marriages. “We will not be appealing the recent decision on the definition of marriage. Rather, we will be proposing legislation that will protect the right of churches and religious organizations to sanctify marriage as they define it. (That means religious groups will have the right to refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies.) At same time, we'll ensure that our legislation includes a legally recognized same-sex couple. As soon as the legislation is drafted, it will be referred to the Supreme Court. After that, it will be put to a free vote in the House of Commons.”
“Not to appeal means that we have recognized the definition that has been developed by the courts,” said Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. Both Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Cauchon said they were comfortable with the decision not to appeal. “For me, we have a Charter of Rights. There is evolution in society, and according to the interpretation of the courts, they concluded these unions should be legal in Canada,” Mr. Chrétien said. While the Justice Minister said he would like a vote to be held before Mr. Chrétien retires next February, the Supreme Court could easily take at least a year to issue an opinion.
Support for Chretien's announcement was unanimous among his cabinet. This is surprising, since only four years ago (June 9, 1999), the members of the House of Commons affirmed, by a vote of 216 to 55, “That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.”
There is still resistance from many Liberal backbenchers and several MPs in the opposition, so since Chretien said there would be a free vote (Members of Parliament will not be bound by party lines, but can vote according to their conscience), we see how important this vote will be, and how important it is for all Canadians who still care for the defense of the Christian definition of marriage to write to their MPs.
At least one province, Alberta, has said it will invoke the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if Ottawa tries forcing it to hand out same-sex marriage licences. “If there is any move to sanctify and legalize same-sex marriages, we will use the notwithstanding clause, period. End of story,” Alberta's Premier Ralph Klein said. Dave Hancock, Alberta's Justice Minister, added: “To take an institution that is near and dear to so many people, and change the definition in this way, is going too far.”
Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance justice critic, accused the Federal Government of abdicating its responsibility and making a “grave error in judgment” by allowing the courts, rather than Parliament, to redefine the traditional definition of marriage.
If Canada recognizes same-sex marriages, it would become only the third country in the world to do so. The others are Belgium and the Netherlands. But Canada's situation, morally speaking, would be far worse: unlike the other two counties, the Ontario marriage registrations are not restricted to Canadian citizens, and there are no adoption restrictions.
The reaction of the Bishops
In a letter dated June 19, addressed to Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Bishop Jacques Berthelet, President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (along with 15 other Canadian Bishops, members of its Permanent Council), strongly denounced Chretien's decision to refuse to appeal Ontario's court ruling, and legalize same-sex marriages:
“Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
“In the name of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and with the support of its Permanent Council, allow me to say that I am deeply concerned and profoundly disappointed with respect to the decision that you have taken not to appeal the rulings of the Appeal Courts of Ontario and British Columbia regarding the redefinition of marriage. The prospect of the bill that you are preparing to present to the House of Commons in support of the redefinition of marriage by including same-sex partners would mean a devaluation of traditional marriage as the basis of the family and as an essential institution for the stability and equilibrium of society.
“Marriage, understood as the lasting union of a man and woman to the exclusion of others, pre-exists the State. Because it pre-exists the State, and because it is fundamental for society, the institution of marriage cannot be modified, whether by the Charter of Rights, the State, or a court of law.
“The point is not that, because same-sex partners cannot have access to marriage, there would be discrimination. Rather, it is the contrary that is true. Enlarging and thereby altering the definition of marriage in order to include same-sex partners discriminates against heterosexual marriage and the family, which are thus deprived of their social and legal recognition as the fundamental and irreplaceable basis of society.
“Same-sex unions cannot be considered as marriage. The definition of marriage that has been introduced by the Ontario Court of Appeal leads simply to a legal confusion which a rigorous analysis by the Supreme Court should be capable of denouncing, if there is no undue haste and improvisation.
“Mr. Prime Minister, I would very much hope that the legacy you are leaving does not include legislation that represents an assault on common sense, an assault on the values of societies which are advanced but not amoral, and an assault on the liberties of men and women of good will.
“I pray that you will have the courage to act in conformity with the law that is inscribed within human nature, and which is not affected by every wind that blows.” — Bishop Jacques Berthelet
It is easy to see how absurd this decision to legalize same-sex marriages is. God created our first parents Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. As Archbishop Adam Exner of Vancouver put it: "If one thinks of a child growing up with two mommies or two daddies, then what will the consequences be?" The family is an institution created by God, prior to any State, and cannot be modified by any State or law. To legalize vice is the height of perversion.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire because their inhabitants commited homosexual acts. Do our lawmakers bring a similar chastisement upon our nation, by defying God's law as the people of Sodom did?
These huge affronts to God's law and natural law show how advanced the enemies of God are in their plans to destroy Christianity in our country and in every nation on earth.
The Charter of Rights
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins as follows: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...”
It happens that God forbids the practice of vice against nature. In the name of personal freedom, those who practice this vice against nature would like to change the definition of marriage, under the pretext that this law discriminates against them.
There is nothing discriminatory in the present definition of marriage in Canada. All men and women in Canada have the right to contract a real marriage between a man and a woman, according to the law of the nation, and the order established by God. Unions against nature between people of the same sex are not real marriages, but public sins and scandals, which contravene the law of God and the law of the land. The lawmakers who hear their demands ,and approve of them, are out of place in Parliament.
The Catholic Church forbids the faithful to vote for candidates who favor laws that go against the Commandments of God. Homosexuality is a vice that is denounced many times in the Bible.
Similarly, judges who give decisions based on their personal opinions, who demand to change the law instead of following it, are also out of place, and should be dismissed from their posts.
In the name of personal freedom, what would you say if I decided to contest the highway code, and have it changed, because I have decided that I want to drive on the left side of the road, instead of the right side? My freedom is limited by the law of the country. An unjust law does not bind in conscience, but a just law does.
Canada's 2001 census shows that of the 8.4 million families in Canada, 5.9 million (70%) are married couples; 1.3 million (16%) are lone-parents; 1.2 million (14%) are common-law partners, and 34,200 (0.5%) are same-sex partners.
And it is this infinitesimal minority of half a percent that makes an uproar to change the criminal code, and modify the law on the definition of marriage which has been established for centuries in Canada, on logic, natural law, and faith in God.
A change to hate-crime law
And this is not all! This minority does not like to be reminded that homosexuality is condemned by God in the Bible. They would also like the Canadian law to forbid anyone to condemn homosexuality: MP Svend Robinson of British Columbia (who was the first member of Canadian Parliament to openly admit he is gay) presented in the House of Commons Bill C-250, which seeks to add “sexual orientation” to Canada's hate-crime law. Canada's Criminal Code defines hate propaganda as anything that “incites hatred against any identifiable group.” Bill C-250 seeks to replace Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code by the following:
(4) In this section, ``identifiable group'' means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
This bill has passed the level of its second reading, and is presently debated before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. If this bill is adopted, gay rights activists could use it against anyone who questions their lifestyle – even to the point of having the courts ban as “hate literature” passages in the Bible, or articles in any religious magazine, that condemn homosexuality.
On April 15, 2003, the General Secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a letter to Canada's Justice Minister Martin Cauchon regarding Bill C-250. Here are some excerpts:
“It is well known that the Catholic Church teaches unequivocally that sexual behaviour between people of the same sex is morally wrong, and in no circumstances can be approved. At the same time, Church teaching also requires unequivocally that persons who are homosexual “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided ” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 2358).
“Our concern with Bill C-250 is not about the objectives of prohibiting the incitement or willful promotion of hatred or the advocacy of genocide. What troubles us is the possibility that someone who finds the expression of the beliefs of the Catholic Church on the sexual conduct of homosexual persons too blunt or too harsh will invoke the Criminal Code to silence the teaching.
“Since the current provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda are thirty years old and predate the Charter, we suggest that it would be unwise to proceed with the amendment proposed in Bill C-250 by a private member's bill. Would it not be better for your Ministry to do the appropriate research to establish if this particular limit on freedom of expression is required and, if the answer is yes, to make sure that complementary amendments are also made to protect the freedom of Canadians to express their religious beliefs and Church teaching without fear of criminal prosecution?”
On December 12, 2002, the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan ruled that a man who placed references to Bible verses on homosexuality into a newspaper ad was guilty of inciting hatred.
On December 20, 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a British Columbia school board was wrong to ban three books depicting same-sex parents from kindergarten and Grade 1 classrooms. In a 7-2 judgment, the court said the ban imposed in 1997 violated provincial legislation that requires the public school system to be strictly secular and non-sectarian. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing for the majority, said the board, in refusing to authorize use of the books in early primary grades, had bowed to the views of parents who opposed homosexuality on religious grounds. That meant it was “letting the religious views of a certain part of the community trump the need to show equal respect for the values of other members of the community.”
A vice to be corrected
Homosexuality is a vice, just like pedophilia or drunkenness. Nobody will kill or attack a drunkard because he has this vice; one will rather try to help him to quit this vice. Perhaps if this person had been educated in his childhood against drunkenness, he would not have to fight to free himself from this bondage that degrades him and society as well. If drunkards were allowed to drink with children, what a mess it would be!
So it is the duty of parents, schools, society, and governments to denounce these deviations, and to warn children against sins against nature which, beside infringing on God's law, often bring venereal diseases that are sometimes incurable.
Since the creation of the world, we know that in order to transmit life, we need two people of the opposite sex. Even animals are bound to this law of nature, and they do not transgress it. Two men cannot transmit life. A man and a woman complete each other, whereas two men or two women do not, and never will.
St. Paul wrote: “For the time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.” (2 Tim. 4:3-4.)
Let us ask God to enlighten and convert our statesmen, so they may come back to common sense, to truth and wisdom. And let us protest as much as we can against these bills that are promoted to reverse Christian values, and adapt our laws to the critera of a future godless world government. If we do nothing, we can expect to lose all of our freedoms, and be ruled by a fist of iron.
The planned destruction of Canada
Through the separation of Quebec
U.S.-Canadian continental union by 2005?
Louis Even
This article was published in the March-April, 2002 issue of “Michael”.
The following astounding interview was extracted from “New World Order: Corruption in Canada”, published in December, 1994, but now out of print. George Kralik, who conducts the interview, is an eleven-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces. Glen Kealey is a former Hull, Quebec, commercial developer who exposed the system of organized crime and corruption, run by ex-Prime Minister Mulroney's government, and the complicity of the RCMP and the justice system. He successfully charged 16 people, including members of the government and RCMP, with criminal conspiracy. He is co-chair of the Canadian Institute for Political Integrity in Ottawa. According to him, transnationals are controlling our politicians to dismember and demolish Canada, first by Quebec's separation, and then by Continental Union in 2005.
The control of water
Kealey: We know we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air. But we can control water. On the scale of things that are required for human life, it is the most important element that can be controlled.
Kralik: What do you mean when you say “control”?
Kealey: In GATT, the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs, it says that free-flowing water is not a “good”. The key wording is “free-flowing”. If you construct a dam, it is no longer free-flowing, and therefore it becomes private property, owned by somebody, capable of being sold to others, or mortgaged.
Kralik: If it is dammed?
Kealey: If it is dammed. Any time the free-flowing water has been obstructed. Of course in GATT, there is much talk about bottled water.
Kralik: It's a side trick?
Kealey: It's a side trick. The biggest scam ever to be pulled on the entire world is Free Trade, and I'll tell you why.
There is a lady in Ottawa by the name of Shelley Ann Clark. She was the executive secretary to the third highest negotiator during the Free Trade Deal. His name was Germain Denis. His two visible superiors were Gordon Ritchie and Simon Riesman. Before he became Free Trade negotiator, Simon Reisman had a difficult job. He was the director of a project called the Grand Canal, which is to be built from James Bay.
James Bay is five-hundred miles from north to south, is a hundred and twenty miles across at the mouth, with salt water, on the average, thirty-five to forty-five feet deep. If a dam were to be constructed at the mouth of James Bay and Hudson's Bay, and a second one, one third down, and a third, a third down again – therefore three dams – it would allow, over a period of ten years, for water to flow from the fresh water rivers, and would push the salt water back beyond the dams and create the largest fresh water reservoir known to man.
So much so that a canal could be built leading out of the southeast corner of James Bay, south over the mountain ranges with dykes and locks and whatever you need to lift water for eight-hundred miles. Then at Rouyn-Noranda in Northern Quebec, nature's gravity would take over, and the water would start going down the other side of the mountain range. In Ontario, it would go to the Ottawa River and the French River systems, past Kirkland Lake, and eventually it would end up in Georgian Bay (in Lake Superior). The amount of water that would be brought back – fresh water from that Canal – could double the flow of water that now enters the Great lakes. Of course, if you can double the water entering the Great lakes you can take half of the total water out without changing anything in the Great Lake System.
Kralik: Do you see any possible ecological disasters as a result of this?
Kealey: Of course. You cannot flood the areas that we are talking about without changing the configuration of the soil and landscape. But trans-nationals don't think in those terms: they think in terms of money. In 1985-86, it was stated that the project would cost two-hundred billion dollars (U.S.). It was also stated that the money was available.
American Express wants to be the banker, and do you think that it is by coincidence that American Express was allowed, by Order of Council, to become a Bank in Canada, with Brian Mulroney breaking fourteen banking regulations just to allow them to achieve this status? As well, Alcan Aluminum needs dams for their mines, and Barrick, for their gold-owning concerns. Mulroney also signed Orders in Council breaking the law that made it illegal for foreigners to own more than fifty percent of a mine in Canada. Now foreigners can own mines outright in Canada: there are no restrictions.
None of these changes in the rules were made through Parliament, but by a stroke of Brian Mulroney's pen. Most people in Canada live with the illusion that laws are written by Parliament, but most regulations are changed by politicians in power. For every law that passes though Parliament, there are three thousand laws that are changed unilaterally behind the scenes.
Free trade: back-room manipulations
I know what was negotiated in the Free Trade Deal and how the deal was done because my executive secretary (NOTE: now his wife) is Shelley Ann Clark, who worked as the executive secretary to Germain Denis, the third highest-ranking negotiator. This is how the deal was done – Simon Reisman and Gordon Ritchie went to Washington, and gave away Canada, and as they were giving away Canada, they were at the time preparing a briefing book on a computer which appeared simultaneously on a computer in Ottawa. Mulroney and Denis worked together, and Shelley Ann Clark was the secretary working between the two of them.
How was this done? Since there were a bunch of Premiers who would have disagreed fundamentally if they knew what was really happening, and you knew what their bottom lines were, Premiers' briefings were always given at 50 O'Connor on the seventeenth floor. At midnight, the night before a briefing, Shelley Ann Clark would be told to come into Denis' office – only he and she would be in the office – and call up the briefing books on the computer. She would then be ordered to re-name a copy of the entire briefing book negotiated that day to The Provincial Briefing Book. Denis would then take the notes he had got from the Premiers about the bottom lines, and go through the main document, paragraph by paragraph.
Here are some examples. He would come to the section on “Water” – build a Grand Canal, build dams, move water to the U.S. – and he would say, “Delete that paragraph, and insert a line that says 'free-flowing water is not included in this deal'.” Textiles? “If it said we have given up sixty percent, change it to twelve.” Ms. Clark would change it to twelve.
And they would go through the entire book like that. At the end – at about three o'clock in the morning – they would produce ten copies. Every page of each new copy was numbered so that if a page went missing or was copied in any way, they would know which Premier would have done it.
Kralik: What they were negotiating, with relation to textiles, turkeys, or whatever was a kind of smoke-screen cover for the big Grand Canal?
Kealey: Everything in there was doctored. There were two key issues that we didn't hear anything about: the integration of Canada into the United States, and the movement of water through the Grand Canal. Those are the two key issues. How do you do that without anybody knowing? On October 3, 1987, the Free Trade Agreement was signed in Washington. A thirty-three page summary was delivered to Parliament. The original text has never been seen by the public.
A year later, a legal document of some fifteen-hundred pages, detailing the ramifications of certain items, was made public, and is used by lawyers today. But what is not known, what has not been seen, is the original Free Trade Deal which is at least two-hundred and some odd pages long. Because Shelley Ann Clark knows what she knows, and because of the contacts that she now has, she is a threat to the Government (i.e. the previous Mulroney Government). Last December (1992), they sent her home on full pay.
Kralik: Laid off.
Kealey: No, not laid off. She has her full pay. She was told, “Go home. We don't want you talking to people.” What they didn't know then was that home for her meant, in July 1993, becoming my executive secretary.
They haven't touched her in any way because they are afraid. She still has her top security clearance, but when she went to the archives and asked to see the Free Trade Documents, she was told, “In any event, the Free Trade Deal is in canisters 16 miles outside of Ottawa and is not to be seen by Canadians for thirty years.” Thirty years from now it is going to be too late. The implementation schedule ends at 2005. The Grand Canal must be in place and Quebec must be separated.”
Integrating Canada and the USA
Kealey: The date is the early 1960's. Dag Hammerskjold, the Secretary General of the United Nations, is flying between countries on the Lower African continent. He has been trouble-shooting border disputes which are being caused by the competition for access to mineral deposits. Suddenly, two fighter planes pull up alongside the UN plane and, without warning, shoot it down with missiles. The next day, the world media report it as an 'accident'. Fade to secret rendez-vous: Two mercenaries (the pilots of the fighter planes) are paid by an undercover agent employed by the TRANSNATIONAL MINING CABAL (funded by Rothschild-Rockefeller).
Fade to the New York (or Philadelphia) boardroom of Hanna Mining. It is now the late 1970's. The same undercover agent, an employee of Hanna Mining, quietly admits his role in the assassination to the Board of Directors. The admission bothers no one. Attention then turns to another internal problem. A Canadian-branch operation company president, Brian Mulroney of The Iron Ore Company of Canada, is being asked to shut down the Schefferville mine in Quebec. This is a very profitable mine, but one which competes successfully against the less profitable U.S. mines the Cabal also own. Mulroney is not-so-subtly reminded (blackmailed) by other directors, who threaten to expose the way he once looted the company pension fund in order to start the construction of his grand pet project, the Lord's Inn, which is to be built in Labrador (the hotel is an exact replica of Montreal's Ritz Carleton Hotel). Mulroney wisely agrees.
Fade to Oval office. It is January 21, 1981: Trans-national corporate leaders and bankers tell Reagan, “The US is broke. If it were a corporation, it would be shut down. The answer lies in a political merger with Canada. But first, the two countries must be 'HARMONIZED'.” The plan evolves on the spot (between 1985 and 2005):
1. Back Mulroney with cash and spin-doctors. 2. Once elected, link Mulroney with Simon Reisman, the former Deputy Minister of Finance. Reisman is presently the Director of the Grand Canal fresh water diversion scheme. 3. Appoint Reisman to lead a negotiating team which arrives from Canada begging for a Free Trade Deal. Let them pretend to be negotiating, while they actually just follow a given pre-set IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME designed to harmonize Canada's laws to the USA. 4. Write into the Free Trade Deal the secret arrangements made to change Canada's foreign ownership laws by ORDERS IN COUNCIL, at once. 5. Replace the Canadian Government with the Bankers' second division team, the Liberals (TORY II). This will help allay most peoples' fears, and continue the illusion of existing democracy and independence. 6. Manage the separation of Quebec by placing the transnational bankers' man, Lucien Bouchard, at the head of the separatist movement.
Borrow 100 billion dollars for the construction of water diversion projects across the North. When the project is at its mid-point, try to borrow a further 100 billion dollars. This second loan will be denied. When the International Monetary Fund declares that Canada is clearly insolvent, a general panic sets in. The Prime Minister runs down to Washington to plead for more credit. He is told loans are available on the condition Canada merges with the USA. This new deal would create a new country – the United States of North America.
The PM returns to Canada and informs Canadians about the American offer. He states, “there is no other choice”, and civil war breaks out in Quebec. Natives of Ungava (Northern Quebec) declare unilateral independence. The Quebec Police Force attack native reserves from helicopters. The PM calls upon the UN for military assistance – on the pretext of defending the CREE (from the attacking Quebec forces).
Military from Fort Drum, New York, all wearing the UN Blue Berets, cross the border at Kingston. Within two hours, they surround Parliament in Ottawa. Others move north by air and take charge of the power plant at James Bay. Later, Quebec is partitioned by the UN, and the World Bank takes control of the water projects. Quebec is placed under a UN-sponsored economic blockade until they finally agree to use English as the working language. Quebec becomes the 55th State of the USNA.
What we have today (this was written in 1994) is Mulroney's plan: one truly National Party, the Liberals, with the most hated politician in Quebec as its head, Jean Chretien. Next you have Lucien Bouchard leading the Official Opposition with the biggest block of Separatists ever, and last you have Preston Manning, leading a Reform Party – one gang that says, “We're leaving,” and the other one that says, “Go to hell.”
Kralik: To facilitate the split?
Kealey: To facilitate the split, because this is what is required. You cannot integrate Canada and the United States as long as Quebec is there. Step number one is the separation of Quebec by 1995. Step number two is, sadly, to merge the rest of Canada with the United States. Shelley Ann Clark says the material she saw in the Trade Negotiations Office cited Canada as a fifty-first state. Other CIA agents I know have stated fifty-first, fifty-second, fifty-third, and fifty-fourth states: the Maritimes, Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia with the Northern territories – four states. The third step is a revolution by the Cree of Northern Quebec against a separate Quebec – saying we're not going!
(Note of “Michael”: A referendum on the separation of Quebec did take place on October 30, 1995, and to the surprise of all those who organized it, 50.6% of the Quebecers voted “no” (against the separation). Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau was so upset with this close defeat (a difference of 54,000 votes out of 4.7 million) that he resigned the next day, leaving the place for Lucien Bouchard, who himself resigned from the office of Premier in January, 2001, lamenting that Quebecers remained indifferent to his call for independence. One thing that the Financiers did not expect to counter their plans were the millions of leaflets distributed by the “Michael” Journal in Quebec against the separation from Canada.)
For now, the Financiers' plan has failed, but they won't give up. Even though the idea of separation is losing ground in Quebec, you will notice that the separatist leaders are the strongest advocates for the abandonment of the Canadian currency for the U.S. dollar. Where is “sovereignty” in all of this?
A One-World Government
In this Free Trade Agreement, the US gets the clean profitable business. Canada is the attic – the warehouse of all the raw materials. Mexico is the boiler room, the basement where all the dirty work is done. That's the plan.
Kralik: Do you see this as a stepping-stone toward the building of a New World Order and its consolidation into a single global economy?
Kealey: Of course. 95% of receipts goes toward the maintenance of power and control. What control? The International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, and The Security Council, GATT.
Kralik: Who runs the International Monetary Fund?
Kealey: The bankers. There are some fifteen or sixteen different families, but by far the two most influential are the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. Up to the end of the last century, the Rothschilds operated strictly in Europe, but they were anxious to synthesize the American operation with their own. Investigators were sent out, and it was agreed that a railroad family, the Rockefellers, were prepared to play the game, and so they became the western arm of this operation.
The Federal Reserve
Then in 1913, we have the biggest scam of all: the denationalizing of the making of money, and the creation of the Federal Reserve (Bank), a deal between the bankers and the politicians whereby the bankers promised some politicians backing and almost certain re-election in the elections they contended; in return, the politicians handed over to the bankers the right to do nothing less than print the money for the country. “We'll do that for you,” the bankers said, “and you can borrow from us.” It was passed on a Friday afternoon with no warning and with Congress pretty well empty. So much for democracy when the invisible bankers really want something.
Let us examine the implications of that. Before you give away the power to create money, there is no need for consumer or income taxes: you can manufacture an amount of money based on the resources of the country, including its capacity for labour. The value is constantly changing as new minerals are found and the labour force becomes more and more productive. In a situation where the National Government prints money, for every dollar sold to banks, two percent remains with the Government: that two percent pays the bills.
Some countries in the world can't survive on their own because they don't have the resources. There is nothing in Canada that we do not have. In fact, we could make a decision tomorrow that the critical mass of all consumer products needed in Canada would be made in Canada, from Canadian raw materials, by Canadian labour: the result would be that everybody would be employed.
We have the raw materials, the labour force, but we don't have the plants. The raison d'etre of the Free Trade Agreements being concluded throughout the world is to consolidate international control over a country by making sure that all of the parts needed for the manufacturing of everything are not made in any one country.
Kralik: So that a country cannot be self-sufficient?
Kealey: The carburetors are built in one place, the exhaust pipes in another, as are the tuners for your VCR. All the parts have been disbursed in different countries, all over the world. No one country can manufacture the parts for everything produced within their own borders. That is, with three notable exceptions: Germany, Japan, and the United States – the European Community, the Pacific Community, and the Atlantic Community. A One-World Government begins by eliminating boundaries, ending up with three regions.
Kralik: Initially?
Kealey: Initially, and then merging them into a One-World Government under the United Nations. The Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the US, and Mexico is only the first step of an agreement that will encompass both the Americas, North and South.
Kralik: Exactly. The South American dimension was only mentioned during the last week.
Kealey: But it has been planned all the way through. You must remember too that the Free Trade Deal was not a negotiation: it was trans-national bankers saying to the Governments involved: “This is what you are going to do, and here is an implementation schedule.” Everything in the Free Trade Deal had to fit the implementation schedule. The final time slot is 2005.