O CANADA, WILL ANYONE STAND UP FOR THEE?...
PART TWO of A Speech Delivered by the Honourable Paul Hellyer at the Save Canada Conference held in Ottawa August 20 and 21, 1999

Corporations first; people last

   I think one of the most alarming revelations made this weekend has been that Canada aids and abets the U.S. in trying to force Monsanto’s often evil products – such as terminator seeds, seeds that grow crops but can’t be replanted because they’re genetically sterile and won’t grow another crop – and we are helping the American government by going along with this sort of thing.

   They want to buy our industries. Over the 10 years since Free Trade came in, thousands and thousands of Canadian industries have been sold, mostly to Americans. Now they’re getting the big ones: MacMillan Bloedel – not a murmur from our government; La Group Forest – not a word; Canadian Club Monaco; a piece-by-piece sale of Rogers’ Cantel. Disappearing like salami

   Do you know about the salami theory? You cut off a little slice, so little that no one knows the difference, and then another little slice, and another little slice, until finally, there’s nothing left but the string. Well that’s what AT&T is doing with Cantel and eventually there’ll be nothing left but the string.

   CNR? 75 per cent owned in the United States. CPR will soon be forced to follow. They’re talking about increasing the ownership limit for our two airlines. They’ll both be controlled in the United States. Nothing is sacred! Not even Laura Secord! This was a symbol of resistance that reminded us that we won the war of 1812, thanks to people like Laura Secord. We’re losing this one without a shot being fired.

   This kind of democracy in which governments are little more than water boys for the big corporations, it may be democracy but it’s a joke. Yet it is the kind of democracy that is being imposed on countries all over the world. The new kings and queens want to be able to rent politicians who will play the game their way. And that way includes what is euphemistically called economic reform – a perverted way of describing total subjugation to the new kings and queens of business and finance. It means signing treaties that allow them to cherry pick our best resources and our best industries – the same all around the world. All this is tried in the name of laissez faire economics which insists that governments are bad and markets are good. Government-owned services must be privatized, even basic services like health and education which came to be recognized as legitimate areas of government concern. They new providers, alas, are accountable, not to the sovereign citizens, but to the sovereign shareholders.

   One of the most alarming things, again, that we’ve heard today – it wasn’t entirely new – was that in the next round of negotiations under the World Trade Organization, health care and education are going to be up for grabs and we will lose all control of those as well. What’s new is old

   Well this brand of economics, now called neo-classical economics, or neo-classical monetarist economics, is the brainchild of Milton Friedman and his colleagues at the University of Chicago. They shouldn’t call it neo (new) because it’s old. It’s the pre-depression system, the boom/bust system that gave us the crash of ‘29, the depression of the’30s, and World War II, and now they’re setting us up for another one. It’s not a good system. Mainstream economists won’t admit it, but their 25-year experiment in neo-classical economics has been a monumental flop. Proof that it’s bad economics

   The Canadian performance has been humiliating. I’d like to give you a few important statistics so when you go back you’ll be able to refute some of this non-sense about our present economic system being good for Canada and good for the world and the wave of the future.

   We sort of divide the system into two parts: before 1974, when we had what they call the Keynesian years when central banks actually helped central governments finance various things, and then the 25 years after 1974 when central banks stopped helping governments by providing them with low-cost money and when they adopted the monetarist neo-classical brand of economics. So in Canada, for example – in that earlier period, the average increase in Gross National Product was 4.9 per cent; in the years since, 2.8 per cent: a 43 per cent reduction. And that, if we hadn’t lost it, would have been enough to pay for our health care and our education and our environmental concerns and all of the other things that we haven’t been able to do. We could have done them if we hadn’t run the system into the ground in that way.

   Both inflation and unemployment would have been higher in that early period. From 1949 to 1973, the Consumer Price Index increased by an average of 2.86 per cent, whereas from 1974 to 1998, it increased by an average of 5.62 per cent each year – an increase of 97 per cent. Unemployment for the earlier 25 years averages 4.74 per cent and for the last 25 years, 9 per cent – 90 per cent more men and women unemployed and on the breadlines since this new, wonderful ne-classical system of economics was put into effect. Boy! If that’s progress!

   An finally, the debt. In that first period, the federal debt increased by 76 per cent. Since 1974, it has increased by 2,289 per cent! And this is not primarily due to overspending on health and education, as the right wing economists and politicians will tell you. It is primarily due to slower growth and debt compounding at high interest rates set by the monetarists. Bad news globally as well

   The experience in Australia was very similar. The growth rate was 43 per cent less in the 20 years after neo-classical economies came into effect; the Consumer Price Index was more than twice as high and unemployment soared from under 2 per cent to the 8 to 9 per cent range.

   Even in the U.S., the comparison is dismal. The average increase in GDP was down by 38 per cent and unemployment has been 42 per cent higher. Their federal debt soared by more than 1,000 per cent.

   But the global statistics are the ones that make me shudder. From 1950 to 1973, the average annual compound growth rate of per capita GDP in the world was 2.9 per cent. In the years since, it was down to a disastrous 1.11 per cent – less than half.

   And so when you listen to all of these people or if you go to these countries that Shirley [Carr] was telling us about, you see the poverty and see the kids can’t afford to go to school and have no health care and have no hope. It is because of this terrible economic system that’s been pressed on them by the north. They’ve been told it’s their salvation when, in fact, it has been just the opposite. It affects every Canadian

   All of these examples are very disturbing. But what does it mean for us Canadians and for each one of us as individuals?

   If you are a doctor or a nurse, chances are you are overworked – sometimes to the point that patient care is compromised. The same kind of stress is true for many teachers.

   If you are a student, you may have to borrow a lot of money to finish your college or university education – assuming you can borrow, which is becoming increasingly difficult. Some of you will go further into debt than my generation did to buy a house. Should you be a challenged student, you may find that money is no longer available to provide the kind of special help you need to develop to your maximum.

   If you are someone who believes that there is more to life than just those things that money can buy, you may find that music or drama or both have been eliminated from the curriculum.

   If you are a farmer, you may find that you can’t compete with international agri-business. And if you hang in, you may find Monsanto pushing you around and you may become hostage to the transnational monarchs. Bend the knee or starve.

   If you are mentally challenged, you may live or you may die because the market has no place for you.

   And no matter who you are, if you lack the proper skills, you will probably spend much of your life unemployed because globalized markets, as has been pointed out, do not provide full employment. They’re not designed to provide full employment. To provide jobs for everyone would require the reimposition of demand managements, a kind of government intervention in the marketplace – a neo-classical no-no.

   No one is secure. Your company may be sold out to one of the transnationals and either downsized or closed because it and you are redundant. There is no security in a globalized economy. Floating the leaky ship

   Both the world and Canada are at a crossroads. The world debt is now unsustainable. It will crash unless the banking system is really reformed. If you want to know more about that, you can buy my latest book, Stop: Think, or you can go to more seminars like you had this morning or you can do both.

   The system would have crashed already if it hadn’t been for the IMF using our money to lend to Third World countries to pay interest on what they already owe so it looks as though those loans are performing when, in fact, they are non-performing. They’re a debt that can never be repaid.

   I don’t thing our government has leveled with us and told us, “We have used billions of your dollars to finance the international banks and to keep them solvent.” Did they put that [message] in with your income tax when they sent it to you? I don’t think so.

   So we are the ones who are keeping the leaky ship afloat.

   And what about Canada? Our last two governments have sold us into bondage for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver. They have hoodwinked us and lied to us. Nothing is sacred – our industries, our resources, our environment our culture nothing. Even as we speak, our government is putting our health care and education on the table in the next round of World Trade Organization negotiations.

   Not even our money is sacrosanct. The selling job to persuade us to trade the loony for the U.S. dollar has already begun. Preposterous at first, it is now being considered inevitable by more and more naive Canadians who don’t have a clue where money comes from or how the monetary system works. As Michel Chossudovsky pointed out, whoever controls the issue of money controls everything.

   If we give up our monetary sovereignty, adopt the U.S. dollar, and accept a customs union, we are signing our own death knell as a country.

   Monetary sovereignty and foreign domination was what the American War of Independence was all about. Canada now finds itself in a similar state of domination. And if we don’t do something about it now, it will be too late.

   The question is, and this, I guess, is what the conference is all about, the question is, are we ready to start our own war for independence through the ballot box, and abrogate – no half measures as somebody said – abrogate the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA to free us from the oppressive national treatment clause? And to do it before we sign any other treaties that would lock us in for five or 10 years or forever?

   There is no party in the House of Commons, as Michel pointed out, that is going to do it because they all accept globalization as the wave of the future. No wonder people are so fed up with government. We have a whole generation of young people who have never seen a good government and probably don’t believe that one is possible. I think we owe it to them to prove it is possible.

   Canada can compete in trade, but not in investment. When we signed the Free Trade Agreement, we sold our birthright and we set a frightening precedent. Only an about turn will save the world and save Canada because our futures are all wound up together. Only an about turn will save us from catastrophe.

   So the problem is now for Canada and for the world – before those investment clauses are entrenched in the WTO and before the Free Trade Agreement for the Americas is signed. I don’t care, frankly, what the Tory Party does in 10 years. And I don’t care what the Liberal Party does in 10 years, or the Reform Party, if it still exists, or the NDP, or the Bloc.

   I want to know if we are ready to start our own revolution and our own war for independence. But we need a vehicle.Popular movements don’t abrogate treaties; governments abrogate treaties. Could the Canadian Action Party be that vehicle? Yes it could! Could the Canadian Action Party win the most seats of any party in the next election? Yes it could! All it would take is for the people who loved Canada enough to fight the MAI last year, to love it enough to fight to save it now. That’s all it would take.

   It’s not a case of having enough people to start a party in the traditional sense. It’s a case of having a vehicle to facilitate a revolution, and revolutions are spontaneous events. They develop with lightning speed. How could we get the word out and not have it censored by people like Conrad Black? Through the Internet – the same way it was done with the MAI.

   So do we have the will to fight? Does our country really mean enough? Does it matter to us? If it does, let us light the flame that will restore the hope and passion in the hearts of Canadian patriots! Let us do whatever it takes to guarantee that our children and grandchildren will always be able to shout and to sing. “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!”

Write Mr. Hellyer and the Canadian Action Party at Suite 302- 99 Atlantic Ave., Toronto, ON, M6K 3J8 or fax (416) 535-6325 or e mail cap-pac@istar.ca

--------

CANADIAN ACTION PARTY'S POSITION ON A CITIZENS' MAI:

        We have now had the opportunity to examine "Toward a Citizens' MAI: An Alternative Approach to Developing a Global Investment Treaty Based on Citizens Rights and Democratic Control", a discussion paper prepared by the Polaris Institute (Canada 1998), and to consider its implications in the context of the push toward globalization by supra-national corporations and international banks.  We regret the delay and the fact that we were not able to meet the August 15, 1998, deadline for comments set by the Institute but there were extenuating circumstances.
        Although there are many things about the draft paper that are naturally attractive to us we have concluded that there is no point in commenting on the detailed proposals, as suggested, because we believe that the premises on which the paper is based are not valid.  The first of these premises is that a Multilateral Agreement on Investment incorporating the ideas contained in the paper might be adopted by the developed countries at some time in the foreseeable future.  This is most unlikely.  The proposals negate most of the reasons for the MAI and would be rejected for that reason.
        The second premise is that if such a treaty could be negotiated it would be a good thing for both the developed and underdeveloped countries.  We do not believe this to be the case.  There is so much disparity in the stages of development between most of the OECD countries and the third world countries that it is quite impossible to develop a set of rules which would apply in all cases.  Countries in different stages of development require different rules.  For that reason it would seem expedient to continue to rely on bilateral investment treaties which, presumably at least, are acceptable to the signatories.

Anomalies and Contradictions
        There are a number of these in the proposed citizen's MAI and we cite two by way of example.

National Treatment
        You propose to redefine it in such a way that "governments could apply different sets of rules for domestic and foreign investment".  In that case it ceases to be "national treatment".
        It is our long-stated position that "national treatment" is wrong in principle.  Governments should have the right to favour domestic industry if they consider such a policy to be in the public interest after concluding that there is a net advantage greater than the cost of any potential retaliatory action on the part of other countries.
        Consequently, we recommend opposing the concept of "national treatment" outright. Unequivocally!

Expropriation Measures
        You propose that in the case of expropriation, corporations should be entitled to fair compensation as determined by national law.  (Canada's expropriation compensation is already generous.)  You further suggest that decisions of national courts might be appealed to international tribunals.

        We consider this concept to be quite unrealistic.  We cannot imagine the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of Canada or the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in England being willing to adjudicate cases subject to appeal to an international tribunal.

        You can't have it both ways; it has to be one or the other.

        An additional disadvantage of appeals to international tribunals or a world court is the cost, which would make it almost impossible for ordinary citizens to have access to justice.

        We opt for determination by national law.  We are not yet prepared for a world governed by international bureaucrats, accountable to no-one, but heavily influenced by the "ascendancy of market economics" to the near exclusion of all other considerations.

        We believe that corporations should be prepared to accept some risk when they invest in jurisdictions other than their home jurisdiction and that they should be prepared to insure against any risk they consider excessive.

Summation
        For the above and other reasons we believe that the strategy of proposing a citizen's MAI at this time is the wrong strategy.  The day might come when it would be useful but that day is a long, long way off.

        To propose a citizen's MAI now will provide an excuse for the proponents of globalization to continue their negotiations while ultimately throwing a few small bones as a sop to NGO's and other dissenters.

The Alternative
        The alternative is a global war against further globalization at this time.  This includes challenging the legality of governments amending constitutions by surrendering sovereignty without due process of law.  (In Canada we strongly support the action launched by the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee to prevent the Canadian government from signing the MAI without first obtaining a constitutional amendment.  We urge the other anti-MAI groups to support this precedent-setting case.)
        It is our contention that the Mexican Meltdown, the "Asia Flu", the chaos in Russia, Sub-Saharan poverty, the humiliation of national currencies and unprecedented economic instability worldwide are all, to some degree, the direct result of globalized financial services.  We do not believe that this kind of system can be regulated in a way that would produce stability and that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank have been net contributors to the instability rather than the stabilizers they pretend to be.

        Consequently we urge all NGO's and other kindred spirits to escalate their level of opposition to the MAI in all its forms whether at the OECD, the FTAA, the NTM, the IMF, the WTO or wherever until the world can determine why it is in such a mess and why globalization is not the cure.

        On the positive side we should all urge that the objectives of the next WTO negotiating round be to determine how far the clock should be turned back and how much of the Uruguay round, especially some aspects of the Financial Services Agreement, should be rescinded in the interests of a more stable and prosperous world.

Respectfully submitted,
CANADIAN ACTION PARTY
.....................

NAFTA 'FIRST NATIONS' SUMMIT IN CALGARY
CANADA AND US TO HOLD TRICKY NAFTA 'FIRST NATIONS' SUMMIT IN CALGARY

MNN Mohawk Nation News. 5 Sept. 98. The Canadian government is putting on the "First Nations NAFTA International Summit & Trade Show" at the Calgary Convention Centre (Marriott Hotel) on October 17 to 19, 1998.Their prime concerns are trade relations, creation of an Indigenous trade group, overcoming possible barriers and opposition, making treaties and laws.

What a line-up of promoters! Selling the North American Free Trade Agreement will be representatives of the Canadian Government's Indian Act band councils; premiers of provinces; Jane Stewart, the apologetic Minister of Indian Affairs; even US UN representative Bill Richardson; Phil Fontaine head of the Assembly of First Nations, the main Canadian government financed lobby group; Blaine Favel, the world ambassador on Indigenous issues; Ron Allen of the US National Congress of American Indians. Featured is Simon Reisman who made the NAFTA deal for former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney; Ms. Nina Sibal of the UNESCO; and Kevin Grover, head of the US Bureau of Indian Affairs. The keynote address will be given by the former Mayor of Atlanta Georgia. Luminaries from Foreign Affairs and International Trade will be paneling with some hard core indigenous band council persons such as Chris Shade, Joe Norton, Marvin Mull, Willie Little Child, Deni Leonard and Jessie Fisher.

Elijah Harper is billed as "Ambassador at Large". The Canadian government loves him because he promotes his spiritual religious vision that "Aboriginal people do not own the land, in fact, treaties were visions to live and co-exist with each other and to share our land and resources. The land was created by God to benefit all people".

It looks like the Indigenous representatives are about to sign an internal NAFTA trade deal on behalf of the Canadian government. It will look like it's between the Indigenous people of Canada, the United States, Mexico, Central and South American countries. Actually it is between Canada and Mexico and Brazil and Nicaragua and=85 get the picture? The true traditional Indigenous sovereign nations have, of course, not been consulted on this latest maneuver to sell off their resources to benefit the multinational corporations who are behind this whole thing.

Either they've forgotten or don't care. Last February the traditional Mohawk Nation condemned the human rights violations by Mexico against those Indians who rebelled against NAFTA, murdering 45 men, women and children in Acteal on December 22nd 1997. On March 16th they marched to the Kahnawake band council office and presented Joe Norton with a letter of protest. They were opposing the impending theft of Iroquois cultural symbols by these nation states for worldwide marketing, to be made cheaply in labour camps in Oaxaca, Mexico. As well, Joe Norton and the Canadian government announced at that time the setting up of a trade commission to oversee the use of Iroquois cultural symbols and intellectual property so that those wishing to use their own symbols would have to go through this private commission. Now it looks like this commission will control all Indigenous trade.

The question comes up as to what can be done with Indigenous collaborators who work with oppressive states to undermine Indigenous peoples' lives, rights and possessions? They are helping Canada and the US find ways to use NAFTA to exploit and sell off more Indigenous resources such as oil, gas, forestry, mining, fishery and agriculture. Rather shouldn't they demand that Canada and the US boycott trade with Mexico over their human rights violations? The Mohawk tried to reach their brothers and sisters, the Mayans, to tell them of their opposition. In fact, real nation-to-nation agreements are possible between true traditional Indigenous governments similar to international contracts which must be honoured. Band councils can only exercise those rights delegated to them by the Canadian government who created them.

Sovereignty can only be with the true traditional Indian governments. At a 1977 UN conference, Ross John of the Seneca Nation said, "What do these trade agreements with our nations mean? Is it international trade, nation to nation? Will it be manipulated by large businesses and certain nations? If so, all the dollars will go back to international organizations". Kakwirakeron of the Mohawk Nation asked, "Does the international community and the UN define who a nation is? Or is it only the U.S. and Canada who make the definition so that we shall be continually referred to by other states as an 'internal' problem? This is intolerable". Kahn-Tineta Horn , President of the Canadian Alliance in Solidarity with the Native Peoples, suggested that, "What we need is a structure with a process where true indigenous nations can make decisions that become legal. What is the point of this meeting if the government's policy is to not deal with Indigenous sovereignty?"

Is this scheme how Canada and the United States avoids condemning these states for genocide and human rights violations by getting their indigenous nominees to go in and do the trading on their behalf? Dissenters, such as the Zapatistas, have not been invited to give their views on NAFTA which allows Canada, United States and Mexico and their business interests to overrule any U.S. and Canadian laws adopted by any state, tribe, band or local government if they interfere with investments or sale of services or products by any multinational corporation. The Zapatistas and other Indigenous people should give this conference a dose of reality. They should tell these corporate fronts about the damage to workers, farmers and citizens by allowing cheap goods from undemocratic countries to come in, resulting from the murder of labour union and indigenous leaders, the dominance of extremely corrupt military and paramilitary cliques, and the raw exploitation of women and children sweatshop workers
-----------------------------

Canada slapped with NAFTA lawsuit against another environmental law
Canada revoked PCB Ban to Avoid NAFTA Challenge
Producer now demands compensation for lost profits while law was in effect

   Canada has been slapped with another NAFTA challenge just a week after the country paid $10 million to the US-based Ethyl Corporation and revoked a public health law to avoid a potentially costly ruling under the same NAFTA provision. The new lawsuit, using a NAFTA provision that allows companies to directly sue governments, was initiated by Ohio based company S.D. Myers Inc. Canada banned the export of PCB-contaminated waste in 1995, but revoked the ban in early 1997 after U.S. firms announced they would challenge the law under NAFTA.  Myers, a PCB treatment company, demands an undisclosed sum for profits lost during the 15-month period of the ban.

   "Myers used NAFTA to complain about Canada's PCB export ban, so the ban was lifted. Now they are using NAFTA to demand payment for lost profits from when the law was in effect. NAFTA empowers a company to force our government to have to pay for trying to protect the environment," said Maude Barlow, volunteer national chairperson with the Council of Canadians. "With the challenge occurring in a secret tribunal, Canadians aren't even allowed to know what's happening. It's undemocratic and simply outrageous and Canadians can look forward to much more of the same under NAFTA," adds Barlow.

   Under NAFTA rules, Myers' complaint and any proceedings, including negotiations with the Canadian government, are kept confidential. Myers is using a NAFTA provision on which the controversial Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is based. The MAI, a proposal to establish
far-reaching rights for multinational corporations, is under negotiation at the OECD, where talks are scheduled to resume in October. The provision empowers corporations to directly sue governments in NAFTA tribunals for cash damages for any government action "tantamount to" an indirect
expropriation or "taking." Sometimes called "regulatory takings," this provision allows Myers to claim its missed opportunity to profit during the ban constitutes an illegal seizure of its assets. Says Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, "NAFTA's critics warned that NAFTA would have a chilling effect on public interest safeguards. This case proves that corporations will use NAFTA to attack public health and environmental laws. NAFTA's "takings" provision goes further than the property rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, with devastating effects on public health and the environment." Myers' use of NAFTA to attack Canada's policy reverses the international trend towards minimizing trade in hazardous waste. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed a total ban on PCB imports in July 1997.

   "Under U.S. law, Myers can not import PCBs from Canada. This suit is about extorting money from the Canadian government during the few months the U.S. allowed PCBs to be imported," says Wallach.

   "Chalk this case up to another NAFTA broken promise. Ethyl's and now Myers' lawsuit show that trade agreements will be used to subvert environmental goals; an occurrence that the U.S. government repeatedly denied would happen under NAFTA. Yet rather than slowing down and reassessing its trade policy, the Administration is negotiating agreements that would apply these same anti-regulatory rules world-wide," Wallach says.

   In addition to the MAI, the Clinton Administration is negotiating the Free Trade area of the Americas (FTAA), a hemispheric trade pact, which will include an investment chapter modelled on NAFTA's. Negotiations on the investment rules for the FTAA are set to begin in September 30-
-------------------------

September 19,1998
REPORT from THE DEFENCE OF CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE
Vancouver B.C. Canada

Re: ACTION NUMBER T-790-98, Federal Court-Trial Division, Vancouver B.C.,CONSTANCE CLARA FOGAL and THE DEFENCE OF CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE, Applicants, vs HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA ET AL,Respondents, the Citizens legal challenge to stop Canada from entering the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investments)

Dates to note:
January 19,1999 in Federal Court, Vancouver B.C. -  Date of full hearing of the case
October 26,1998 in Toronto, Ont.-  Date of interlocutory application by the Applicants for orders that

1. The federal Government answer questions it refused to answer on examination.
2. The Applicants be permitted to file a supplementary record and make reply to the Respondents'
Memorandum of Fact and Law dated August 18,1998.
3. There be a preliminary trial of the issues of (a) Quo warranto and (b)the Extent of Cabinet
Privilege with respect to the MAI.

The Respondents' Memorandum of Fact and Law dated August 18,1998 is filed in the Federal Court and will be available on the website of the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee by the end of October 1998. See
http://www.canadianliberty.bc.ca

Re: NAFTA
The Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee has instructed its lawyers to launch a legal challenge to strike down NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)as being unconstitutional, and a violation of the rights and entitlements of Canadian Citizens. Preparations for this lawsuit are in process. Watch for developments.
Re: ANTI- MAI CONFERENCE in Paris,France, sponsored by EcoEuropa October 17 to 21,1998. The Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee will make representation to the Conference about the Canadian lawsuit. Connie Fogal will pay her own way.
Re: FUNDING FOR THE LAWSUITS
This continues to be a crucial need. This notice is also a call for financial contributions. We have no major financial backer. We do have one Canadian Citizen who has agreed to match dollar for dollar raised up to $60,000.00. Contributions from concerned citizens separate from this loyal Canadian have ranged from $20,000.00 x 1, $10,000.00 x1, $5,000.00 x2, $1000.00 x2, $500.00 x3, $200.00 a few, $100.00 numerous, $50.00 numerous, $40.00 numerous, $25.00 numerous, $20.00 a few, $15.00 a few, $10.00 a few, and one at $5.00. If 300,000 citizens gave one looney, we would finance this lawsuit easily.
A few old age pensioners are making small monthly contributions. These are the people who built Canada and the Social Safety Net of Canada. They know what we are losing. They know what is now being dismantled because of globalization represented in Canada by the FTA(Free Trade Agreement), NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement, FSIA(Financial Services Investment Agreement), FTAA(Free Trade Agreement of the Americas), MAI(Multilateral Agreement on Investments), and the numerous bilateral agreements.
You can help by sending in your own contribution but also taking some time to raise some funds by asking your friends for a few dollars even for a looney (but transfer into a cheque so there is a proper record).
Make cheques payable to Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee, in trust, and mail to #401- 207 West Hasting St ., Vancouver B.C., Canada, V6B1H7

MEDIA COVERAGE:
Thanks to specific information about the need for funding disclosed by editors and writers in coverage by small periodicals and papers such as ALIVE MAGAZINE, DISCOURSE AND DISCLOSURE, GULF ISLANDS'  ISLAND TIDES, ER:ECONOMIC REFORM, DIALOGUE, MONETARY REFORM, The ADVOCATE, the DAVIDSON LEADER, we have been receiving donations.
If you are a member of some group that has a newletter, we urge you to do an article with a plea for financial support to our lawuits. Or submit this notice.
With grave concern,  Connie Fogal and the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee
-O, Canada we stand on Guard for thee.- Canadian national anthem
-The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled- Supreme Court of Canada, A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, S.C.R. 1951 pp 32 -33
=====================

Public Citizen Global Trade Watch - MAI WTO THREAT
Thu, 27 Aug 1998 08:53:20 -0700
From: Canadian Action Party <cap-pac@istar.ca> (by way of CONNIE FOGAL <cfogal@netcom.ca>)
To:   ubcm@civicnet.gov.bc.ca

        I read your post of mid-May suggesting an alternative agreement to the MAI with considerable apprehension.  In my opinion the treaty is irredeemable and should be abandoned.
        To begin, the notion of "national standing" is wrong in principle.  If the nation state is to have any future relevance at all -- and no one yet has come up with a satisfactory vision of what to put in its place if it disappears -- it must retain the sovereign right to determine the conditions under which foreign investment is welcome and be able to impose limits on the extent of that investment.  Supranational corporations must not be given carte blanche to run the world their way.  Corporations should not be given a higher status than people.  They should not be given a status equivalent to nation states which is what U.S. corporations have achieved under NAFTA.
        Canada has just suffered a humiliating experience under this treaty.  As you undoubtedly know, the Canadian government banned the importation into Canada and distribution within Canada of the gasoline additive MMT.  The Ethyl Corporation of the US sued the Canadian government on the grounds of lost profits and damaged reputation.  The case was to be heard by a three-person panel whose decision would be final and not subject to appeal.
        When its lawyers advised that it would likely lose the case, the Canadian government settled.  It paid almost $20 million U.S. in compensation for legal fees, and lost profits.  Far worse, as part of the settlement agreement, two ministers of the crown made statements that said MMT was neither harmful to the health nor the environment and this despite increasing evidence that low-level exposure to airborne manganese is linked to nervous-system problems and attention-deficit disorder among children.   Globalization of financial services is even more dangerous.  It is directly responsible for the "Asian Flu" and the current attack on the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand currencies.  A stable international system is quite impossible in a world without borders (in the absence of political union).
        People I talk to have no comprehension of the extent to which globalization will impoverish the majority in all nations while benefiting only a tiny minority.  Unless they are alerted soon it will be too late.
        I intend to do another book this Fall -- along the lines of The Evil Empire; Globalization's Darker Side, but with a universal rather than Canadian emphasis.  It is intended to clarify the issues before we continue, hell bent, beyond the point of no return.
        There are long-range issues that have to be addressed, but first we need a much clearer picture of what the issues are and the alternatives open to us.  So I urge all NGO's and other interested groups to oppose further negotiations whether in the OECD, WTO or elsewhere until some of the dust settles and we can see the horizon more clearly.
        You can be sure that this is not the course preferred by the proponents of globalization.
        Best wishes,
        Paul Hellyer
        Canadian Action Party
-----------------------------------------

DEFENCE OF CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE / LE COMITÉ DE LA LIBERTÉ CANADIENNE  COMMUNIQUÉ
Embargoed until 10:30 AM Ottawa time JUNE 17,1998
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MAI GOES TO COURT... Connie Fogal

OTTAWA  -   Connie Fogal from The Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee is in Ottawa with  lawyers Albert Peeling, Rocco Galati, and Manuel Azevedo to conduct cross examination of a witness for the federal government on June 18,1998 in the case of  Fogal and the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee / le Comité de la liberté Canadienne vs Her Majesty the Queen et al.

These concerned citizens want Prime Minister Chrétien, the Honourable Sergio Marchi, and our government to recognize  that the MAI is unconstitutional and that the citizens are prepared to take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court Of Canada to stop our government from entering the M.A.I. (Multilateral Agreement on Investments). The MAI derogates the ability of governments to regulate national economies and diminishes citizens' rights which will result in a whole series of economic effects prejudicial to the citizens.

The MAI is unconstitutional under Canadian law because it gives entrenched rights to international banks and foreign corporations guaranteed by international law which Canadian citizens do not have...This is contrary to the principle of equality before the law which is part of the Canadian constitution enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, says Fogal.

This legal initiative is supported by citizens across Canada who are opposed to the M.A.I. including the People Against the M.A.I. (PAMAI) from the Toronto area, (representative Ann Emmette), le Comité d'action non-violente (CANVA) from Québec (representative Philippe Duhamel), and economist  Michel Chossodovsky who stand with us and will answer questions
after the press conference.

This legal challenge represents an historic action by citizens of Canada. This is the first constitutional legal challenge to the MAI in any of the G-7 countries or the 29 OECD States. It raises the issue not only of the MAI but other treaties and agreements which affect Canadians  profoundly.

Fogal asserts, The government of Canada has no authority to sign a treaty without a mandate from Parliament. To do so is a violation of the fundamental principles of democracy and representative government... Exercise of prerogative power must be subject to the constitution.

The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are entitled.

 Supreme Court of Canada, AG of Nova Scotia and AG of Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information, contact Connie Fogal,
in Ottawa at Day's Inn 237-9300 or cellular (604)202 7334
through June 21,1998;
thereafter at Tel: (604)687-0588 work, (604) 872 2128 home;
Fax: (604) 872 1504
----------------------------

Speakout on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment at Liberal Headquarters Yonge and St. Mary Streets Toronto.
April 26th 1998 -- report by Gary Morton

A cool and sunny Sunday evening in Spring is an excellent time for citizens to be speaking out against the federal liberals and trade minister Sergio Marchi. This evening the speakers gathered with a microphone and huge yellow and white street banners that said things like CRUSH THE MAI ---City of Toronto is Opposed to MAI --- SECRET TRADE AGREEMENT, What is the Liberal Government Committing Canada to?

Those who spoke out on the street against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment included Bob Olsen of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, Sarah Dopp of the Council of Canadians, Ruth Morris and Brent Patterson of the Metro Network for Social Justice and several other citizens.

St. Mary's and Yonge is a corner that includes the Church of Scientology, Country Style Donuts, Warriors, Rocky's, Central Surplus and other local stores and attractions. I studied this scene, the passing cars and pedestrians as I held one of the large banner poles. My feeling was that the speakers did a good job of denouncing Marchi on this agreement. A constituent of Marchi's pointed out that the federal liberals have been dismantling agencies that made sure investment would be good for Canada. Through free trade and now the MAI they are promoting uncontrolled investment that will not be good for Canada and they are also granting nation state powers to large corporations that choose to locate in Canada. Citizens say they are not prepared to give up their birthright to participate in a liberal version of the global economy. They are not prepared to sell off democracy, the environment and local industry. And they are certainly not prepared to stand by and watch as the liberals sell off the nation without even holding proper democratic debate on the issue. One person asked me how many Canadians know that Sergio Marchi is in Paris right now trying to rush this MAI deal through?

Despite the huge amount of protest activity world wide, citizens at large still know very little about MAI. Local governments are getting informed and many like the City of Toronto have passed motions against MAI. There isn't really any grass roots movement calling for such a trade agreement. Like many things nowadays MAI is the creation of governments and corporations who want to govern without the consent of the people. Even the Toronto police did not want to view this protest activity as legal. A car came by to warn the people that the use of a microphone on the street was illegal. And the police would have acted to break up the protest if a City TV camerawoman had not been present. As it was they returned three times but left when they noted the camera was still there.

The fight against MAI, like other local democracy issues has taken on an evangelical flavour. Street speakouts and a protest movement carried forward largely by citizens opposed to the idea. The Monetary Reform Movement, protests against globalization and things like Megacities have arisen partly as a backlash as citizens fight back trying to heal the flack damage that has been inflicted on democracy and small business.

The upcoming big bank mergers are another good example. How many people know that the monetary reformers are proposing that a new type of banking charter be made available to restore adequate banking facilities to small and medium-sized business?     This would limit individual loans to a modest figure—say $5 million. Given the neglect and exploitation of small borrowers by the present charter banks, there would be a solid flow of retail clients from the present chartered banks and that would create real competition.

The key is that citizens have had enough of globalization and know that real prosperity comes from developing local small and medium sized business. World financial government is an ugly thing that does not see the little guy. And we want banks and governments that support the little guy because we are the little guys. They talk of MAI making Canada more competitive, but the truth is that large trade deals do the opposite. Creating a situation where there are no competitors to the big Global guys. One example I used was the skate industry. There are no longer any rollerskates made in Canada though it was a traditional industry. Because of globalization they are all made in Asia and China. Is that the sort of competitiveness Marchi wants, where foreign giants make all products and the small local guy no longer exists?

Another Speakout will take place Tuesday the 28th. Detailed information on the MAI and the legal challenge against it in Canada by Constance Clara Fogal and the Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee is posted at  the Harrisville on the Web MAI page
http://www.interlog.com/~command/action7b.htm  Monetary Reform News is at http://www.interlog.com/~command/action7a.htm

-------------

GAMBLING and the MAI - There is a very direct link to the expansion of gambling in North America and Globalization. In the last four years in Canada and the last 10 in the U.S.A., governments have turned to gambling as a means to generate income. They are legalizing gambling as a strategy for economic development.

Canadian citizens do not want it any more than we wanted Free Trade or Nafta. Yet our governments federally and provincially have forced these on us. The USA literature on the expansion of gambling in the USA illustrates that in general, USA citizens have never asked for this expansion, nor have they been asked. But where they were given a chance to choose, the citizens always turned down the development. That is why governments do not give them the voice to choose.

In BC the province has not given us the opportunity to vote on this issue. In Nov. 1993 a BC government commissioned poll showed that only 21.3 % of those polled felt BC did not have enough gambling opportunities. A 1994 study commissioned by the Vancouver City showed results of about a 70% percent opposition to gambling expansion. Polls done by a citizens group in Richmond and Burnaby in Nov/ Dec 1997 both resulted in 85% opposition to gambling expansion in a sample of just under 2600 people in each municipality canvassed in shopping centers and private homes. Consistently, polls conducted after television programs on gambling show the majority is always against gambling expansion.

Our Attorney General asked our Vancouver based group, Citizens Against Gambling Expansion, in interview, "Where am I going to get the money we need to run the government if we cannot get gambling revenue?" All governments hungrily and greedily have jumped to the vast pool of money they do get from running gambling activities.

But it is not new money. It does not create new wealth nor does it produce new economic growth. Rather, it cannibalizes existing businesses. Dr Earl Grinols, an economist from the University of Chicago, has been studying the economic effects of using gambling as an economic alternative to raising the funds government needs. For every $1000.00 of long run casino revenues,40% ($400.00) comes from problem and pathological gamblers (the people who put the drain on society because of the social costs that flow from the consequences of their gambling addiction). Another $381.00 comes from reduced general mercantile, miscellaneous retail and wholesale trade within 30 minutes of the casino. Reduced revenues of food, eating and drinking establishments account for another $91.00. The only sector to be routinely helped by the presence of a casino nearby was filling stations.

Organized crime has always been associated with all forms of gambling and continues to be so connected. Robert Goodman conducted a study on gambling in the US in 1994 funded by the Aspen Institute and the Ford Foundation. His report,Legalized Gambling as a Strategy for Economic Development covered every aspect of the gambling industry- its implications and consequences. On organized crime he wrote at p. 89, "By giving better odds and non- taxable payouts, organized crime, far from being eliminated from gambling, has remained an active provider of gambling products with its own market niche...legalization has increased the number of people who gamble, providing organized crime with access to a larger consumer pool. One FBI expert complained about legalizing more betting opportunities. 'All it would do', he said, 'is make still more people gamble, and that would make even more business for bookmakers"...

...In testimony to the Chicago Gaming Commission, William Jahoda, a former operator of gambling ventures for organized crime in the Chicago area, said, 'There always existed one solid constant. Any new form of expansion of legal gambling always increased our client base. Simply put, the stooges who approved Las Vegas nights, off track betting, lotteries, etc. became our unwitting front men and silent partners.'"

So if the people do not want gambling expansion, it is harmful to local businesses, and criminal activity increases, why are all the provincial governments of all stripes foisting it on us? Why are our governments lifting the century long sanction against gambling that has been Canada's legal and social ethos?  the answer is they desperately need the money. Why are they so desperate for the money? John Ralston Saul, Canadian Philosopher, tells us why. (And therein lies the connection to the MAI and globalization.) I quote John Ralston Saul in lecture at the Bill Duthie memorial lecture at the Vancouver International Writers Festival given November 1996.

"There is a long history of gambling for our thinkers and writers to consider. We know what governments were like, what societies were like, in the past when the state took up gambling as a way of financing itself. In Burma, for about a thousand years, it was very clear: when a king started raising money through gambling, he was about five years away from losing his head. He had lost all sense of why he was the king and what his obligations were. Gambling run by the state has always been a sign of the intellectual and ethical degeneracy of those who are running the country or the state.

With their sponsorship of gambling our governments have abandoned the idea that they represent the maintenance of a public good. With their search for the citizen's weaknesses and their exploitation of them - a lack of social preparation, for example, a lack of education, or poverty- our governments have given up on the idea that there is a public good and that the citizen formulates it and is the source of its legitimacy."
...
"In 1950, the taxation of corporate income financed almost half of the public interest- that is government. Why? Because the major source of real wealth was and is, corporate wealth. Today that source contributes less than one-tenth of the public interest's income. A passive or complicit approach to the globalization of industry and commerce has led government to turn increasingly to other sources of income. To the rich, who said they would leave town; so governments backed off. To the middle class, until they could pay no more. To the lower middle class. To indirect taxation, in the hope that the middle classes wouldn't notice their government were taxing them twice. But all of these measures still left governments far short of
the necessary monies.

So they have turned increasingly to ever more marginal sources of income. Their greatest winner has been gambling. And the point here is that the government of the citizens are now devoting themselves to the corruption of the citizens."

It is simply not true that there is nothing we can do to stop this conquering of the world by the monied interests. "Globalization " as it is in process today is no more than the conquering of the world's resources without a war by and for the interest of only a few. We are talking about the age-old enemy-greed. If we do not control it in the interest of all the people, it will destroy us as a civilization.

In The Evil Empire, Globalization's Darker Side, 1997, the Honourable Paul Hellyer, former deputy Prime Minister of Canada, said, "Globalization is not about trade. It is about power and control. It is the reshaping of the world into one without borders ruled by a dictatorship of the world's most powerful central banks, commercial banks and multinational companies. It is an attempt to undo a century of social progress and to alter the distribution of income from inequitable to inhuman. Gold will be the absolute monarch and goodness a mark of disloyalty."

If mankind and womankind has lost the ability to understand greed and its corrupting power, then truly the age old antagonists are out of balance and there is no hope. But, there is also power in recognition of the fairness and necessity of equitable sharing of the finite resources of the world.

That ever was and remains the struggle for thinking caring humans. Not everyone has lost reason and sanity!

Connie Fogal, City of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
------------------
Sovereignty for Sale By Gary Morton
MAI - Nov 18th Debate on the Multilateral Investment Agreement
Corporate spokesman Doug Gregory debates David Orchard of Citizens Concerned About Free Trade

   Snow and cold winds came early this year in Toronto. The streets are surprisingly crowded for early evening and among the crowds are many homeless people. The combination of high employment and premier Harris' chops to social welfare have put a lot of people on the streets. "Have you a got a dollar," the tiny man says. "I went to York U last year, but I couldn't get a summer job. You gotta get a summer job or you're screwed. Now I don't even have a place to live, and the shelters are full. I know an all night coffee shop where I can stay if I have a dollar for a coffee. Thankyou, God Bless you, Sir! I'm going - no wait. Do you know anywhere where I can get a job. I'll wash dishes or anything."

"Sorry, I don't" I said as I walked away into the dazzle of the Tory Megacity.

 I got to the St. Lawrence Centre forum late. Doug Gregory was already speaking and the place was packed. I hurriedly began to take notes, hoping I might be able to simplify the arguments around the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Agreement. APEC wasn't discussed at this forum, but a nutshell I got from others is that the agreement has made it easier for large corporations to operate in the Pacific Rim. The cost has been a huge human toll. Nearly 400 million women, who don't own land in Pacific nations, have lost their traditional small farm setting and are living in abject poverty and pollution. Corporate citizens of the nations do well, but human beings, who are the real citizens, are the losers in this free trade pact. So you might say that an important point of the argument is that governments now promote the well being of corporate citizens, but not the well being of ordinary people. Protest action on this is scheduled for Vancouver at the APEC Summit this week.

Doug Gregory gave the MAI debate a new turn, as he dealt not with the issue of investment in Canada, but with the idea of how Canadian business needs MAI as protection from discrimination in foreign markets. He called MAI the first step on the way to global trade rules - rules that will provide small companies with assurance when entering markets. Gregory also likes the strong disputes settlement mechanisms in MAI. During his speech my personal concern was that when you read between the lines you see that he represents Canadian investors who want to use MAI to exploit other poorer nations.

David Orchard's short speech was much stronger and to the point. During the debate, Gregory reminded me of Harris cabinet ministers who defend the undemocratic clauses of their bills by trying to say they are just legal jargon with no real teeth. The flaw to that whole argument is that you might ask why the language is there in the first place and why they are so adamant in not wanting any of it taken out.

David Orchard is also backed by his book on the subject - FIGHT FOR CANADA. In the blurb he is identified as a fourth generation Saskatchewan grain farmer.
He began by taking issue with the federal government. They are negotiating MAI but would not send a representative to the debate. He also pointed out that the liberals did not campaign on MAI and have no mandate to bring it in.

David lists the ugliest points of MAI as . . .

20 Year Lock-in - meaning that if we sign it we can't get out of it.

Standstill - This blocks the creation of any new laws that don't conform to MAI.

Rollback - Sunset clauses phase out all laws not conforming to MAI. And in Canada it means means most of what we value will be phased out - National Standards in broadcasting, culture and every area, Medicare, the Wheat Board and on an on.

Canadian sovereignty has already been attacked through in NAFTA, the free trade agreement. Canada is being sued for hundreds of millions for banning hazardous American products. In Mexico citizens forced the closure of a toxic waste dump only to find that free trade laws forced them to allow it to reopen. Mexicans also suffered as the peso dropped to half its value. Rebels in Mexico have created national unrest and have blamed much of the problem on the free trade deal that brought about the economic death of their nation.

Orchard says - We were promised Jobs, Jobs, Jobs if we went with free trade and what we have is the longest period of sustained high unemployment since the 1930s. There are record bankruptcies, and our living standard has declined. Promised access to other markets didn't come through and the richer social programs that were promised never came about. Instead there has been an outright assault on social programs at the provincial and federal level. 25 percent of our manufacturing base died in the first four years of NAFTA and now US health giants are moving in and bankrupting our hospitals with higher drug costs that they control. We are told we have no money for hospitals and Medicare, but that is a lie as Medicare was born in dirt poor Saskatchewan and isn't necessarily expensive.

David quotes an official of the Kellogg corporation in the States who said that our system and confidence in it had to be destroyed through Chaos so Canada would become an open market for American corporations.

In actual practice free trade exists mainly between large corporations located in the various nations. On this continent North/South trade is increasing but East/West trade is dying and that is a threat to national unity. We have also experience massive takeovers of our corporations. CN Rail was sold off for half price. The Bower Skate company was taken over and moved to Malaysia and so on.

David Orchard says Canada's first Prime Minister, old Sir John A., called Free Trade veiled treason and opposed it.

John A. appears to have been willing to consider the main philosophical questions of the issue.
1. Does sovereignty belong to the people or to the elected government?
2. Does any government have the right to negotiate sovereignty and enshrined legal and democratic rights of the people to a foreign or other power?

Today we have a third question - When we vote for a new government, are we empowering them to do anything, even to remove democracy itself?

My personal answer to questions two and three is No  - leaders like Mike Harris in Ontario are doing things that border on treason. There is no place for these undemocratic bills, laws, boards and commissions in a democracy. The Prime Minister should not negotiate APEC or MAI without a mandate. He should take the issue to the people and allow all sides of the issues to come out in the referenda debate.

Here we end my attempt to simplify these issues. I began this story talking about a homeless man - look at the above essay as clues in this mystery. What is his story, why is he at the bottom?

Like a lot of people nowadays, his story is a tale of democracy. We haven't a very good form of it in Canada and if we don't fight to change it most of our children will be at the bottom.
----------------------------