Harper Wins Alliance Leadership

The most notable political developments of the past few weeks were the election of Stephen Harper as the new leader of the Alliance Party, succeeding Stockwell Day; and Mr. Harper's immediate meeting with PC leader Joe Clark, in which he challenged him to stop piddling around and wasting time, and join the Alliance in 'uniting the right,' or else get out of the way as the Alliance moves forward to build a strong challenge to the ruling Liberal government.
Mr. Harper, because of his early background with the Reform movement, his several years' experience in the House of Commons and as leader of the National Citizens' Coalition, should be well equipped for his new role. As this short report is written (April 10), Mr. Harper seems well on his way to bringing unity and esprit de corps to his own party. His challenge now is to prepare the Alliance for a major breakthrough in Central Canada within the next two years, in order to mount a successful challenge to the present government in the next federal election.

A Report on our Federal Government and its agencies 'The ugly Canadian'

Under the above caption, the March 18th issue of Report newsmagazine (National Edition) published this item: "Prime Minister Jean Chretien visited Germany last month and once again worked wonders for Canada's profile abroad. On February 17 he blew off German journalists in such a peremptory manner that two German newspapers, the Frankfurter Rundschau and the Stuttgarter Zeitung, warned him that he was actively worsening our country's image. Germans regard Canada as a quaint frontier country of great natural beauty, but scarcely contemporary or hard-driving enough to do business with. Good thing we didn't elect some sort of rustic crackpot goofball as our prime minister, eh? "
Not content with mere impoliteness, the PM soon raised the stakes to near-sacrilege at the Commonwealth War Graves cemetery in Durnbach. The provincial premiers on the Team Canada mission arrived early at a ceremony and filed respectfully among graves of the Canadian fallen, noting familiar hometowns on the tombstones. Mr. Chretien, by contrast, tried to flee immediately after the wreath-laying and was persuaded only with difficulty to make a peremptory 120-second browse. Asked why he was in such a hurry, he pointed out that there was 'no indication' any soldiers from Shawinigan were buried there. Just as well: if there had been, he might have tried to sign them up for Human Resources and Development grants."
Beyond comment.

Sexual assault on children has 'artistic merit' : Court

The Toronto Sun, March 27, under the caption "Smutty writing has artistic merit: Court," published a report of the Sharpe case before the B.C. Supreme Court. Here are excerpts:
"VANCOUVER (Reuters-CP) - John Robin Sharpe, whose case has already reshaped Canada's child pornography laws, was found not guilty yesterday of possessing sadomasochistic writings that a judge said were protected by artistic merit even if they are 'morally repugnant.' "Justice Duncan Shaw, of the B.C. Supreme Court, ruled that while the stories of men having sex with boys were 'by almost any standard, morally repugnant,' they nonetheless showed Sharpe was 'a writer who seeks to express himself in a manner that has literary merit.' ... "The court did find Sharpe, 68, guilty of possessing photographs of naked boys ... Sharpe faces up to 10 years in prison. He remains free on bail pending a sentencing hearing May 2."
COMMENT (by R.G.): IT would seem that Sharpe, or whoever did his photography, weren't quite as 'artistically meritorious' with the camera as Sharpe was with words!
The New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary (Canadian Edition), defines "pornography" as follows: "obscene literature, photographs, paintings etc., intended to cause sexual excitement; the treating of obscene subjects in art, literature etc." What the B.C. Supreme Court Justice seems to be saying is that if a pornographer is sufficiently skilled (artful?) with words and grammatical construction, then it's okay to produce and indulge in pornographic activity, regardless of its deadly effects on young, defenceless victims. That criminal activity isn't a crime if indulged in with a touch of panache and artistry. What a crock! Pornography is crap, however it's packaged. Personally, I view Justice Shaw's ruling as a much larger measure of sophistry than justice. And if this ruling is in any way typical or indicative of today's judiciary in Canada, then I pray for God Almighty to protect our children and grandchildren.

Should a tax-exempt Canadian qualify for welfare payments?

The National Post, March 16, carried an article captioned "Taxes should not be a matter of ancestry." Here are excerpts:
"A rip in the country's fabric was torn a little wider in an Edmonton courtroom earlier this month, when Federal Court Justice Douglas Campbell ruled in Benoit vs. Canada that Treaty-8 Indians and their descendants will never have to pay taxes again. The court case involved a group of natives from northern Alberta, who claimed their ancestors had been promised a total exemption from all taxes when they signed Treaty 8 in 1899. "The ruling directly affects about 35,000 aboriginal people in northern British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories. Some are expecting to be reimbursed for taxes they have paid over the past century - 'If that happens I'm going to be a rich man,' said one chief. The cost of making good on back taxes could amount to tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars if you consider 100 years of taxes paid in today's dollars plus interest. "Other Indian leaders know the thin edge of a wedge when they see one.

Perry Bellegarde, Chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), is already pushing for all of Saskatchewan's 100,000 aboriginal population to be tax-free. 'We view all Victorian treaties like one huge treaty,' he says. In this 'highest common denominator' argument, if the signatories of one treaty allege they were promised tax exemption, for whatever reason, the signatories of all treaties must get the same exemption. "Thankfully, the federal government has appealed the Benoit decision. One thing seems certain -- taxpayers will be on the hook for uncounted millions in legal costs as other aboriginal groups seek to use this case as precedent to interpret other treaties. If the position of these plaintiffs ultimately prevails, most of Canada's 700,000 treaty Indians, and their descendants, will be exempt from all taxes, both on and off reserve. Yet, they will remain beneficiaries of generous government spending to fulfill actual treaty requirements and social policy obligations. The remaining taxpayers will have to pick up an expanded share of the tab. It is hard to imagine a state of affairs that would breed more ill will and resentment between Canadians. "The very survival of some provinces may be at stake. If the number of aboriginal people in Saskatchewan rises to more than 30% in the next few decades, as is predicted by most demographic projections, how will the government pay for schools, hospitals, and roads if a third of the population is isolated from the economy and pays no taxes whatsoever? "If this scenario seems farfetched or even bizarre, just consider the grounds on which the case was decided.

As Campbell concedes in his decision, 'It has been proved that there was no intention on the part of the treaty commissioners to grant the tax exemption claimed by the plaintiffs, but ...' (and here's the zinger) '... the aboriginal people believed such a promise had been made... In order for the honour of the Crown to be maintained, the defendant is required to recognize and fulfill the tax assurance as it was understood by the aboriginal people.' So in the eyes of Justice Campbell, the Indians' mistaken belief trumps facts. "… Oral histories are only as accurate as human memory, they often contradict each other and historic evidence, and the long-dead original sources can't be cross-examined. Yet, in the 1997 Delgamuukw case, Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Lamer ruled, 'Notwithstanding the challenges created by the use of oral histories as the proof of historical facts, the laws of evidence must be adapted in order that this type of evidence can be accommodated and placed on equal footing with the types of historical evidence that courts are familiar with.' This is how hearsay and misunderstanding came to have more legal weight than historic documentation and reliable information in Justice Campbell's courtroom.
"The potential damage to the social, economic, and political fabric of Canada caused by the Treaty-8 case is enormous. This is exactly why the Canadian Taxpayers Federation intervened in the case. Defenders of the so-called 'right' not to pay taxes ought to take a hard look at what they are defending - the economic segregation of Indians (such as paying taxes) that is the failed paternalistic model of the past. "A prosperous Canada needs fair and reasonable taxes and the contribution of all its citizens to succeed. On this point an overwhelming majority of Canadians agree.

A Compas poll from December showed that 74% of all Canadians believe aboriginals should pay the same level of taxes as other Canadians. All of the people of Canada need and deserve tax relief and tax reform, but both must be based on the principle of fairness. If someone does not pay taxes, it should be because they are too poor to pay, not because of their ancestry. Equal responsibility is the price of equal rights." (The foregoing article was authored by Richard Truscott and John Carpay, who are, respectively, Saskatchewan director and Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.)
COMMENT: Messrs Truscott and Carpay deserve credit for such an informative and insightful examination of this tax issue. Upon reading their article, three thoughts came to mind: * Special treatment or 'rights' for aboriginals, or any other ethnic group for that matter, is a 'racist' policy, fair to neither the 'special-interest' group nor the majority, inasmuch as it thereby institutionalizes discrimination based on race, which in turn foments social discord and tension.
* Where did Mr. Trudeau's Chief Justice Antonio Lamer find his bizarre idea that the fantasies and folklore of special-interest groups now must be the equivalent of historical documentation in our courts? Was it in Trudeau's inclusion of so-called 'affirmative action' in his Charter, which in reality is saying that we are all equal before the law, but some are more equal than others? But who was Mr. Lamer, or any other appointed judge, to change or remake Canadian law? That's the right and prerogative of our elected Parliament!
* On the basis of the Antonio Lamer Supreme Court's 1997 Delgamuukw ruling, as our aboriginals dig more and more into their folklore and collective 'memories,' we other Canadians whose forefathers pioneered this country may find that we own less and less of it. Until, finally, we find ourselves a minority of taxpaying Canadians footing the bills for a majority of non-taxpaying Canadians -- all because of a piece of nonsensical mischief and malfeasance by our Supreme Court in 1997.

But, a piece of Good News!

Ted Byfield's "Westview" column in the April 1 National Edition of REPORT newsmagazine was captioned, "So somebody has finally clipped the wings of B.C.'s odious Human Rights Commission." Following, are excerpts:
"The politician facing the most horrendous task in Canada today is named Gordon Campbell and he is premier of British Columbia. He took on the job of cleaning-up the mess after his province had indulged in a 10-year socialist debauch, a veritable drunken spree that left it economically paralyzed, psychologically traumatized and essentially bankrupt. The province with the greatest economic and aesthetic potential of them all had somehow managed to reduce itself to 'have-not' status, a living monument to welfare dependency and brainless ideology.
"Precisely how well Mr. Campbell is faring so far is hard to tell. ... But it was the pointless, picky, snivelling little things as much as anything else that drove industry and people out of British Columbia -- onerous labour-board rulings, petty health regulations and environmental restrictions that seemed mysteriously divorced from any semblance of reason. And worst of all was a draconian human-rights process, firmly grounded upon the assumption that everybody in the province must be practising some sort of discrimination against somebody, and the government's job was to prosecute and punish them all. How reassuring, therefore, to see last week that the Campbell administration has begun to deal with the insanities of B.C.'s human rights machinery.
"The chosen technique is simple enough. The government merely disqualified human-rights cases as eligible for legal aid. This move, one suspects, will drastically reduce the caseload of the Human Rights Commission and help it sustain the 33% cut Mr. Campbell had already made in its funding. Without free legal representation, most complaints will not be made. This, says Robert Farvolden, a Victoria lawyer who specializes in human rights, 'will be very discouraging to people.' "High time, too, many a small businessman in B.C. would reply. If the complainants had had to pay even a small fraction of the legal cost, a lot of complaints would never have been made. And not only will this eliminate a chronic downside to doing business in B.C., it will also curtail a government agency whose activity in most respects was actually a blatant outrage against the founding principles of human rights. The commission has been a living repudiation of everything it was supposed to stand for.

"About a dozen years ago I had a firsthand experience of B.C. human-rights law. I was running the Vancouver office of what was then British Columbia Report, and the young man responsible for the magazine's production every Saturday wanted to take the occasional weekend off. This seemed reasonable enough, so we told him to hire someone who could take his place when he was away. He hired a young lady as an assistant, and soon afterward announced they were to be married. Which meant, he noted, that they would naturally want to spend free weekends together. "I suggested to his fiancé that our chief reason for hiring her was now inapplicable, so she should begin looking for another job. Six months later she still hadn't found one, and we were having to hire a third person to replace them both on their weekends away. Finally we fired her. We were immediately and formally accused of discriminatory practice: discrimination against marital status. "So there arrived a commission investigator who intended, he said, 'to bring the two parties together.' He sat down across the desk from me, and I turned on a tape recorder. Sorry, said he, that was not allowed. Then I would call in someone to take shorthand notes. Not allowed either, he said; these interviews were considered 'confidential.' "This seemed bizarre. Whether it was confidential was surely my decision. Why couldn't I tell someone what happened if I wanted to? That was the rule, he said. Too bad, I said, because I regarded anything that happened in the interview to be as public as either he or I wanted to make it. He put me down as refusing to be interviewed -- a blatant lie, of course -- and the commission, or someone, decided we owed the young woman several thousand dollars, which we were forced to pay. "In the end, when we published the story of this affair, the Unemployment Insurance Commission found that the young woman had been receiving compensation while supposedly unemployed, and took most of the human-rights compensation money from her. So the net beneficiary was the federal government -- a familiar situation. "One thing is certain, however. If that young lady had had to pay her own legal costs, the case would never have happened. So well done, Gordon Campbell."

COMMENT (by R.G.): The shameful record of the B.C. 'human-rights' commission under the NDP leftist government, proved that, far from defending the fundamental human rights of citizens, was primarily interested in limiting their basic rights such as freedom of speech and association, etc. The flagrant assault by the B.C. 'human-rights' tribunal against the freedom of speech concerning the courageous West Coast journalist, the late Doug Collins, was a classic case in point. The 'human-rights' assault on Ontario publisher Ernst Zundel in recent years even established that these tribunals are a complete denial of our heritage of English common law, and that under these tribunals such critical safeguards as Intent and Truth, are not only ignored but are frankly admitted to be of no interest or relevance to the commissioners! These so-called 'human-rights' commissions and tribunals are a public disgrace to our justice system and an affront to our citizenry. They should be immediately abolished. After all, a large number of the so-called 'discrimination' complaints brought before them are frivolous and without foundation; and any serious complaint of substance should be brought before and handled by a properly constituted Canadian court.

ON TARGET Section

Quote & Comment
Canada attack threat 'real'

The Toronto Sun, Mar. 9, ran a report under the above caption. Here are excerpts:
"KINGSTON (CP) - A senior Canadian Intelligence agent says Islamic militants -- dozens of whom are already in this country -- could be planning acts of terror against Canadians on Canadian soil. " 'The threat is real, it's immediate, it's here,' Michael Kelly, of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service counterterrorism branch told a counterterrorism symposium at Royal Military College attended by officials from the defence, immigration and foreign affairs departments. "CSIS knew of at least 75 Islamic militants living in Canada at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S., he said. ... "He said that in the 1990s, Muslim radicals saw Canada mainly as a safe harbour from which they could support terrorist networks abroad.
"In late 1999, when Ahmed Ressam, a member of a Montreal-based terrorist cell, was arrested while trying to enter the United States on a bombing mission, CSIS recognized that Canada was not simply a place to conduct illegal fund-raising but had become a theatre from which terrorists were planning and staging attacks. "The next step will be attacks on Canada itself, he warned." The seemingly bizarre -- almost criminal -- aspect of this is that while our Intelligence service warns Canadians of our security dangers, and our military experts warn of the shocking inadequacies and unpreparedness in our defence and military services - what's our PM's response? He orders up new supermodel planes, at over $100,000,000 to jet him around the globe ladling out our tax-dollars to Third-World deadbeat and dictatorial regimes, and posing for op-ed photos with world figures to impress us peasants back home.

Too many immigrants, majority says

According to a poll by Leger Marketing, conducted Feb. 5 to 9, of the 80% of Canadians that responded, 54% said Canada accepts too many immigrants, and 26% not enough. A recent column by Anne Dawson of Sun Media stated: "Under proposed immigration rules released yesterday (Mar. 21), people on social assistance will be able to sponsor family members to immigrate to Canada. "The proposals also recommend that single parents on government assistance be allowed to sponsor dependent children. ... "It's all part of a huge push by the Liberal government to increase the number of immigrants and refugees that come here to ... about 300,000 a year …"

Ottawa generous with our tax-dollars

The March issue of the Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform newsletter published this item: " 'Canada is forgiving all the $83.6-million in debts it is owed by Tanzania as part of the federal government's plan to provide debt relief to poor countries. Tanzania ... is one of 17 heavily indebted poor countries that have outstanding debts to Canada.' (Globe and Mail, Feb. 12, 2002) "Canada lends money to foreign countries and, then, some years later forgives the loans. Perhaps, forgiving university loans to Canadian students on the birth of their second child might be an investment in Canada and a way to avoid having to import immigrants with radically different cultures from ours. …" Wouldn't it be more honest with all concerned to just give these 'loans' to the poor countries in the first place, and save bookkeeping and bureaucracy costs?

Healthcare troubles triple

The National Post, Mar. 3, under the caption "Healthcare troubles triple since mid-'90s," published a report by Norma Greenaway on our medicare system. Two introductory paragraphs follow:
"OTTAWA - There has been a sharp increase in the number of Canadians reporting problems getting health care, according to figures released yesterday that fuel arguments the health system is still suffering the effects of major funding cuts. "A Statistics Canada report said about one in eight Canadians reported difficulties getting health care in the past year, up sharply from the mid-1990s when only one in 24 reported such problems." This indicates a 300% increase in complaints with our medicare system in the past decade. The main problem seems to be inadequate funding. Originally, in the '60s, the Federal government launched the scheme (even though medical services -- health -- is a provincial jurisdiction) and in reality forced every province to participate by agreeing that Ottawa would pay 50% of the costs. But over the years Ottawa has welched on the deal, paying less and less of its costs. For instance, Ontario today pays something like 87% of its Medicare bill; Ottawa pays only about 13%. This, of course, has thrown an overwhelming burden on provincial governments and resulted in cutbacks in service. Until the provincial governments get together and, collectively, order Ottawa out of direct taxation (income tax), which Constitutionally is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction, it's going to be almost impossible to resolve this problem. But at present none of our politicians or parties seem to have enough intestinal fortitude to insist on constitutional government!

A prayer worth reprinting

A few days ago we received a note from one of our readers, saying: "I would like to share a prayer that was first uttered by Rev. Joe Wright during the opening a few years ago of the Kansas House of Representatives." While we did publish it in this Service at the time, it's worth republishing it at this critical time in our history. Here is Rev. Wright's prayer:

"We come before you today to ask your forgiveness and seek your direction and guidance. We know your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. "We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values. "We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of your Word and called it moral pluralism. "We have worshipped other gods and called it multi-culturalism. "We have endorsed perversion and called it alternative lifestyle. "We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. "We have neglected the needy and called it self-preservation. "We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. "We have killed our unborn and called it choice. "We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. "We have neglected and prevented the discipline of our children and called it building esteem. "We have abused power and called it political savvy. "We have coveted our neighbours' possessions and called it ambition. "We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of speech. "We have ridiculed the time-honoured values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. "Search us, 0 God, and know our hearts today; try us, and see if there is some wicked way within us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free."

Our only comment is "Amen."

The Milosevic trial

The Toronto Sun, March 22, under the caption "Even a thug deserves a fair trial," published a column by Peter Worthington concerning the war-crime trial of Slobodan Milosevic. Here are excerpts: "Noted criminal lawyer Eddie Greenspan has condemned the trial of Yugoslavia's deposed President Slobodan Milosevic as a 'kangaroo court' and a 'lynching.' "This assessment, while accurate, has invoked considerable reaction -- most of it hostile because Milosevic is, or was, one of the world's unpleasant tyrants. Some whom I've talked to think Greenspan supports Milosevic. This is 100% wrong -- he cares not a whit for Milosevic. In a National Post article, Greenspan said he considers him a 'thug.' "It's the process that's got Greenspan upset -- justice being abused: 'Even a thug is entitled to a fair trial,' which certainly isn't what Milosevic is getting or could get from the International War Crimes Tribunal (IWCT). ... "Milosevic has rejected legal representation and is defending himself. Greenspan is right in saying Milosevic hasn't a chance in this kangaroo court, no matter who was defending him -- not even Greenspan himself. "The whole concept of an international court for war criminals is rife with folly and shame. Essentially, it's winners getting even with losers. As for Milosevic, unpleasant as he may be, he isn't Hitler. For what he's done to his erstwhile country, he should be tried in Belgrade, by a Yugoslav or Serbian court -- as would have happened had not NATO bribed or threatened his captors to turn him over.

"Among assorted charges against Milosevic is genocide. He may well be found guilty, even though no genocide was involved. In fact, even charging him with genocide gives respectability to those who actually have implemented genocidal policies. Atrocities are not genocide. "Milosevic's 'crimes' in Bosnia are one thing, those in Kosovo another.

Hearsay evidence

"When Madame Justice Louise Arbour was prosecutor for the IWCT -- appointed at the behest of former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who was bent on war against Serbia over Kosovo -- she suggested Milosevic was guilty of genocide, before she had much more than hearsay evidence. "For example, Arbour cited a massacre at Racak, in Kosovo, as Milosevic's, which later turned out to be a fake massacre orchestrated by Albanian Kosovars to frame the Serbs. "Until he was turned over to NATO, Milosevic faced trial in Belgrade. By removing him, NATO undermined the authority of Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica, who is a symbol of democratic integrity and decency even though he refuses to play lapdog to U.S. interests. "A case can even be made that NATO and those who plotted the war over Kosovo deserve to be charged with war crimes.

Let the war policy be defended in open court.

"Kosovo was an unnecessary war, a fabricated war condemned by James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia and now chairman of the Lord Byron Foundation for Balkan Studies. Reviled by Ottawa for his outspoken dissent, Bisset and others are dismayed that NATO, formed as a defensive alliance to protect Europe from Soviet aggression, became an interventionist force in a civil war that was no threat to other European countries. The only NATO country to oppose the U.S. bombing war that violated both the UN and NATO charters, as well as international law, was Greece. Bissett finds this both ironic and shameful.

'Just another tool'

"He notes that the 'bedrock morality and high principle,' on which NATO was formed, has been eroded: 'NATO has become just another tool of American foreign policy.' "The trial of Milosevic seems an attempt to justify NATO's actions in what is known as 'Madeleine Albright's war.' When Britain initially objected to the bombing war because foreign ministry lawyers advised it would be illegal if done without UN approval, Albright's reaction was 'get new lawyers.'

"While none of this may concern Greenspan's criticisms of how the trial is being conducted, what can't easily be ignored is that the declared reason for the bombing was to halt alleged genocide and massive ethnic cleansing. In the year prior to the bombing, some 2,000 people were killed in Kosovo -- roughly half by Serbian actions, half by the Kosovo Liberation Army, whom NATO and the U.S. supported. "Hardly genocide. As for 'ethnic cleansing' (a pejorative euphemism for creating refugees) during fighting prior to bombing, some 250,000 people were displaced. After bombing started, 800,000 fled. The reality of Milosevic's trial is that the verdict is already in: guilty. Only the sentence remains to be imposed. Let the lynching proceed."

COMMENT: We commend Mr. Worthington for his insight and courage in laying the truth on the line, politically incorrect and embarrassing to the Establishment as it may be. Not only do we endorse his perspective and position on our involvement in the Yugoslavia/Kosovo bombing and war, but we resolutely took the same stand during this outrage three years ago, making our position and viewpoint known to all Canadian politicians and newsmedia, even suggesting that those federal politicians who sanctioned and supported this shameful attack were thereby becoming themselves war criminals. Three years later, we find most of those same MPs back in Ottawa, again sanctioning and supporting an orgy of bombing and threatening Islamic countries many thousands of miles from our homeland. A government which can't find enough money to provide and equip adequate defence forces at home, but finds money to get involved in bombing and warfare on the other side of the world! And without even a vote in Parliament! Is this what we send representatives to Parliament for?

Goodbye Canada
by Paul Hellyer

Goodbye Canada is Mr. Hellyer's latest book, and it deserves a read and the attention of every Canadian concerned about the future of our country. Its chapters include: 1. Goodbye Canada; 2. The New World (Dis)Order; 3. A Means To An End; 4. The Enforcers; 5. Death of Democracy; 6. The Root Of All Evil; 7. Capitalist Totalitarianism; 8. Winners and Losers; 9. Economics 2001; 10. A Better Vision; 11. Mister President; 12. Vive la différence.
It also includes a Postscript, Notes, Bibliography and Index. Some of the subjects it deals with include: The Council on Foreign Relations; The Bilderbergers; The Trilateral Commission; The Propaganda Machine; NAFTA; NAFTA's Chapter 11; The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI); The World Bank; The World Trade Organization (WTO); How Banks Create Money; Money and Inflation; Banking Scams; A Faulty System; Counterfeit Money; The Guernsey Experiment; Central Banks As Dictators; The Bank of Canada; The Two U.S. Governments -- Permanent and Provisional; and much, much more.

Among testimonials of this book: " 'We are losing our country,' says Paul Hellyer. This incisive and timely study is a must read for all those committed to preserving Canadian sovereignty in the face of US corporate aggression. The author analyses how globalization and the onslaught of what is euphemistically called 'free trade' are destroying the economic, social and political foundations of the Canadian nation. Paul Hellyer's call for action to 'Save Canada' combines a skillful critique with a detailed and lucid explanation of the lethal government policies which are leading towards the annexation of our country to the US."

Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa -- "Canadians who want the story straight and very well informed will get it from Paul Hellyer. He has sat in Canadian cabinets with Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, and is a courageous figure in the awaking resistance to the transnational corporate occupation of Canada by financial and tradefiat stealth. Unlike the ministerial servants to foreign corporate interests and domestic head offices now collaborating in the stripping of the country, Paul Hellyer stands up, and in a clear, forthright and knowledgeable voice explains what is happening."

John McMurtry, PhD, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada -- "One may not always agree with Paul T. Hellyer, however all have to agree his writing is provocative and informative."

Roger D. Landry C.C., O.Q. Former President and Publisher, La Presse -- "The new world without borders will be like a zoo without cages. Only the most powerful of the species will survive. Canada will not be one of them."

Paul Hellyer Order from this Service - $20 (includes GST and shipping).

The Enterprise Section

Paul Hellyer speaks out on Canadian Foreign Policy

The following article by the Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Deputy Prime Minister and presently leader of the Canadian Action Party, is reprinted from the Spring 2002 issue of Discourse & Disclosure.

After reflecting upon the events and trends of recent months, one conclusion seems apparent: rather than encouraging further integration with the U.S. economy, as proposed by the Council of CEOs for self-serving reasons, it is in Canada's best long-term interests to slowly but surely begin to distance itself from the U.S. and its unilateral approach to world governance. Whether by design or otherwise, the U.S. is transforming itself and much of the so-called democratic world into a mirror image of the old Soviet system which we considered to be so evil. They are actually training National Guardsmen to establish and maintain internal checkpoints, which reminds me of Papa Doc Duvalier's Haiti. We are losing our freedom and civil rights in the name of "security." To argue that all of this is necessary and justified in order to combat a few hundred terrorists requires a monumental stretch of the imagination. Especially now that intelligence agencies are systematically identifying potential terrorist cells, their means of communication, and their sources of funds. All of this will make their operations much more difficult than when they were largely unchecked and unimpeded. Keeping a close watch on potential terrorists is positive, and a net contributor to a more secure world. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's proposal to NATO defence ministers to launch a pre-emptive war of indefinite duration against anyone, anywhere, who possesses the tools of potential terrorism is not! It is a strategy that will generate more hate in more places than the world has ever known. Apparently the Americans are still in denial about the reasons for the horrendous attacks on New York and the Pentagon. It was not because some young Muslims coveted their freedom, their democracy, their affluence or their life style. The hate was generated by U.S. foreign policy, extending back decades, especially in the Middle East. The average American has no comprehension what successive governments have done in their name and, consequently, is totally bewildered as to why people hate them. But the Bush administration staff should know, and it is self-serving propaganda to suggest that enemies of the United States are equally enemies of all Western countries. That is simply not true -- at least not yet. But it will become so if Canada and other NATO countries meekly and stupidly adopt the Rumsfeld plan of embarking on an interminable war to bomb and obliterate every cell suspected of having the capability of engaging in any aspect of nuclear, biological or chemical experimentation.

In a world where the "how to" in these areas is freely available on the internet, the number of potential targets is as numerous as the stars. Every U.S. (or NATO) pre-emptive strike will generate an escalation of hate. This will be especially true where, due to faulty intelligence or human error, the targets are later identified as cheese factories, Red Cross depots or schools. Inevitably the collateral damage (death of innocent civilians) as bombs rain down on one country after another would have an effect on public opinion worldwide. Canada should do itself and, ultimately, the U.S. a favour by rejecting Rumsfeld's strategy out of hand. We have to start pursuing our own best long-term interests rather than assuming that our interests and American interests are identical -- they seldom have been, and are even less likely to be so in the future unless we allow ourselves to be drawn totally into the U.S. orbit. We have paid our tribute to Caesar by pledging to spend $7-billion over five years for security measures. These are not measures to protect Canada, but measures the U.S. decreed necessary for its security. It is a tax we have to pay for continued co-operation in keeping the Canada-U.S. border open for trade. So it is in our interests to pay as we consolidate and then seek greater self-reliance and less dependence in future. Canadians have many assets which are priceless, but none more so than our Canadian passports.

We benefit from the fact that we are not a super power and that our motives in foreign relations have been, for the most part, honourable and praiseworthy. We would lose this inestimable advantage if we get involved in a senseless and endless conflict against the underprivileged of the world. Instead, we should openly urge the U.S. to adopt a different strategy -- one that addresses the root causes of the hate. There are many Americans who understand, but their voices are ignored by those with a different agenda. The U.S. has to learn, sooner or later, that the best investment in security is a happy and just world and this is not something that can be achieved by military means. It may be a hard lesson for Americans to learn, but learn it they must. (End of Mr. Hellyer's article)

COMMENT: It's refreshing -- indeed, inspiring -- to find a Canadian of Mr. Hellyer's character and stature who is prepared to put forward a policy of defending our national sovereignty, assuming responsibility for our own internal security, co-operating with neighbours in promoting international justice and security, and striving to resolve world problems and injustice by means short of intimidation, violence and war. There is much more to be said on this question, but it must wait for another time for further discussion.

Churches identify root causes of uprising

The National Post, April 5, under the above heading on its editorial page, published the following two statements by the heads of two major Churches in Canada. By Michael G. Peers, Archbishop and Primate, Anglican Church of Canada:
"Last spring, I had the opportunity, with a group of other Canadian church leaders to experience firsthand the life of the Christian churches -- our partners -- in Palestine. We were deeply moved by the compassion and courage by which those churches live and serve. At the same time, we were horrified by the state of constant fear imposed on the Palestinian people by the armed forces of Israel. What we witnessed was a blatant double standard. The security and well-being of Israeli settlers mattered; that of the Palestinians did not.

"The current violence in Palestine has deep roots, but Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in defiance of United Nations resolutions is at its heart. The Anglican Communion has, since 1948, expressed concern for peace in Palestine, and the Anglican Church of Canada has expressed a similar concern in resolutions of General Synod. The United Nations, beginning with Resolution 194 in 1948, has been consistent in calling for justice for all the residents of Palestine. These resolutions challenge, not sovereignty of the state of Israel, but the use of the power of that state to uproot the Palestinian people. Our Church and our tradition abhor violence. But peace without justice is as much a tragic illusion now as it was in the time of the prophet Jeremiah: 'They have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying, "Peace, peace," when there is no peace.' (Jeremiah 6:14)

"When Israel withdraws from its illegal occupation of Palestine, when Palestinians are free to return in peace to their homeland, when civilians are no longer the targets of terror, either from suicide bombers or government tanks, then healing will begin. Any other path will simply entrench violence and death as the norm for this generation and many generations to come."

By Rev. Dr. Marion Pardy, Moderator, United Church of Canada

"The situation in the Middle East continues to deteriorate in a cycle of increasing hatred, retribution and violence. In the midst of this horror The United Church of Canada expresses its deep sorrow over the tragic deaths of so many innocent people, both Israeli and Palestinian. The Church deplores all acts of terrorism, those of individuals and those that are state sponsored, by both Palestinians and Israelis. By now it should be clear, however, that it is not enough to simply cry out that the violence must stop. The only lasting path to peace is through Justice for all the peoples of the region. "While feeling deeply for Israeli victims, and passionately for the continued security and well-being of Israel, the United Church nevertheless strongly states that at the root of the violence and instability of the region is Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. There will be no peaceful solution that does not guarantee both peoples, Palestinians and Israelis, the right to exist in security and freedom in their own states. This means that Israel will ultimately have to withdraw from Palestinian territories, leave behind its settlements and military outposts and allow the Palestinian people to finally bring into being their own homeland and state if peace is truly desired. "Our hope and prayer is that this will happen before more innocent Israelis and Palestinians suffer and die." About the same time, Pope John Paul was delivering his Easter message in Vatican City, in which he stated: "It seems that war has been declared on peace. But nothing is resolved by war. It only brings greater suffering and death. Neither do retaliation and reprisals resolve anything. The tragedy is truly great." The Toronto Sun, March 14, carried a United Nations (AP) report which opened as follows: "Calling the current Israeli-Palestinian violence the worst in 10 years, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urged Palestinians yesterday to halt all acts of terror and Israelis to stop using excessive force and to end their 'illegal occupation' of Palestinian territory."

COMMENT: Here we have the heads of the Roman Catholic and two other major Christian communions, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations speaking up strongly and eloquently on this Middle-East issue, not from a personal or partisan perspective but from a simple humanitarian viewpoint of human life, and dignity and respect. And their united stand certainly counters U.S. President Bush's policy of escalating Third-World bombing, while refusing to acknowledge the reality that it's been U.S. foreign policy itself this past half-century-plus -- financing and building up and arming the Zionist-Israeli state as it invaded and seized the Palestinian homeland -- which is the core of the Middle-East crisis and the prime cause of the growing threat of international terrorism. The Islamic world knows this; the Israelis know this; Europeans know this; indeed nearly the whole world knows this. Except President Bush and those who advise and direct him in their little game of 'blind man's bluff,' as they themselves threaten to become the world's biggest terrorists and bomb into rubble those who dare to see things from a somewhat different perspective, and thereby find themselves on Mr. Bush's 'enemy list.' This is one way to bring 'peace' -- but it's the peace of darkness and death.

As this is written (April 6), both Canadian Prime Minister Chretien and U.S. President Bush have publicly endorsed the intent of U.N. Resolution 1402 -- an immediate ceasefire, an end to violence by both Israelis and Palestinians, withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities recently attacked, and the start of peace-settlement negotiations, for which purpose U.S. State Secretary Powell is being sent to the Middle East. This would be most encouraging were it not for the fact that for decades the U.N. has been passing resolutions asking Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories, and sponsoring 'peace processes,' none of which got as far as first base. In other words, mere rhetoric, without meaningful follow-up, is just a waste of time. Whether there is to be war or peace in the Middle East depends on the U.S. So long as Washington finances and arms Israel while denigrating Palestinians, Israel is not going to agree to any peace settlement agreeable to the Palestinians. Unless the U.S. orders the withdrawal of Israeli forces and settlements from Palestinian land, and threatens to cut off financial, economic and military support to Israel if the U.S. order is not forthwith carried out, there will not be peace in the Middle East. And, sadly, the only option seems war -- a war which could quickly escalate throughout the Islamic world and beyond.
The challenge facing not only Canadians today, but all of our Commonwealth members and others who are, in some cases by economic necessity, reluctantly supporting the Bush pro-war policy, to join the increasing millions of Americans who themselves are beginning to see the folly and deadly dangers of present U.S. policy, and use every legitimate means at our disposal to get the American administration to pause and reassess its foreign policy. It's imperative that every patriotic American, and all loyal friends, neighbours and allies of the U.S., do everything possible to convince President Bush and his Cabinet to pause, and address that $64-thousand question: What have we done to create such hatred and so many enemies in the Islamic world?

The final decision is President Bush's respecting the legacy he leaves future generations:
A world of justice, understanding and faith. Or a world of hatred, bitterness, violence and ashes. Whatever you, personally, do in response to this challenge, it might help to pause and invite a little inspiration and guidance from a Higher Power. Some sound advice

A few extracts from a Feb. 22 column by the respected American journalist Charley Reese:
"A dangerous amount of hubris seems to be settling over Washington like fallout from a bomb. Hubris, of course, is the combination of arrogance and unwarranted assumptions. "Recently, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said our 'victory' in Afghanistan proves that we are the 'most militarily powerful country in the history of the world.' That's hubris, not to mention ignorance of matters both military and historical. "We didn't fight in Afghanistan. We bribed warlords to do the fighting. We just bombed light infantry troops who had no air defense. The outcome was no surprise and no proof of our military power. Sorry, Lieberman, but you're going to have to wait until we attack somebody besides tiny and/or impoverished nations before you can properly evaluate our military prowess... "Our relationship with Russia is far more important to our national security than a dictator in Baghdad, yet Bush is indicating he will jeopardize that to pursue a vendetta against Saddam Hussein. That would be a strategic blunder of immense consequences.
"Furthermore, it's not too smart to put countries on notice that you plan to get around to making war against them. For one thing, it surrenders initiative. North Korea might decide not to wait until we're ready. Iran and Iraq might decide to put aside their enmity while they face a common enemy. Either one could destroy the oil facilities in the Persian Gulf states or lob some missiles at Israel and start a general war. Bush might then discover what it's like to fight a general war without a single ally. "And finally, I wouldn't call our foray into Afghanistan either a success or a victory until the last American soldier is out of the country. It's always been easier to go into Afghanistan than to get out. Right now, the government we put in power controls only Kabul. In other words, Afghanistan is far from being stabilized. Even the warlords we paid to fight the Taliban don't like us. Nor has Osama bin Laden been found. Lots of loose ends yet remain to be tied up."