If you are disgusted by the events detailed in this document, contact The Green Party of Canada (firstname.lastname@example.org) or The Canadian Institute for Political Integrity (ph: 819-778-1705, fax: 613-747-1644) to find out what YOU can do, and don't forget to mention that you saw it on The RANCH!
The series of postings that you are about to see tell a story so amazing, so full of callous corruption and greed, so destructive to the Quebec and Cree peoples and to the Canadian nation, and so *well-concealed* by those in the Canadian media who are *fully aware* of these details, that you deserve a full and clear introduction to each of the main narrators:
In 1986 Kealey was asked for a bribe by Public Works Minister Roch LaSalle, who offered him government support for his project in exchange for 5% of all government contributions on top of $5,000 up front. Investigating, Kealey found evidence of a massive bribe and kickback scheme operated and controlled right out of the Prime Minister's Office, and a close collaboration between the Tories, the media and the police. Kealey successfully charged 16 people, including members of the government and RCMP, with criminal conspiracy. He is co-chair of THE CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL INTEGRITY in Ottawa [819 -778 1705; fax 613-747 1644]
Kralik: I would like to ask you about the water, our natural resources in water. What is it to be used for? How is it to be transported?
Kealey: Think of money. If you had your choice, if you could pull a genie out of a bottle and the genie could grant three wishes, what would your three wishes be? Remember your goal is to make the most money possible?
Kralik: I should really have to think a lot about that, but...
Kealey: I would say: 'Number one, give me control over the sun. Number two, give me control over the air. Number three give me control over water.' Now, leaving our little genie aside, we know we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air. BUT WE CAN CONTROL WATER. On the scale of things that are required for human life, it is the most important element that can be controlled.
Kralik: What do you mean when you say 'control'?
Kealey: OK. In GATT, General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs, it says that free-flowing water is not a'good'. The key wording is 'free-flowing'. If you construct a dam it is no longer free-flowing and therefore it becomes private property, owned by somebody, capable of being sold to others, or mortgaged.
Kralik: If it is dammed?
Kealey: If it is dammed. Any time the free-flowing water has been obstructed. Of course in GATT, there is much talk about bottled water.
Kralik: It's a side trick?
Kealey: It's a side trick. The biggest scam ever to be pulled on the entire world is Free Trade and I'll tell you why.
There is a lady in Ottawa by the name of Shelley Ann Clark. She was the executive secretary to the third highest negotiator during the Free Trade deal. His name was Germain Denis. His two visible superiors were Gordon Ritchie and Simon Riesman. Before he became Free Trade negotiator, Simon Reisman had a difficult job. He was the director of a project called the Grand Canal, which is to be built from James Bay.
In 1985-86, my offices were in Hull in the commercial part in Place de Portage, the government complex which houses the Supply and Services Offices. [NOTE: Hull, Quebec is just across the river from Ottawa, Ontario, and is filled with federal offices and civil servants] One day I was visited by a man named Art Bailey. Bailey was a former Assistant Deputy Minister of Supply and Services and had been following the development of my project, the Micot Building. I had raised a hundred and sixty million bucks to build this high tech centre in Hull. We had bought the land and were just about ready to start construction when Art Bailey walked into my office. 'Mr. Kealey,'he said, 'You've done a fantastic job of marketing this Micot Building. Nobody would ever have believed that anyone could raise a hundred and sixty million dollars to build a building in Hull - this is totally out of sync with anything that anybody believed.' So he said, 'We think you're the best marketing man in Canada and that you should come and join our team and become the Marketing Manager for the Grand Canal.'
I said, 'What the hell's the Grand Canal? I don't know what you're talking about.' So he gave me a document - a twenty to twenty-five page document - which I read. This is what I read: James Bay is five hundred miles north to south, is a hundred and twenty miles across at the mouth, salt water on the average thirty-five to forty-five feet deep. If a dam were to be constructed at the mouth of James Bay and Hudson's Bay and a second one, one third down, and a third, a third down again - therefore three dams - it would allow over a period of ten years for water to flow from the fresh water rivers and would push the salt water back beyond the dams and create the largest fresh water reservoir known to man. So much so that a canal could be built leading out of the south-east corner of James Bay, south over the mountain ranges with dykes and locks and whatever you need to lift water for eight hundred miles, then at Rouen-Noranda in northern Quebec, nature's gravity would take over and the water would start going down the other side of the mountain range, in Ontario, the Ottawa River and the French River systems, past Kirkland lake and eventually it would end up in Georgian Bay [in Lake Superior]. The amount of water that would be brought back - fresh water from that Canal - could double the flow of water that now enters the Great lakes. Of course, if you can double the water entering the Great lakes you can take half of the total water out without changing anything in the Great Lake System.
The water would be removed in two places: at the base of Lake Michigan - they don't need it this year, this year they have enough water - they would open up the sluices and move water down to the Mississippi Delta, almost all the way to Mexico, in the Gulf of Mexico; the second outlet would be from Lake Superior, moving water across Manitoba, into Saskatchewan, then down into the United States to bring water to the Mid West and South West of the United States. We must understand, of course, that since we are living in a period of global warming, the bread basket of North America which is situated in one place now, moves further north as it gets warmer, making the bottom part arid. So water is absolutely critical to enlarge the bread basket of North America as the earth gets warmer.
There is another dimension: if Canadian waters, presently flowing into and towards the Arctic and the North of Canada, are diverted and artificially made to flow in a southerly direction (for instance diverted towards the United States for water use), then the Northern cold climate temperatures will move in a southerly direction and the Canadian terrain will become colder and more frigid; the balance of the Canadian climate will be reduced temperature, which will cause a massive environmental shift in Canada, all to Canada's detriment.
This theory can be supported by simple physics and hydrology. The waters flowing north are of a warmer temperature and have a warm front pushing against the Arctic North temperatures; if removed, the Arctic North will move South. It doesn't matter whether this occurs in summer or the winter seasons. If the rivers and waters are diverted to flow southerly then one will require more fuel to heat our homes and buildings; however, Canadians will only have what is available after the U.S. has its needs supplied under the NAFTA Agreement, etc.
The two transnationals who were pushing this plan were R. J. R. Nabisco (the biggest agribusiness in the United States), led by a Mr. Johnson out of Winnipeg - there's been a film made of him recently called "Barbarians at the Gate" and it shows how he tried to take over the company with junk bonds and whatever; and the other one was Archer Daniels Midland, which cans and boxes or packages all of the agri-business that comes in from R.J.R. Nabisco and distributes it throughout the world. It is interesting, of course, that Mr. Johnson was Mulroney's sponsor, bringing him on tours throughout the U.S. and that Archer Midland Daniels has just hired [ex-Prime Minister] Mulroney [who pushed both Free Trade and NAFTA through the Canadian Parliament] as a director.
I traveled across Western Canada and there have been public demonstrations recently in B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan over the building of dams and Kemano in B.C., Old Man River in Alberta and Alimeda in Rafferty dams in Saskatchewan. People ask why are they building dams where there is no water. Once you understand the relationship of the Grand Canal to the entire area you then know where the water will be coming from.
Kralik: Do you see any possible ecological disasters as a result this ?
Kealey: Of course. Some natives believe the sheer weight of the water behind the dams will cause the axis of the earth to shift and if you build a dam you change the chemistry of the earth. You cannot flood the areas that we are talking about without changing the configuration of the soil and landscape. But transnationals don't think in those terms: they think in terms of money. In 1985-86 it was stated t hat the project would cost two hundred billion dollars (U.S.). It was also stated that the money was available.
American Express wants to be the banker and do you think that it is by coincidence that American Express was allowed, by Order of Council, to become a Bank in Canada, with Brian Mulroney breaking fourteen banking regulations just to allow them to achieve this status?
As well, Alcan Aluminum needs dams for their mines and Barrick for their gold-owning concerns. Mulroney also signed Orders in Council breaking the law that made it illegal for foreigners to own more than fifty percent of a mine in Canada.Now foreigners can own mines outright in Canada: there are no restrictions.
None of these changes in the rules were made through Parliament but by a stroke of Brian Mulroney's pen. Most people in Canada Live with the illusion that laws are written by Parliament, but most regulations are changed by politicians in power. For every law that passes though Parliament, there are three thousand laws that are changed unilaterally behind the scenes.
In any case, Simon Riesman put forward a plan to have us put aside our 'old concepts' and to start thinking 'boldly about the future'. By that he meant nothing less than giving up Canada: we need to have a new political reality, he argued, and therefore Free Trade and water diversion go hand in hand. We also know, he surmised, that if the US asked us for either water or free trade, Canadians would rebel: so let us make it appear that Canada is doing the asking. Mulroney was bought with the Bankers' money and he did the asking, publicly stating the opposite of what he had always contended: that he didn't believe in Free Trade, etc.
I know what was negotiated in the Free Trade deal and how the deal was done because my executive secretary [NOTE: now his wife] is Shelley Ann Clark, who worked as the executive secretary to Germain Denis, the third highest-ranking negotiator. This is how the deal was done - Simon Reisman and Gordon Ritchie went to Washington and gave away Canada and as they were giving away Canada they were at the time preparing a briefing book on a computer which appeared simultaneously on a computer in Ottawa. Mulroney and Denis worked together and Shelley Ann Clark was the secretary working between the two of them.
There was one hitch. Although the Federal Government did not legally need the permission of the Premiers, politically Free Trade would have been impossible to sell unless the Premiers were on side. So two Premiers were bought by Mulroney - the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of Saskatchewan. They became Mulroney's moles within the Premier's camp.
Their job was to go around and identify the acceptable bottom lines in terms of textiles, agriculture, mining, subsidies, unemployment insurance, health care - all of the things that affect our sovereignty. What would the Premiers be prepared to sacrifice? The two moles would then bring the info to Denis, whose job it was to brief the Premiers approximately eight times during the negotiations.
How was this done? Since there were a bunch of Premiers who would have disagreed fundamentally if they knew what was really happening, and you knew what their bottom lines were, Premiers' briefings were always given at 50 O'Connor on the seventeenth floor. At midnight the night before a briefing, Shelley Ann Clark would be told to come into Denis' office - only he and she would be in the office - and call up the briefing books on the computer. She would then be ordered to re-name a copy of the entire briefing book negotiated that day to The Provincial Briefing Book. Denis would then take the notes he had got from the Premiers about the bottom lines and go through the main document paragraph by paragraph.
Here are some examples. He would come to the section on 'Water'- build a Grand Canal, build dams, move water to the U.S. - and he would say,'Delete that paragraph and insert a line that says 'free-flowing water is not included in this deal." Textiles? 'If it said we have given up sixty percent, change it to twelve.' Ms.Clark would change it to twelve.
Agriculture? 'Cut back on the production of turkeys forty percent. Write in eight.'
And they would go through the entire book like that. At the end - at about three o'clock in the morning - they would produce ten copies. Every page of each new copy was numbered so that if a page went missing or was copied in any way, they would know which Premier would have done it.
Not that they were given a chance to do this! The Premiers would arrive for the briefing session, always complaining about not having been given the books ahead of time. 'It is too sensitive,' they were told, 'here's the Briefing Book.' At the end of the session Denis would pick up the Briefing Books, and Shelley Anne Clark would shred nine of the books and keep one, so that Denis would remember what lies he had told when he would have to change the books next time.
Kralik: The reason why he changed the percentages of the cutbacks in productions was to make it look favourable?
Kealey: And acceptable, politically, to the Premiers. That they were not giving away what they *were* giving away. And once it is given away, how can you ever get it back?
Kralik: What they were negotiating, with relation to textiles, turkeys, or whatever was a kind of smoke- screen cover for the big Grand Canal ?
Kealey: Everything in there was doctored. There were two key issues that we didn't hear anything about: the integration of Canada into the United States, and the movement of water through the Grand Canal. Those are the two key issues. How do you do that without anybody knowing? On 3 October 1987 the Free Trade Agreement was signed in Washington. A thirty-three page summary was delivered to Parliament. *The original text has never been seen by the public.* A year later a legal document of some fifteen hundred pages detailing the ramifications of certain items was made public and is used by lawyers today. *But what is not known, what has not been seen is the original Free Trade Deal which is at least two hundred and some odd pages long.* Because Shelley Ann Clark knows what she knows, and because of the contacts that she now has, she is a threat to the government [i.e. the previous, Mulroney, government] Last December (1992) they sent her home on full pay.
Kralik: Laid off.
Kealey: No, not laid off. She has her full pay. She was told, 'Go home. We don't want you talking to people.' What they didn't know then, was that home for her meant, in July 1993, becoming my executive secretary.
Kralik: What a bonus! That is great!
Kealey: They haven't touched her in any way because they were afraid. She still has her top security clearance, but when she went to the archives and asked to see the Free Trade Documents, she was given an index which she skimmed through and questioned: 'There's no Premier's Briefing Books here?' The guy answered: 'Well it's possible. We didn't get everything. We don't know. We just get what we get.' So she said, 'May I see the Free Trade Deal ? "Oh, no,'he resumed,' under the Statute that governs access to information, ninety-five percent of the Free Trade Deal has been declared a security problem for Canada and is not being made available to the public. Even with your top security clearance, you could not get it unless you had the 0.K. from the Deputy Minister of External Affairs.' So she said, 'You know who I am and that's not possible: he would never give it to me.' She was told, 'In any event the Free Trade Deal is in canisters 16 miles outside of Ottawa and is not to be seen by Canadians for thirty years. "This doesn't make any sense in a democratic country,' she said,'Why can the people not see it? I know what is in it and it's a danger to our national security all right. It gives the country away and thirty years from now it is going to be too late. The implementation schedule ends at 2005. The Grand Canal must be in place and Quebec must be separate.
Kealey: Plot for a movie: The date is the early 1960's. Dag Hammerskjold, the Secretary General of the UN, is flying between countries on the Lower African continent. He has been trouble-shooting border disputes which are being caused by the competition for access to mineral deposits.
Suddenly two fighter planes pull up alongside the UN plane and, without warning, shoot it down with missiles. The next day the world media report it as an 'accident'.
Fade to secret rendez-vous: Two mercenaries (the pilots of the fighter planes) are paid by under-cover agent employed by the TRANSNATIONAL MINING CABAL (funded by Rothschild-Rockefeller).
Fade to the New York (or Philadelphia) boardroom of Hanna Mining. It is now the late 1970's.
The same under-cover agent, an employee of Hanna Mining, quietly admits his role in the assassination to the Board of Directors. The admission bothers no one. Attention then turns to another internal problem. A Canadian branch operation company President, Brian Mulroney, of The Iron Ore Company of Canada, is being asked to shut down the Schefferville mine in Quebec. This is a very profitable mine, but one which competes successfully against the less profitable U.S. mines the Cabal also own. Mulroney is not-so-subtly reminded (blackmailed) by other directors, who threaten to expose the way he once looted the company pension fund in order to start the construction of his grand pet project, the Lord's Inn, which is to be built in Labrador (the hotel is an exact replica of Montreal's Ritz Carleton Hotel). Mulroney wisely agrees.
Fades to Schefferville. Families are being torn apart by the closing of the mine. Mulroney pays off the trouble-makers and the local media to keep things quiet. He badly wants to become a national politician and doesn't need bad publicity.
Fade to Paris, France. It is now October 1980: George Bush, Edward Meese, Earl Casey and a Dr. Brian are observed surreptitiously negotiating with Iranians. They want them to hold onto the American hostages until after the US elections and the inauguration on 20 January 1981. They promise arms for the hostages if Ronald Reagan is elected. They also agree to sell the Iranians more arms later, to raise money for the Nicaraguan Contras.
Fade to Washington. It is 20 January 1981: Reagan and Bush are being inaugurated. The hostages are being released simultaneously.
Fade to Oval office. It is 21 January 1981: Trans- national corporate leaders and bankers tell Reagan, 'The US is broke. If it were corporation it would be shut down. The answer lies in a political merger with Canada. But first the two countries must be 'HARMONIZED'. The plan evolves on the spot (between 1985 and 2005):
Kealey: Let us take all of this a little more slowly: a plane is flying over Africa with the Secretary General of the United Nations sitting in it when all of a sudden two fighter planes show up alongside and shoot it down. Movie switches back over to a boardroom with the heads of TRANSNATIONAL corporations in mining, agri-business and finance in the US planning for the election of their man to lead the United States for four terms, George Bush. The strategy is devised: put a Charlie McCarthy-type dummy in for the first eight years, Ronald Reagan, with George Bush's hand in the back of the jacket which wags and makes him talk.
Kralik: So it's your opinion that Reagan was a good front man for George Bush?
Kealey: Bush was the man fronting for the transnational corporations, former head of the CIA, involved in drug peddling and raising money for them in that way.
Upon taking over the reins of the country, George Bush and Ronald Reagan call in the presidents of the key transnational companies with their accountants and say: 'Tell us the real picture.' The accountants tell them that if the United States were a corporation it would have to be shut down immediately. It is bankrupt. 'We have wasted our resources. We have ruined our cities. Our assets and debts don't balance.'
The critical question is then put: what is the solution? 'There is only one solution. We must merge Canada politically with the US if we are to re-balance the books. Canada is virgin country with a multitude of natural resources, water, mines, oil, gas, etc. Add Canada to the U.S. and you'll have re-balanced the picture for a long time to come. "How do we do that? We can't merge Canada and the US politically. Canada has a province that speaks French. "Get them to separate! "How do we do that?'
Then the president of Hanna Mining, who has been sitting the table, stands up and says, 'I have a division called the Iron Ore Company of Canada and I have a man there by the name of Brian Mulroney. He just shut down the town of Schefferville, Quebec for me, and he did an excellent job. Shutting down Canada wouldn't be much of a problem for him. Let's bring him in'. 'Exactly, but, can he be trusted?'
'Well our man Reisman has been Deputy Minister of Finance in Canada for a while. He is in charge of this Grand Canal project.We need the water and we can get them to work together as a team. "But how do we get the money to them? "The Mormon Church in Virginia is tied into the Republican party, so we can move the money across to Utah, then up into Winnipeg (Jake Epp and his group), keep it all secret and fund Mulroney's campaign for the leadership of the Conservative party - then we're in business. 'Don't forget there's just been a Referendum in Quebec and they voted to stay with Canada. So there is a job to be done and it can't be done in a short period of time.'
They decide that it is going to take fourteen or fifteen years to put the whole project together; in the interval, the economies, social programs, and laws of the two countries would be quietly harmonized as much as possible. 'But you know Canadians are pretty up tight about things like that, so you can't tell them, you've got to keep things fairly quiet. "Don't worry about it. We own the leaders of the Liberal party and the leaders of the Tory party. They are all on our team: it is just that ordinary bureaucrats don't know what game they are playing.'
We have here a project that begins in 1981, is formalized through 1981 and 1982. In 1983 Mulroney wins a seat in Nova Scotia. In 1984 there is one Tory in Quebec, his name is Roch La Salle and he sees this hoard of people and money pouring in in support of this Brian Mulroney. If Mulroney gets elected in Quebec, Roch La Salle's power will evaporate, so he fights tooth and nail with Joe Clark to try to keep Mulroney out.
On election day Mulroney wins. He is now the leader of the Conservative Party and he becomes the leader of the government of Canada on 4 September 1984. The next thing that happens is that within eleven days of the election four break-ins occur: at PC headquarters in Montreal, PC party headquarters, PC Canada Fund, and at the office of David Angus (Mulroney's communications director) and Rodrigue Pageau (Mulroney's chief of Staff).
The four break-ins are noticed on the following Monday morning. Montreal police are called in. The break-ins are unusual in the sense that only information has been taken: the safe that contained the documents as to the source of Mulroney's funds, computer discs, a photocopier on which they had attempted first to copy documents but obviously ran out of time, and a computer.
Yet there was cash, calculators, and typewriters that were not touched at all. The safe was heavy enough that it required at least three people to lift and take out.
The Montreal Police were conducting their investigation when along came a member of the RCMP, Denis LaPointe, who stated: 'I've been sent from Ottawa to find out how the investigations are coming along. Can I help?' Without his knowledge, a reporter overheard the conversation, Richard Cleroux of The Globe and Mail, and a story is printed in the Globe that night.
The next morning the phone rings at The Globe and Mail. Denis LaPointe is mad as hell: 'What business is it of yours to write that?' Of course, in fact, LaPointe had no authority to be there: he hadn't been assigned to go there, but was acting undercover for Brian Mulroney or Roch LaSalle and other politicians, without Commissioner Simmonds knowing this was even taking place.
When you probe into Denis LaPointe's background you will find that he was raised in Joliette, Quebec. His best buddies were Roch LaSalle and Frank Majeau and he and Roch were involved in businesses; Majeau was LaSalle's executive assistant but Majeau's main business was 'prestige entertainment'. 'Prestige Entertainment' delivered strippers to all the clubs in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec and moved drugs out of Mirabel airport and the port of Montreal through these strippers. This was actively assisted by a limousine service owned by two Iranians. These people were all linked.
Within a matter of days, the Montreal Police were told to forget the investigation: 'It's not important. Nothing they took was of any value.' But when Frank Majeau came to testify at the hearing in 1991, he revealed what subsequently had transpired. It was that Roch LaSalle was invited to Quebec City by Mulroney's accountant, Michel Cote, who had just been elected and who had become the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs responsible for the Post Office as well. And Michel Cote did something very strange for Roch LaSalle, the sworn enemy of Brian Mulroney: he paid off his entire debt load - four hundred thousand dollars, mostly gambling debts to Frank Catroni. He was THE BOSS: they are the Mob - the Mafia.
The second curious thing that happened was that Brian Mulroney appointed Roch LaSalle Minister of Public Works; when you understand the potential for corruption at Public Works you realize that you don't put Colonel Sanders in charge of the chicken coop and expect the chickens to be there when you come to collect.
The third thing that happened was that Andre Bissonette, who had won the election in St. Jean, was made Minister for Small Business, responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank and although the Federal Business Development Bank will normally loan seventy-five thousand dollars to companies to save them from going under and laying off people (a large loan is a hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, but the average is about seventy-five). Lo and behold, in this case The Federal Business Development Bank made loans to thirty-nine strip clubs in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec, loans of five hundred thousand dollars, nine hundred thousand dollars - a total of seventeen million dollars.
The preponderance of circumstantial evidence therefore suggests that Roch laSalle, Lapointe (a member of the RCMP) and Frank Majeau (a member of the mob), stole the safe, got the goods on Mulroney, blackmailed him and got him to appoint LaSalle to his important position: Minister of Public Works.
Of course [RCMP] Commissioner Simmonds, not knowing about this internal arrangement proceeded to investigate almost all of them during Mulroney's first mandate as they were being caught all over the place with their hands in the till. Simmonds, you wilI remember, was called to a meeting with Trudeau when Trudeau was looking for a new Commissioner of the RCMP. Simmonds was asked the question, 'If you were made Commissioner of the RCMP and you discovered tomorrow that I was a crook, what would you do?' His answer was, 'I would arrest you personally, Sir,' and Trudeau to his credit appointed him Commissioner of the RCMP.
Simmonds was not the type of RCMP Commissioner that Mulroney needed. For Mulroney was empowered to destroy the country and to destroy the country he had to build a fund that could finance the separation of Quebec. As we know, he brought in his friend Lucien Bouchard to lead the project: by adding five percent to the contracts and getting his team in position within the RCMP so that they could peddle drugs, the fund grew to such an extent that when he left power there was sufficient money to continue playing the game from behind the scenes.
What we have today is Mulroney's plan: one truly National Party, the Liberals, with the most hated politician in Quebec as its head, Jean Chretien. Next you have Lucien Bouchard leading the Official Opposition with the biggest block of Separatists ever, and last you have Preston Manning, leading a Reform Party - one gang that says, 'We're leaving,' and the other one that says, 'Go to hell.'
Kralik: To facilitate the split?
Kealey: To facilitate the split because this is what is required. You cannot integrate Canada and the United States as long as Quebec is there. Step number one is the separation of Quebec by 1995. Step number two is, sadly, to merge the rest of Canada with the United States. Shelley Ann Clark says the material she saw in the Trade Negotiations Office cited Canada as a fifty-first state. Other CIA agents I know have stated fifty-first, fifty-second, fifty-third, and fifty-fourth states: the maritimes, Ontario, the prairies, British Columbia with the northern territories - four states. The third step is a revolution by the Cree of Northern Quebec against a separate Quebec - saying we're not going!
Kralik: A smoke screen?
Kealey: While the natives don't know the game, their leaders must certainly know where they are going. More likely than not they would have been bought off. The natives themselves have no way of fighting back. Quebec cabinet ministers want to buy helicopters because that is the only effective military vehicle for that kind of war, to put the natives in their place. In all likelihood the United Nations would be called in under the pretext of 'protecting'the indigenous peoples of Northern Quebec from the 'oppressive' Quebecois who want them to be a part of an independent Quebec. Blue berets will be placed on the heads of whom? Most likely, the soldiers located at Fort Drum, across the bridge from Kingston [Ontario]. Fort Drum is the largest military establishment in the US, with a ground surface larger than Metro Toronto, supposedly there for desert and jungle warfare training but really to control the subversive elements in Canada, and specifically the Cree in the north.
First, they overwhelm the Cree in the far north. Then they get their hands on James Bay. Quebec is shrunken down to its 1867 boundaries - five hundred miles long, a hundred miles north to south along the St. Lawrence River.
Now they have a hand on the hydro switch: they build the Grand Canal with the water moving not through Quebec but around Quebec: Quebec becomes an island surrounded by the United States of North America. The water is not free-flowing and is, therefore, a 'good' under GATT and the North American Free Trade Agreement. So it becomes saleable and controllable, but under the agreements we must give the US always at least what they feel is necessary for their purposes. We can increase the supply in gas and water but we can never cut back. We can never get back what we are giving away. During a crisis we would have to plead with them to rescue us, and in that situation we would, in all likelihood, be treated like Louisiana or some of the poorer states of the US.
In this Free Trade Agreement, the US gets the clean profitable business. Canada is the attic - the warehouse of all the raw materials. Mexico is the boiler room, the basement where all the dirty work is done. That's the plan.
Kralik: Do you see this as a stepping-stone toward the building of a New World Order and its consolidation in a single global economy?
Kealey: Of course. The government that is being set up through the United Nations resembles a church: five percent of receipts goes to the poor - in Somalia, Ethiopia, or whatever - although sometimes, as in Somalia, it comes accompanied with guns. 95% goes toward the maintenance of power and control. What control? The International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, and The Security Council, GATT.
Kralik: Who runs the International Monetary Fund?
Kealey: The bankers.
Kralik: Do you know who these bankers are?
Kealey: There are some fifteen or sixteen different families but by far the two most influential are the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. Up to the end of the last century the Rothschilds operated strictly in Europe, but they were anxious to synthesize the American operation with their own. Investigators were sent out and it was agreed that a railroad family, the Rockefellers, were prepared to play the game, and so they became the western arm of this operation.
Then in 1913 we have the biggest scam of all: the denationalizing of the making of money and the creation of the Federal Reserve [Bank], a deal between the bankers and the politicians whereby the bankers promised some politicians backing and almost certain re-election in the elections they contended; in return, the politicians handed over to the bankers the right to do nothing less than print the money for the country. 'We'll do that for you," the bankers said, and you can borrow from us.' It was passed on a Friday afternoon with no warning and with Congress pretty well empty. So much for democracy when the invisible bankers really want something.
Kralik: The incredible implication of this is that the Federal Reserve, which prints the greenbacks for the American people, is a private bank.
Kealey: It is a private bank. The same thing happened in Canada, after the customary twenty-year delay - in 1935. MacKenzie King had won, lost, won, lost four elections in a row. He wanted to ensure his hold on the Prime Ministership for a long time, so he in turn gave the bankers The Bank of Canada.
Let us examine the implications of that. Before you give away the Federal Bank there is no need for consumer or income taxes.: you can manufacture an amount of money based on the resources of the country, including its capacity for labour. The value is constantly changing as new minerals are found and the labour force becomes more and more productive. In a situation where the National Government prints money, for every dollar sold to banks two percent remains with the government: that two percent pays the bills.
Kealey: A government should not be there merely for what it does today. There are nine reasons for a government: health, education, welfare, energy, transportation, communications, housing, food, and clothing. Defence is not part of that: if you are not fighting anybody, there is no need for defence. Some countries in the world can't survive on their own because they don't have the resources. There is nothing in Canada that we do not have. In fact, we could make a decision tomorrow that the critical mass of all consumer products needed in Canada would be made in Canada, from Canadian raw materials, by Canadian labour: the result would be that everybody would be employed.
Kealey: We have the raw materials, the labour force, but we don't have the plants. The raison d'etre of the Free Trade Agreements being concluded throughout the world is to consolidate international control over a country by making sure that all of the parts needed for the manufacturing of every thing are not made in any one country.
Kralik: So that a country cannot be self-sufficient?
Kealey: The carburettors are built in one place, the exhaust pipes in another, as are the tuners for your VCR. All the parts have been disbursed in different countries, all over the world. No one country can manufacture the parts for everything produced within their own borders. That is, with three notable exceptions: Germany, Japan and the United States - the European Community, the Pacific Community, and the Atlantic Community. A One World government begins by eliminating boundaries, ending up with three regions.
Kealey: Initially, and then merging them into a One-World government under the United Nations. The Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the US, and Mexico is only the first step of an Agreement that will encompass both the Americas, North and South.
Kralik: Exactly. The South American dimension was only mentioned during the last week.
Kealey: But it has been planned all the way through. You must remember too that the Free Trade Deal was not a negotiation: it was transnational bankers saying to the Governments involved:"This is what you are going to do and here is an implementation schedule.' Everything in the Free Trade Deal had to fit the implementation schedule. The final time slot is 2005.
What is being created is a United Nations in which the rich governments send money to build a fund, the International Monetary Fund, causing the country from which money was sent to borrow more and more money, thus causing more and more debt. Money is then sent to the poor countries, creating a debt there. So everybody is indebted to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund.
One branch of the Fund holds the money, the other makes the decisions as to how it is to be used, usually for projects that don't go anywhere: these waste money and cause the debt to grow.
Then one day countries can't pay and the bailiff is called. The bailiff is the United Nations Security Council. The real assets of the world, therefore, are re-possessed either by the bank or by the Security Council and are put under the control of the United Nations. Over time the resources of each country are gathered under UN control.
The guy who was in charge of that section is now working in Ontario as the Head of Ontario Hydro: Maurice Strong. Would you like to know why Maurice Strong is working in Ontario? It is because Bob Rae [then-Premier, socialist and a Rhodes Scholar; the current Ontario Premier, Conservative Mike Harris, recently went on a several-day private fishing trip at a remote camp with George Bush - just before the Quebec "crisis" erupted in the neighbouring province!] is in on the deal: he brought Maurice Strong in to do what he does best.
What did Strong do first? He shut down some of the nuclear plants. Why? Because as long as you have nuclear plants you have too much electrical power. If you shut them down, then you can convince people they must dam more rivers. Make a Free Trade deal, move the jobs out of Canada, cause unemployment, and the people of Canada will scream: "Give us jobs! Give us jobs!" Ultimately they will be told: "You want a job? We've got some terrific jobs - building dams!"
Kralik: Is that why only yesterday Chretien signed the Free Trade deal?
Kealey: Chretien is a puppet. He is the Ronald Reagan of Canada. Today Mitchell Sharp is the Prime Minister of Canada. Mitchell Sharp is our George Bush, and he was not elected. He used to be Chretien's boss as Minister of Finance, but today he's got his hand on the back of the puppet [Prime Minister] Jean Chretien.