Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label, Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Science of the Social Credit Measured in Terms of Human Satisfaction

The Canadian National Scene

Our first victim of war was freedom of speech Not a day goes by that our newsmedia fails to remind us that we failed to join President Bush's war party and rush off to shoot up the Iraqis if they dared to defend their country and their head of state, Sadam Hussein. However, less than three years ago we did join Mr. Bush in his "war against terrorism," following the 9/11 bombing in New York City. And we're still his ally in that war - aren't we, Mr. Chretien? - at least when we believe his military missions have that original objective in mind.

The first Canadian casualty in our war on terrorism was freedom of speech in our own country! That's right. The first action of our Canadian Government was Bill C-36, a measure to curtail the constitutional right of Canadians to enjoy freedom of speech and association. Our January 2002 issue dealt with this question. Our next casualties of note were our four military men in Afghanistan who the American Airforce accidentally bombed. But today, going on three years after the 9/11 tragedy, Ottawa still hasn't rounded up the tens of thousands of illegal 'refugees' or taken effective action to stem the flow of illegal aliens coming into Canada. But it has taken action to curtail freedom of speech in our fair land.

The Toronto Sun, Mar. 5/03, carried a report by Maria McClintock of its Ottawa Bureau captioned "Customs seizes anti-war tapes." Following are excerpts:

"OTTAWA - Canada Customs has seized 50 anti-war videos to investigate if the tapes being imported by an Ontario man are obscene or constitute hate propaganda. "The two-hour What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy video was produced by Frank Dorrel of California before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "The tapes seized last week were being imported by anti-globalization activist Ian Woods. "The video is a compilation of 10 segments featuring such famous Americans as Martin Luther King Jr., actress Susan Sarandon and former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark, discussing war and the impact of U.S. foreign policy on various nations, such as Iraq, East Timor and Panama. "Woods said his lawyer has written Canada Customs urging a quick ruling. …
"Canada Customs spokesman Colette Gentes-Hawn refused to confirm the agency has the tapes. The agency can take up to 30 days to make a determination. …"

Many of our subscribers will be familiar with Global Outlook magazine, published in Ontario by the Monetary Reform Magazine Inc., which is edited by Ian Woods and Michel Chossudovsky. Global Outlook has published and made available in Canada much information respecting the 9/11 attack which has been largely ignored or suppressed by our newsmedia; and has also questioned the wisdom of some aspects of U.S. foreign policy and challenged the legitimacy of the attack on Iraq engineered by the Bush Administration. While our own PM and government might seem friendly to these views, the reality is that by our financially controlled Big Press & Media, and a certain influential 'minority group,' these views are considered 'politically incorrect,' indeed unacceptable, and must be silenced and stamped out! In other words, freedom of speech - but only for those deemed politically correct, as determined by the establishment movers and shakers of the moment.

Another example of harassment Paul Fromm of Toronto, is probably Canada's leading critic of the present federal immigration policy, and defender of freedom of speech in our country. He, too, is another victim of Ottawa's role in this 'war on terrorism.' He tells his own story in his own words in the following e-mail captioned "More Harassment by Caplan's Stasi":

Snail mail readers may have noticed that the February mailing of (my) C-FAR Newsletter, Canadian Immigration Hotline, and Free Speech Monitor was somewhat fractured. Some mailings with invitations arrived late. The reason for this mess was the latest stage in political harassment by Elinor Caplan's political thought police. We get some of our printing done in the U.S. On January 29, I crossed over at Queenston with most of our February printing. Despite phoney "free" trade, importers have to endure long waits at the hands of the lackadaisical customs authorities in order to pay the GST. As I pulled up to the first checkpoint, I was asked a few questions, including my licence number. The-woman agent completed my licence number, before I could finish saying it. I thought this odd. As I arrived inside, to begin the paperwork, this same agent raced in and asked sotto voce for a secondary inspection for me. Later, I was called forth - nothing happens quickly at the Canada Customs and Revenue agency's truckers' timewaster station. I had to stand back as my car was searched, including the wheel well for the spare tire. Samples of newsletters were seized and my driver's licence. I had to empty my pockets and show the contents of my wallet. The female agent, I'll call her Annie Auburn Bangs - none of these cowards will provide a name, yet their hapless victims must identify themselves - now disappeared. She reported perhaps 40 minutes later that her supervisor had said the newsletters were "close to the line."
Copies were FAXed to Ottawa. Nearly another two hours passed before I was advised that samples would have to be sent to Ottawa for a determination. I protested that these were timed items and any real delay would, make them little more than worthless pieces of paper. Nothing moved the apparatchiks. Annie Auburn Bangs came out with a hulking assistant to haul off the boxes of printing. In the privacy of the warehouse, with the nameless hulk as a witness, she handed me an unsigned "notice of detention/determination." I finally got my driver's licence back. I pointedly asked for her name. "I can't give you my name," she said with that sort of bureaucratic contempt taxpayers have become used to. "There are all sorts of crazies out there." (A good many of whom immigration has let into this country, I thought to myself.) Nevertheless, she did rattle off her number - 13709. I had no way of knowing whether that was, indeed, her number. The phone number I was given to trace the seized newsletters turned out to be a dead end - not the right bureaucrat.

One sounds rather foolish saying, "Now, this woman agent - no, I don't know her name - took our goods and..." In the business world or among free men and women of good will, honest people identify themselves. Now, in the world of repression and police states, one can see why they might not. In trying to track our property, I asked again for the name of the agent who'd seized it. This call to Niagara brought me up against another anonymous female. "The name is confidential," she snapped. "You have a nice day," she said as she hung up on me. It took many more calls to establish the correct number.

By February 5., I had tracked the newsletters to the Prohibited Importations Unit in Ottawa. I was now dealing with someone who had a name, sort of, the receptionist Louise. Eventually, on February 11, I journeyed to Niagara. Ottawa had cleared the newsletters and I could, at last, retrieve them hideously late for our February mailing. A letter dated February 6 advised me "the material has been examined and it has been determinded that the three newsletters do not fall within the prohibitory provisions." There was no name on the bottom of this letter, only Officer #16001-, "Senior Programme Advisor."

This is at least the fourth time a determination has been made about these newsletters and every time they've been cleared. It's hard to see this seizure as anything other than efforts by Canada's burgeoning thought-control apparatus to harass dissent. Oh, well, we'll soon be sending young Canadians to die to bring democracy and freedom of speech to Iraq. Perhaps, they'd be better used fighting for these rights right here at home in Absurdistan. - Paul Fromm. (End of Mr. Fromm's e-mail)

COMMENT: The cold reality is that usually the first victims of these wars to save freedom and democracy abroad, are the loss of freedom of speech and communication at home. This is a point that needs to be kept in mind whenever war is used as an excuse for surrendering at home the very values we claim to be fighting for abroad!

Afghanistan Dropping Off U.S. Radar Screen?...

The Australian On Target Bulletin Supplement, March 14/2003, under the above caption published the fo llowing report:

Do you remember the reasons given for the US invasion of Afghanistan? Under the banner of a 'war on terrorism' the American Administration waged war against the Muslim Taliban, insisting it would also lead to the capture of Osama bin Laden, (who was nowhere to be seen) and declared they would assist with the emergence of that troubled country into a peaceful and stable nation, preferably a democracy. The Afghanis are now realizing the vision of a stable, peaceful 'democracy' is not going to be fulfilled - at least the American Administration is not going to do it for them!

According to Ehsan Ahrari in the Central Asia Times, March 7th, 2003, the American Administration's focus has shifted to the "coalition of more than 90 countries" and they are hotly pursuing "the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power." George Bush announced they have "arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaeda." Across the world they "are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning" crows George, "and we're showing them the definition of American justice."

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, Radio Free Europe reports (February 27, 2003) the UN has suspended aid work in Afghanistan due to uncertain security. A UN spokesman told reporters the decision had been taken to suspend aid work in some areas "after tensions had risen in several of the country's northern provinces." There had been no progress in efforts to disarm warlords operating in the regions. Victoria Burnett, Financial Times, February 27, wrote:
"Afghanistan: War is won but peace could yet be lost. ... the Taliban is believed to be regrouping, now with a new ally, renegade warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Barely a day goes by without a rocket fired at a coalition base and the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), the international peacekeeping force in Kabul, is rattled after a spate of attacks. In recent weeks coalition forces have twice engaged in the heaviest fighting for a year."

The Russians spent 20 years trying to conquer these people, what made the Americans think they could do it in less time - or that they could do it at all? Ehsan Ahrari admits (Central Asian Times) the idea of committing American troops to Afghanistan for the next twenty years is not a popular policy in Washington, but he warns if they are not in it for the long haul, they risk losing the ground gained to groups even worse than the Taliban. He lists the needs of the country, which will expand the legitimacy of the government headed by President Hamid Karsai, the candidate handpicked by the Bush Administration. To this day, Karsai acts more as a Mayor of Kabul than as the President of a Republic.

First: Big 'bickies' will have to be spent: First is the need or the building of institutional infrastructure over Afghanistan, including an extensive network of roads, schools, irrigation, transportation and health systems; and, most important of all, a stout law enforcement system. And the list goes on.

The second need: Karsai needs mega-bucks to build this infrastructure. It looks like the dreams of billions of dollars, in the form of aid, pouring into the coffers of the government, are not being realized. Ehsan Ahrari thinks "the industrial donors have established a shameful record." A Tokyo conference in January 2002 pledged $4.5-billion over five years, but "the finance ministry in Kabul has said that $20-billion to $25-billion will be needed to rebuild the nation's crumbled infrastructure." The US Congress approved the American commitment made at Tokyo, amounting to $3.3-billion. But, contributions from other countries have been lagging.

The third need: Thirdly is the need to build up the Afghan security forces. Building these forces in a war-ravaged country is awesome indeed. For Afghanistan, this task is immensely complicated by the presence not only of multi-ethnicity, but also by deeply entrenched rivalries and hatred that accompany that reality. Presently, two armies coexist in Afghanistan: the fledgling Afghan National Army and the loosely knit group of fighters who came together to fight the Taliban. The United States is training the Afghan National Army, whose current size is reported to be 3,000 recruits. However, according to a report issued by CARE (a US-based non-government organization), few have been paid. "About half have deserted because of tensions between different ethnic groups, low pay and poor housing." Warlords, on the contrary, have a very good record of maintaining their militia because they can offer them "steady salaries, good housing and prestige," notes the NGO report.

The fourth need: The continued presence of warlords itself is a constant challenge to the already shaky authority of Karsai. For law and order in and around Kabul, he is dependent on the ISAF. The rest of the country is under the purview of 8,000 American forces who are in charge of expanding the government power. However, as frustration among the 44 percent of the Pushtun population escalates, American troops are likely to be perceived as an occupying force.

The fifth need: There is no incentive for the population to produce 'alternative crops' when the thriving opium 'economy' services a ready-made market. A UN report issued in February, 2003, was very revealing. "Afghan poppies serve as the raw material for about 80 percent of the heroin and other opium derivatives sold illegally in Europe." It noted the "corrosive effects" of the Afghan drug trade on the neighbouring states. "Data from the region shows there are close to 1 million opiate abusers in Iran, 700,000 in Pakistan, and more than 300,000 in Central Asia. As a percentage of the population over age 15, this amounts to nearly 1 percent of the population in Pakistan and Central Asia and 2.8 percent of the population in Iran. That's a far higher percentage of abusers than in Western Europe." Women and children provide a large chunk of the labour force necessary for the cultivation of the poppy crops.

It seems to have dawned on Hamid Karzai that the Afghanis could be left to 'fend for themselves.' In February of this year, he showed up in Washington to remind the Americans, "Don't forget us if Iraq happens. If you reduce the attention because of Iraq ... and if you leave the whole thing to us to fight again, it will be repeating the mistake the United States made during the Soviet occupation." (End of the Australian OTB report)

COMMENT: The present situation and problems presently facing the people of Afghanistan, as noted in the Australian On Target Bulletin report, are confirmation of the reality that there are not any real 'winners' in modern warfare - only losers and victims. The Bush 'coalition' marched into Afghanistan as 'liberators' coming to the nation's rescue to save freedom and then help to rebuild. But once the 'liberation' is over, the promised dollars and reconstruction is proving little more than a mirage. Now the Bush 'coalition' is marching into Iraq with the same enticing saviour's tune. The truth is that the US treasury is being bankrupted by these foreign wars and, if they continue, the targeted states and peoples will end up impoverished and destitute, with their oil resources divvied up among US-based international financial consortiums, while the American people end up with public debt and taxes up to their necks. Indeed, another few years of the present Washington/Bush foreign policy, and the United States of America, within a single life-span, will have in the eyes of most of the world have changed from being the most respected and honoured republic in the world to the most despised and abhorred!
The American citizenry deserve something better than this. But Canadians certainly have no room to have a smirk on their collective face. We all know the two main reasons we're not in the Bush war-mad 'coalition':
1. Military: From the military perspective, we lack not only the modern equipment and technology for a battle-ready armed force, but we now also lack the trained mechanics and technicians to maintain and sustain modern armament even if we had the trained military personnel to use it!
2. Political: The Liberal Party, to hang on to power, depends on Quebec and the large metropolitan areas of Ontario with their millions of multicultural ethnic mix, for its voting edge. And the prospect of sending their sons and daughters away to fight in distant wars wouldn't be too helpful at the ballot box.

On Target Vol. 53 - No. 4 Supplementary Section No. 1 May/June 2003

The Western Canadian Scene

(1) Three stark realities now confront the West: Have we mind and guts enough to face them? Following, is Ted Byfield's Westview column in the March 3 issue of Citizens Centre REPORT (Formerly The REPORT magazine) published in Edmonton.

The quality that most distinguishes good government from bad, or a responsible electorate from an irresponsible one, is its ability and willingness to face up to unpleasant realities. Western Canadians over the last dozen years have been shown three such realities in no uncertain terms. Whether we have intelligence enough and guts enough to face up to them over the next dozen will decide our future for the 21st century.

The first reality is this: under Canada's existing Constitution, we can play no determinate role in the government of the country. We are ruled by a system adopted in the 19th century, when five-sixths of it was a fur-trading wilderness, and the chosen system was a purely colonial model. That is, the government structure ensured that the wilderness territory would be developed in such a way as to augment the prosperity of the two largest of the original four provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec. There was nothing especially sinister about this. It was the normal method for the times. And since almost no Europeans yet lived in the designated wilderness, no one objected.

The second reality follows from the first. As settlers moved into the wilderness, and it ceased to be wilderness, various 20th-century movements - the Progressives, Social Credit and most recently the Reform and Alliance - tried hard to change the system. The Progressives achieved more than the others, gaining ground in rural Ontario. They soon lost it, however, and vanished in the stagnation of the Great Depression. Social Credit never got beyond Alberta, its British Columbia manifestation being purely nominal. But most vividly reaffirming the second reality is the Reform-Alliance experience. In three successive general elections, it has fairly swept western Canada - and then been stopped all but dead at the Ontario border. Reasons for such persistent failure are not far to seek, however. Many of the changes sought by these western movements would admittedly erode the power and hegemony of Quebec and Ontario, powers so secured under Canada's 19th-century Constitution that any substantial alteration is regarded as preposterously un-Canadian. Central Canadians perceive that they are being asked to vote against their own interests, and the western movements have never been able to persuade them to do it.
The other major reason for the perpetual rejection of western initiatives is harder to defend. There is a certain mindset in Ontario which turns down almost anything originating in western Canada - just on principle. This is not confined to the political. For years, the Calgary oil industry sought investors in Toronto and Montreal. It found none, so it turned to the United States, and the whole development proceeded on U.S. capital until all serious risk was gone. Whereupon the western oil resource was declared "Canadian" and much of the proceeds removed through the National Energy Program and more recently the Kyoto treaty - both of them imposed through the Ontario-Quebec political ascendancy. This prejudice was even better demonstrated in the reception given Preston Manning and then Stockwell Day. The former was rejected for his nasal twang, the latter for his ostensible "Bible-Belt" proclivities. Also, somewhat inconsistently, the Manning image was deemed too academic, the Day image not academic enough.
Behind both rejections, however, stood the same bigotry. If it's western, there must be something wrong with it. Don't trust it. (In this lay a terrible irony. It was Preston Manning who persuaded the Reform Party that changes could be made through the existing system, and the net fruition of all his work was to prove that they could not.)

And out of this emerges the third unpleasant reality. The West cannot gain an adequate role in Canada through the federal system, and it must therefore remove itself from that system before it can achieve any change. It cannot negotiate from within the present framework. Paradoxically, therefore, it must get out before it can enter Canada on anything like an equitable basis. The old slogan that "The West Wants In" is still true, but what the last three elections have shown is that the only way it can get in is to first get out. But how can it get out? The answer lies in the provincial field, not the federal. If any one of the four western provinces were to elect a government prepared to face and act on the above three realities, the other provinces would follow, one by one. Moreover, Ottawa, through the so-called Clarity Act, has thoughtfully afforded us an outbound path. It has actually provided a formula through which a province may leave. It did so, of course, out of consideration for discerned needs in Quebec, where Ottawa discernments have been ever more acute than in any matter involving the West. And we all know why. Quebec might leave and therefore must be heeded. The West will not, and can therefore be safely ignored. Any provincial government that confronts these realities will instantly change Ottawa's attitudes, and Ontario's too. The question is: have we intelligence enough, and courage enough, to elect such a government? (End of Mr. Byfield's column)

COMMENT (by Ron Gostick): Well, well! Ted Byfield is onto something now - the same conclusion arrived at by former Quebec Premier Bouchard, who perhaps wasn't prepared (perhaps for good reasons) to fight the battle such a provincial initiative would involve. This question, and some very significant advice personally given to me by an Alberta Premier 64 years ago which is very relevant to this question raised by Mr. Byfield, I hope to discuss in our Enterprise Section of this issue.

We don't speak Ottawa's language

The National Post, March 19, under the above caption, published the following column by Gordon Gibson, a former West Coast Liberal leader and now an eminent Vancouver journalist.

The renewed emphasis of the central government on bilingualism is just one more reason for British Columbia and Alberta not to exactly separate - but to do all in their power to reduce Ottawa's importance. This is not because of the policy's educational goals. Bilingual initiatives have been flagging in the West, but if kids or their parents want to invest their time acquiring French, good on them. And I think most people hereabouts don't too much - somewhat, but not too much - object to their taxes being used to subsidize that cause. True, most would also argue that if you want to be bilingual, there are better languages to take up for this part of the world. Our business is with the United States, Japan, China and so on. Our minority language populations are overwhelmingly Chinese and Indo-Canadian. So the bilingual educational objective of Ottawa is not objectionable; it is simply irrelevant. The important thing rather is the newly rigid bilingual requirement for executives in the federal public service. That excludes most Westerners, plain and simple. It means we are increasingly going to be ruled in central government matters by people who are just not us.

The senior executive cadre will be increasingly made up of no doubt fine people from eastern Ontario and Quebec and New Brunswick, but for Westerners those people are not us. And they won't be. For most people of executive talent in the West - save a rare few with a particular yen for the French language - it simply makes no sense to invest the time to learn French. That is no knock on the language of Molière. It is simply a recognition that English is increasingly the language of global business. One must understand that learning a second language to the degree of true fluency in an area where almost nobody speaks that tongue is not achieved by a few years of nice immersion programs at the various bilingual schools in Vancouver. It is a major commitment. Like all choices, that choice excludes other uses of time judged by most to be more profitable. So what is the result?

First of all, fewer Westerners are attracted to the federal public service. One does not easily want to leave the West in any case, but if a linguistic hill is added to the climb it becomes even less attractive. The truly talented will stay here, or go south, or move to the big smoke in Toronto and labour away in English. Though there are of course exceptions, those Westerners who do end up in Ottawa are seldom the truly talented. Incidentally, forget the MPs from the West, who are reasonably representative. They do not count. They have no power. We are ruled by the PMO and the public service and everyone knows that.

So we have a Department of Fisheries in Ottawa, nicely bilingual, capable of destroying the fishery on both coasts in both languages. We have a marvellously bilingual immigration department whose job it is to import Liberal voters, and they do it very well. (Ironically, they have made Vancouver and Toronto about as non-French as possible; c'est la vie.) We have a bilingual Indian Affairs department with relatively few Indians in Quebec and very few Indians who speak French anywhere and very few policies that work. Alas, these Ottawa people and their colleague minions in their hundreds of thousands are not us, not of the West. And not being of us in any significant numbers or talents, they do not, cannot instinctively represent us and rule us. We deserve our share of the power structure and it's not there.

And what does the requirement for universal bilingualism in the executive class do? Why, it simply makes a bad situation worse. That reality is, in many ways, the mirror image of the Quebec situation, leading to a keen understanding of the views of the Parti Québécois. For that group, too, Ottawa is not "us," though for reasons other than language. As the Quebec election begins to unfold, it appears that estranged view will once again carry the provincial government. Quebec is a French-speaking province. That is a fact, and an agreeable one. It is a bit more difficult to sustain than the Englishness of the West because the language of Shakespeare is in the ascendancy and Quebec is afloat in a continental sea of English. But they have been holding the linguistic fort and indeed strengthening it, and that is their affair to decide. Ottawa is of little help in that quest either. The reality is that for the east or the west or the centre, Ottawa is not "us," except for Ontarians. Ontario has the good fortune to own both Queen's Park and Parliament Hill, so which government does what is of little consequence there. But for us in the "regions" (a somewhat derisive term as used by centralists), why should we want to be ruled by people who are not us?

Now, since francophones have the same reasonable expectation as anglophone Westerners that the central government be "like us," the best way to square that difficult circle is simple: Cut back Ottawa. Reduce its role, its importance. Then let it follow any personnel policy it chooses, for those left can harm us but little. That is the way the country is going, and ways will be found over time in Quebec and the West to make it so. Ottawa may tout its latest bilingualism initiative as a plus for national unity. It ain't. (End of Mr. Gibson's column)

COMMENT: Mr. Gibson obviously understands the general political sentiment of Western Canada in general, and particularly in B.C. And this widespread discontent transcends party lines.

Is U.S. war sentiment changing?

We received a March 20 e-mail with an item by Charles E. Carlson captured The Great Turning. Here are a couple of excerpts:

"The Great Turning is taking place as we watch. Americans are not only turning away from war, but they will soon turn from those who make war. And they are beginning to look for those whom they should blame. This turning about is at first ponderous, like that of an ocean-going liner. But once started, it will be unstoppable. Gathering momentum, it will crash through anything in its path; even icebergs of ignorance. The strange and diverse anti-war movement is only a symptom of awakening of a much greater slumbering mass of human energy soon to be brought to bear.

"What are the signs of The Great Turning? Cities are passing resolutions opposing the so-called war, more correctly slaughter of Iraqis. On Friday, Feb. 21st, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution for peace by a 9-4 vote after rejecting a similar resolution a week before. LA is the largest of 120 or more cities to do so, a sure sign of The Great Turning. …"

"Another sign of turning came in the words of former President Jimmy Carter on Sunday, March 9, in the New York Times, 'JUST WAR - OR A JUST WAR?' Mr. Carter summarized his own story as follows:
" 'As a Christian and as a President who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a Just War, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology."

'Former UN head calls war breach of Charter The National Post, March 21, carried a report by Sheldon Alberts and Anne Dawson. Here are excerpts:
"OTTAWA - Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former United Nations secretary-general, yesterday condemned the U.S.-led war on Iraq as a violation of the UN charter and said George W. Bush's policy of pre-emptive strikes is in 'basic contradiction' with international law. ... "The UN Charter forbids war unless it is waged in self-defence or explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council. …"

One would be naive indeed, to believe the Bush crowd are in Iraq for the welfare or liberation of the very people they've been half starving and killing for years with sanctions. It's rather obvious to any serious observer that they are there for a number of reasons: oil, protection of Israeli expansion, and a forward base for control and further strikes in the Middle East.

The Zundel Case

a brief note We reported in our February issue that former Canadian resident Ernst Zundel, who moved to Tennessee with his American wife a couple of years ago, had been arrested by U.S. immigration authorities, was being held in a U.S. jail, and was reportedly to be extradited to his native Germany. However, several weeks ago he was sent from the U.S. back to Canada, where he had resided for over 40 years, and he is presently being held in the Niagara district by Canadian Immigration, while undergoing hearings respecting his application to remain in Canada. Mr. Zundel's treatment by both U.S. and Canadian immigration authorities is a shameful blot on both countries, and merits more space than we have in this issue. We hope to devote a complete section to it in our July-August issue.

Ottawa loses track of 36,000 deportees

The National Post, April 9, published a report under the above caption. Here are excerpts:
"OTTAWA - Canada has lost track of 36,000 people who have been ordered to leave the country over the past six years, the Auditor-General said yesterday. "In her latest report to Parliament, Sheila Fraser said the federal government's failure to enforce deportation orders puts the integrity of the immigration and refugee system at risk and increases the likelihood people will try to enter the country illegally. ... "The problem is expected to get worse because of a backlog of 53,000 cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board, which determines whether a refugee applicant should be approved or ordered deported. " 'The integrity of the system depends on your control and enforcement activity,' Ms. Fraser said. …"

Enterprise Report Vol. 53 - No. 4 Supplementary Section No. 2 May/June 2003

The Western Canadian Scene (II)

In case the message was misinterpreted - By Neil Wilson - Mr. Wilson is chairman of The Canadian Constitution Committee. This past weekend - Mar. 28-30 - he attended in Red Deer the annual convention of the Alberta Provincial Conservative Party - the governing party in Alberta today. On April 1, under the above caption, Mr. Neil sent out by Internet the following report. - Publisher, CIS

There were passions presented in mannerly and thoughtful fashion at the Red Deer PC Convention of March 28-29. I expect consequences, but if the message was not heard, perhaps it is necessary to dispense with some of the niceties and put the same point forward in a manner that would reflect the sentiment apparent in any coffee shop you would find in Alberta. The Alberta citizenry despise the lying, thieving, despotic, central, statist-driven tendencies of Ottawa, and will no longer tolerate its dictatorial intrusion into the sanctity of our personal lives! In short, we don't care for Ottawa much. There, understated!

The people who were at this convention were there because they hold hope in democratic political process. The perpetuation of that hope depends entirely upon the activity of our Provincial Government. If the activity of our Provincial government does not support that hope, then the hope within the citizenry will take leave and be replaced with heightened desperation. And if fear takes the same leave at that time, the consequence will be comparable with the history of other nations who did not heed such indicators. I have been asked, "Sir, is that a threat?" My answer, "Only a fool would consider it otherwise."

It would be wise to perpetuate hope and confidence with concerted and effective activity. We, the citizens of Alberta, elected our MLAs to exclusively conduct their activity within those local concerns that affect us on a daily basis. The station of the MLA is defined constitutionally. We, the citizens, did not elect our MPs to be involved in the same manner; their station is also defined constitutionally. To say that we have no exclusive control over the taxation needed to support our local initiatives is a fallacy. No order of government within Canada can legitimately appropriate/allocate monies to support programs that are outside of its jurisdiction (Sections 102 & 103, Constitution Acts l867 to 1982). If our MLAs took the time to read our Constitution, that would become very apparent.

If direct taxation were not the exclusive jurisdiction of the Provinces, why was it 'borrowed' from the provinces (in 1917 as a temporary war measure)? The central government needs to be relieved of that stick. Only then do we have hope of democratically removing Alberta's citizenry from the servile position it presently suffers with Ottawa. From there, Alberta could lead through example and fulfill the intent meant at the birth of our nation, Canada. Neil E. Wilson (chair) The Canadian Constitution Committee

Editor's Note: I shall withhold comment on Mr. Wilson's document until after the following relevant contributions.

Let us in ... or else

Professor Ted Morton of the University of Calgary, one of Western Canada's leading academics, delivered The Mel Smith Memorial Lecture at Trinity Western University in Langley B.C. on this past March 7, outlining some of the vital interests of the West. Following are excerpts from Professor Morton's lecture, reprinted from the March 31st issue of The Calgary Herald.

Too long have the West's legitimate demands for constitutional change fallen on deaf ears. There is an emerging feeling throughout the West that it is now our turn. Deference to others' demands in the past has given way to defiance and determination to have the West's grievances at last dealt with. After 25 years of working for reforms, Western Canada is further from our goals than we were when we started. The gap between Western Canada's economic contribution to Confederation and our political influence is growing, not shrinking. This means the tactics of the past 25 years have not worked - and I shall argue - will not work. Ontario and Quebec are not, out of the goodness of their hearts, going to consent to changes to an institutional status quo that privileges their interests. That is not how politics works. Central Canadian elites will only become interested in Senate reform and other institutional changes when they come to see these reforms as the lesser of two evils - that is, as preferable to an alternative that is even less in Central Canada's self-interest.

The challenge for the next generation of western Canadian leaders is to construct such an alternative. The guiding principle of this new alternative must be to decrease Ottawa's influence in the West, rather than trying to increase western influence in Ottawa - the strategy of the last generation. The latter approach required the help and support of central Canadians - which is why it has failed. But, in the former alternative, we already have the powers to do by ourselves - which is why it will work. There is an array of constitutional and policy instruments that British Columbia and Alberta could use - short of secession - to chart out a more democratic, prosperous and hopeful future. If this sounds familiar, it should. This is essentially the strategy Quebec has used to protect its interests for the past generation. It's also why this strategy will succeed.

Rather than pursuing an agenda that Quebec opposes (strengthening the central government), we can align ourselves and our new agenda - strengthening the provinces - with Quebec, a new, post-Parti Quebecois Quebec that is more interested in reforming Canada than destroying it.

This plan encompasses a three-pronged approach to re-balancing Canadian federalism:
1. Utilizing more fully the powers given to all provinces under the existing constitution.
2. Challenging harmful federal policies that harm provincial interests.
3. Pursuing more long-term constitutional amendments that enhance provincial autonomy from Ottawa.

Utilizing existing powers

Like Quebec, we can withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan. Younger workforces and higher rates of workforce participation would allow us to provide the same level of benefits at a lower cost. Estimates are as much as 15 per cent lower. Also, like Quebec, we could collect our own revenue from personal income taxes, as Alberta already does for business income taxes. This would create flexibility for further growth-stimulating innovations. And, like Ontario and Quebec, we could create our own provincial police, reporting directly to the provincial solicitor-general. This would allow for flexible enforcement of federal criminal code provisions that are unpopular in the West, such as the gun registry. Finally, when a court strikes down a provincial law for allegedly violating the Charter, automatically invoke the Section 33 notwithstanding power to re-institute the law. Then, hold a referendum at the next practical date (provincial or municipal election) to allow the people to choose between the court's policy and the government's policy (or perhaps a new compromise).

Challenge harmful federal policies

We should maximize provincial responsibility for health care, by pushing for provincial innovation and experimentation in the delivery of health services. A constitutional challenge should be used to block any federal attempts to impose sanctions. We should hold a referendum on Senate reform. The Supreme Court has ruled that if a province holds a referendum on a constitutional amendment and there is a "clear majority on a clear question," then there is a "constitutional duty" for Ottawa "to negotiate in good faith." On the Kyoto accord, there should be pre-emptive provincial environmental legislation that provides a "Made-in-Alberta" solution to global warming. Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor has already signalled his intention to bring in legislation of this type. To challenge the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, pre-emptive provincial legislation - such as that recently introduced in the Alberta legislative assembly provides for a 10-year test of dual marketing. A Charter challenge to the federal gun registry, and a constiutional challenge to the regional veto statute. This statute changes the application of the amending formula in a manner not authorized by the constitution. Finally; study withdrawal from voluntary milk-and-egg-marketing boards.

Constitutional amendments

The Alberta Constitution (Alberta Act) cannot be amended without the consent of Ottawa. It should be patriated to this province. Once it is, B.C. and Alberta can design and entrench provincial constitutions, abolish the federal disallowance, reservation and declaratory powers and transfer power of appointment for provincial superior courts to provincial governments. As Quebec has demonstrated repeatedly, when it comes to protecting provincial rights, the best defence is a good offence. Each time the separatists lose a referendum, Ottawa rewards Quebec with more powers. In its 1998 ruling in the Quebec Secession Reference, the Supreme Court ruled there is a constitutional right to provincial self-determination - based on the principle of a "clear majority on a clear question" in a referendum. Critics may say this plan does not make sense economically. This might have been true a generation ago, when Alberta and B.C. were still part of an East-West economy anchored by the railroads and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Today, for every dollar of goods and services that Canadians export to another province, we export more than $2 abroad. Today, Alberta's international exports account for 80 per cent more of its provincial gross domestic product than what it sends to other provinces (37.6 per cent versus 21.4 per cent). For British Columbia, the comparable figure is 150 per cent. For Alberta and British Columbia, the axis of our economic future is north-south and Pacific Rim, not east-west. Central Canadians cannot be expected to take western discontent seriously until we take ourselves seriously enough to do something about it. To be taken seriously, a minority must develop its own political organizations, and have a focus for its own existence and a path to the future. This plan offers Western Canada that path to the future. Alberta and British Columbia must begin to forge a new relationship with Ottawa. To succeed in this endeavour, we must choose reforms whose success depends on our own actions and not those of Ottawa or other provinces. Rather than seeking to increase our influence in the institutions of the central government, we must decrease the influence of Ottawa in our provinces. The success of the proposed initiatives will be increased through a strategic co-operation with a non-separatist government in Quebec. A more autonomous West will be a more democratic, a more hopeful and a more prosperous society.

Does this mean that I have abandoned Mel Smith's vision of a reformed Canada, a Canada strengthened through reforms like a Triple-E Senate? Not completely. I am still in favour of Senate reform, but I do not think that it will ever happen if its only advocates are western Canadians. I will be happy to discuss Senate reform again, when it is central Canadians who are advocating it. When and if that day ever comes, it will only be because we Westerners are succeeding in implementing our own vision. (End of excerpts from Prof. Morton's lecture)

COMMENT (by Ron Gostick): First, I would like to congratulate Professor Morton on both the eloquence and substance of his Mel Smith Memorial Lecture. His specialty at university is Political Science, and the constructive suggestions and course he charts for challenging and resolving western problems bespeak his profound understanding and perspective of the Canadian political scene, and the situation and problems facing the western provinces. And, second, a few closing thoughts:

You will have noted, from both Neil Wilson's remarks and Prof. Morton's Memorial lecture, that there is widespread discontent in Alberta with the western provinces' present role and relationship with the central government and with Ottawa's invasion of the provinces' constitutional jurisdictions. And it's not surprising that this has given rise in recent years to feelings of frustration, alienation and separatism, and several political groups in B.C. and Alberta. A recent poll indicated as high as 16% of Albertans at this time favour some form of separation from Ottawa.

Nor should it be surprising that this grass-roots concern and discontent have now given rise to a non-partisan citizens' movement called the Alberta Residents League, whose concept or motto seems to be "More Alberta, Less Ottawa," and whose agenda pretty well follows the points outlined by Prof. Morton in his lecture. Indeed, we have learned that the ARL's first regional meeting was held recently at Drayton Valley, was well attended and most successful with speakers including Prof. Morton and Link Byfield, publisher of Citizens Centre REPORT. Apparently, this was merely the beginning of a province-wide campaign, and it's already caught the attention of the Klein government, as his party's annual convention in Red Deer, Mar. 28-29, spent considerable time discussing this question. It would seem that there is a significant element among Alberta MLAs and grass-root membership in the provincial Conservative Party who are very favourable to the ARL agenda. Premier Klein's response, at least for the newsmedia, seems to be acknowledgment of the need for less Ottawa interference in Alberta's provincial affairs, but vehement denial of any personal 'separatist' sentiment. But then, the whole idea of the Mortons, Byfields, ARL and its expanding grass-root membership is to take action to 'fix the problem' before it becomes a separatist threat.

The reality is that the sum total of what Prof. Morton advocates is really merely a return to Constitutional government in Canada. What he wants is nearly all in the BNA Act (now, together with Trudeau's Charter, called The Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982 - which comprises our so-called Canadian Constitution). The real problem is that Ottawa will not honour our Constitution, and since WWII has invaded provincial areas of constitutional jurisdiction - both in the field of taxation and in the providing of services. But since neither our citizens nor politicians are inclined to bother even reading, let alone understanding, our country's "supreme law of the land," probably Prof. Morton's agenda is the best way, piece by piece, of shouldering Ottawa back into its own stall!

But he's dead right

Ottawa will not initiate any move to change the status quo, and nor will Ontario. Any move to return to constitutional government, with respect for provincial jurisdictions and rights, will have to come from western grassroots, and then through western provincial governments. And Quebec, of course, has long been battling for provincial rights and jurisdiction, so the West has a strong potential ally there. And it's only when Ontario finds a serious threat on both sides - both east and west - will this old Central province consider joining in the real battle for national unity!

And, in closing, a short personal story

In 1939, to help pay my way through college, I left Calgary for a temporary job in Edmonton. And one Sunday evening, as I sat alone, in the Calgary-Edmonton train, along came my old teacher and high-school principal, William Aberhart, who was then Premier of Alberta. He greeted me and sat down across from me, and we (mainly he) talked all the way from about Red Deer to Edmonton, some two hours. And the thing he told me which I most vividly remember is this:

That during the early years of his first administration (1935-39) he had made a serious mistake in strategy. He had passed legislation designed to gain for the provincial government control over the creation of provincial credit, but the courts ruled that the legislation was beyond the jurisdiction of the provincial government. Without provincial control of its own financial credit, his government was unable to implement its reform programme. Mr. Aberhart said his government made a mistake in fighting this battle over jurisdiction in the courts, as the higher courts were controlled by the central political power, which was less than friendly to his government and programme. Were I doing these past years over again, he said, I wouldn't go near the courts. Rather, I would select a group of our young supporters of strong character, train them in public affairs, speaking, organizing and politics; and then have them go back to their own province and campaign for financial reform. Within five years, he said, we would have the grass-root citizenry of all four western provinces well informed and four western reform provincial governments. Then, he said, standing together we would be ready to challenge the central political power.

Was William Aberhart prophetic, but 64 years before his time? Perhaps we'll soon know. But one thing is certain: His words are very relevant to this time in Western Canada, and worth pondering.

© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159