Taking the matter to court? (more info)
Hendrik
Hello again...
In reply to a private message from Terry, here is some information straight
from the source. I hope that between Connie Fogals position and Terry's
concerns and analysis (regarding court cases in general and in particular)
there will be room to extract some useable ideas. In any case i think the
matter ddeserves more discussion...
ttyl: Hendrik
--- begin quoted message ---
From: "cfogal" <cfo...@netcom.ca>
Subject: Response by Fogal to BC constitutional committee
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 10:39:53 -0700
CANADIAN ACTION PARTY: PARTI ACTION CANADIENNE (C.A.P./P.A.C)
LOWER MAINLAND ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
This release written and issued by Connie Fogal at #401-207 WEST HASTINGS
ST VANCOUVER, B.C., V6B1H7,
TEL: (604) 687 0588 (w) (604) 872 2128 (h) ; FAX: (604) 688 0550 (w) (604)
872 1504 (h) ; E- mail: cfo...@netcom.ca
RESPONSE TO B.C.'S SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON THE SECESSION OF B.C FROM CANADA
IN THE EVENT OF QUEBEC SECESSION
THE VANCOUVER SUN, JULY 31,1997 highlights the released report of B.C.'s
constitutional advisory committee. This committee is headed by Gordon
Wilson, the sole representative in the legislature (and leader)of the
Progressive Democratic Alliance Party of B.C. (also former leader of the
B.C. Liberal party). Other committee members include Rafe Mair, CKNW Radio
Talk Show Host and Gordon Gibson, columnist, who also was another former
leader of the B.C. Liberal party.
The reporters Justine Hunter and Jim Beatty write, "Wilson and his panel of
authors all agreed that if the federal government's approach toward
national unity does not change, Quebecers will vote to separate in the next
four years."(p.A7).
Rafe Mair considers that the country will split if Ottawa amends the
constitutution to grant special status to Quebec. He says there is "no way"
British Columbians will continue in a country where half of their MP's come
from Ontario..."In the event of a breakup of the country, the people of
B.C. will expect that their government has prepared for that unpleasant
occurrence."
We are told that Gordon Gibson outlined the province's options if Quebec
votes to separate, and concluded that an independent nation of B.C. is
viable. (My emphasis). Gibson is quoted as having said, "This option would
work perfectly well, in both economic and political terms... There is no
doubt that leaders exist in British Columbia with the necessary talent to
lead an independent country". (Pardon me, but with such leaders as this
thinking proposes, we will not have an independent country).
Gibson proposes that an independent B.C. would not need to spend on
defence, would have free trade with Hong Kong, and would use the U.S.
dollar as currency. (My emphasis). Gibson provided other options including
creating a loose federation of the western provinces, a partnership of B.C
and Alberta, or a union with the American states of Washington and Oregon.
(This union is referred to as Cascadia.)
In my opinion, we hardly need to worry about the takeover of Canada by the
U.S. when our own internal forces and mechanisms of academics, government,
politicians, and opinion makers, and the Business Council on National
Issues (BCNI- an organization whose membership is 150 of the largest
corporations in Canada.) are in process of strategizing our handover and
Canadian demise.
U.S. thinkers are continuing to consider their readiness plans as our
leaders march us down the path to suicide. I refer to Charles F. Doran,
professor of International Relations at The Johns Hopkins University
writing in Foreign Affairs, Volume 75 No.5, September 1996 in an article
entitled "Will Canada Unravel: Plotting a Map If Quebec Secedes" (Thanks to
Eva Lyman for sending me the article.)
At p. 98, Doran poses the question, "Is the thesis of continuing Canadian
fragmentation after Quebec's secession plausible? Could North America
unravel? The United States must take the possibility seriously enough to
draw up plans for a form of supranational affiliation with the remnants of
Canada." (p.98.)
"Washington must be prepared for all contingencies. Fragmentation of
Canada, depending on its nature and extent, would transfer some of the cost
of administration from Ottawa to Washington. Washington increasingly would
take on the jobs of peacemaker, adjudicator, rule-maker, and police
officer.... The people of Quebec and every other province have grown
accustomed to a high degree of governmental attention and many public
services. No matter how arduosly it tries, the United States cannot emulate
that."(p.104)...
"...with decentralization, (my emphasis), the Canadian polity would remain
whole and the burden of administration, peacekeeping, and the provision of
services would remain primarily with Ottawa rather than Washington."(p.
106).... "If decentralization proves unworkable, or separation of Quebec
occurs anyway, then the United States must consider further options. One is
a new form of political interaction with those that find
themselves isolated. The concept is regional affiliation. (My emphasis)
Under certain circumstances, an affiliated polity could establish ties with
the United States."(p.106)...
"Treaties alone are not capable of providing the constancy that North
America will demand in political and security terms. This new form of
affiliation should be aimed midway between the fragilitiy of a treaty and
the rigidity of statehood. Political affiliation ought to address the basic
needs of people. Freedom of movement for goods, services, capital, and
people ought to be at the heart of the arrangement. ...The United States
would provide foreign security for the fragments of Canada. Apart from an
indigenous police force, they would not need a military. Citizens of an
affiliated polity would serve in the U.S armed forces, and payments would
be made to the United States through an appropriate formula for the
provision of this security. Yet the resulting entities would retain their
own governments, pay for the bulk of their own services, and for the most
part act as self-governing units" (p107)....
"Statehood is (another) possibility. However, neither fragment nor polity
should be under any illusion that the extension of statehood would be easy,
automatic, or trouble-free. On the Canadian side, adjustment to the
American lifestyle, to the kind of social safety net and medical insurance
programs Americans favor, to a political system that pampers less and
sometimes demands more, would not be easy, even for the most conservative
members of the Reform Party. Moreover, the Canadian fragments ought not to
delude themselves. While adjustments could be phased in over time, and some
exceptions could be made regarding conditions, the terms of admission to
the United States would essentially be American. Admission means
accession...(p107) ( My emphasis)
On the U.S. side, statehood for one or more disgruntled Canadian provinces
could likewise create strains. With the exception of perhaps one province,
Alberta, most Canadian constituents would vote to the left of the American
mainstream. Additon of new states north of the 49th parallel would thus
affect the partisanship and voting balance of the American
electorate."(p.106-107)
The Doran article quoted above leaves me no doubt that the American power
structure is hurrying their readiness for us. All the talk by the Reform
party and others of the necessity for more Canadian decentralization and
regionalization is a complicity in that readiness process. In my opinion,
the argument that more decentralization is necessary to keep Quebec in
Canada and to keep Canada together is diametrically opposed to reality. Any
more decentralization than we already have will render us dysfunctional as
a nation. That is the clear agenda in my view. Then, scenario number two as
set out by Doran above will click in- accession and admission to the U.S.-
on their terms!
Canada is already the most decentralized country in the World. We cannot
tolerate any more and still remain a nation.
Kimon Valaskakis and Angeline Fournier, authors of The Delusion of
Sovereignty (Would Independence Weaken Quebec? say at page 57, "No
federation in the world, not even Switzerland, is more decentralized than
our own...It would not be appropriate to call for a still greater dilution
of the Federal State, whether by means of the sort of
sovereignty-association some people dream of in Quebec, or massive
decentralization such as is proposed by some regional parties in Western
Canada. Such measure would hinder the much-required integrated management
of interdependence.
In fact, one of the driving forces of Quebec separatism is the absence of
centralisation in Canada. Premier Jacques Parizeau and Vice Premier Bernard
Landry have publicly said several times that they became independantistes
because Canada was too weak. (My emphasis). The theory that Canada is
excessively centralized shoud be scrapped since it is totally without
foundation....Large Provinces like Ontario and Quebec can have
macro-economic policies that contradict those of the federal government.
Moreover, the spending power of the provinces as a whole is greater than
that of the federal government. The federal government's share in the total
budget of the Canadian public sector is no less that 40%, the rest being in
the hands of the provincial governments."(pp. 57,58).
(Thanks to Angeline Fournier in Montreal for sending me a complimentary
copy of The Delusion of Sovereignty.) Angeline Fournier is Vice President
of the CDN Movement, (Citizens For A Democratic Nation). Me. Guy Bertrand,
the lawyer challenging the constitutionality of a unilateral declaration of
Independence by Quebec, is the President of Citizens For A Democratic
Nation. The Delusion of Sovereignty is available through General
Distribution Services; fax 1-416-445-5967; tel 1-800-387-0141or
1-800-387-0172)
In my view, further decentralization will destroy Canada. To accede to
demands by the provinces or by certain political parties for more
decentralization is to guarantee the dissolution of Canada. At least one
Canadian political party has an explicit agenda that will fulfill the
scenario set out above by Doran.The modus operandi and goal of the Reform
Party is to effect a staggering total decentralization and regionalization
of Canada.
For anyone unclear about the real agenda of Preston Manning, Leader of The
Reform Party, I refer to and quote from a speech he gave in New York, May
25, 1995 to the Americas Society titled Restructuring Canada. (Thanks to
Bev Collins 1997 CAP candidate Kootenays for forwarding this speech to me).
Manning said,"Discontent with the operations of Canadian federalism,
particularly in the West and Quebec, is likely to force a significant
decentralization of power in our federal system...I do believe the desire
of many Canadian federalists both within and outside Quebec for a major
decentralization of the federal power (particularly with respect to the
delivery of social services) must be accommodated." (p.1)...
"By 1997-98, transfers to lenders (increasingly U.S. lenders) will have
displaced transfers to provinces and social transfers to individuals as the
biggest spending category in the budget of the Government of Canada. Most
significantly, these increased interest costs on a ballooning federal debt
will come at a time when the Government of Canada will be facing increased
social security costs arising from an aging population which regards social
security as a matter of right."
"These increased interest costs will also come at a time when Canada faces
the need to rebuild or realign much of its physical infrastructure (roads,
railways, ports, telecommunications) to better facilitate north- south
trade as distinct from east-west trade." (p.2)... (My emphasis and
underlining.)
"To balance the Canadian federal budget it is necessary to make significant
reductions in social spending. This cannot be avoided, and must include
reductions in transfers to individuals for things like Unemployment
Insurance and Old Age Security, and reductions in tranfers to provinces for
such services as health care, education, and social assistance."
"To make these cuts saleable politically, it is not enough to simply
propose them and leave individuals and provinces to deal with the
consequences. It is imperative to propose at the same time a restructuring
and financing of social security in such a way as to enable individuals and
provinces to maintain an adequate level of personal and collective social
security for fewer dollars. So...we boldly propose social spending cuts ...
and organisational reform of social security with a heavy emphasis on
personalizing social security and provincializing and localizing the
delivery of social services." (p.3)...
"With respect to the reform of federal programs for the support of health
care, higher education and social asssistance, we advocate a much greater
degree of localization and provincialization of the delivery of services,
and propose transferring tax points to the provinces to facilitate this."
"While these proposed reforms to the way we provide social security contain
significant room for privatization, that is not the main thrust. The main
emphasis is on personalization of social security v.s. reliance on huge
impersonal government systems- on decentralization v.s. centralization of
delivery."
"And in Canada, while there are many people who would reject these reforms
outright if they were presented starkly in terms of private vs. public
responsibility for social welfare, the potential for support among
Canadians right across the spectrum is greater if these reforms are
presented in terms of the personalization, localization, and
decentralization of social security" (p.4)....
"I was discussing with political and business leader, the need for
rebuilding and refinancing infrastructure on both sides of the border, in
order to better facilitate increased north- south trade between our
Atlantic provinces and your New England states." (p.4)... (My emphasis).
"This means that the discussion of re-establishment and realigning
infrastructure links between Atlantic Canada and New England (my emphasis)
must include the discussion of innovative financing and development
techniques. These might include privatization of infrastructure (my
emphasis) which was previously publicy owned, user-pay systems,
public-private joint ventures, short -line railways, information highway
links, and full-cost accounting (including environmental costs) for
transportation systems." (p.5)
In another speech to the St John, New Brunswick Board of Trade on May
11,1995 entitled "Atlantica", Preston Manning repeated the same seduction
to the North South link and the disintegration of the East- West links of
Canada. (I urge all to obtain and read both speeches in their entirety to
see the difference in statements on the social safety net as revealed to
the U.S. audience compared to the Canadian Audience).
In both speeches he refers to "Atlantica" and "Cascadia". He defines
"Atlantica" as including four and one half provinces (New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and part of Quebec) and six
states (Main,Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
Massachusetts. He defines "Cascadia" as being Alberta, B.C., Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska.
To the St John Board of Trade, on Cascadia, he said,"...business and
government people in (Cascadia) have been meeting regularly to figure out
ways of increasing trade within the region, in particular to improve the
infrastructure required to facilitate this trade." On "Atlantica" he told
them, "People point out to me the current inefficiencies and run-down
condition of the rail links and the north-south road connections. They
wonder out loud what a modern, high-speed highway (financed in part by use
as well as public authorities) from Halifax to Moncton to Saint John to
Bangor, Maine to join I-95 with a U.S. link through Maine to Montreal,
would do for the whole region. And they suggest that the trade facilitated
by that highway alone would do more for Atlantic Canada than all the
DREE/DFOR, ACOA grants of the last twenty years."
In my view this is not the language of a statesman dedicated to the
Canadian interest or to the Canadian citizens. This is the language of the
Global elite. It fits in with the strategy inherent in the Multilateral
Agreement on Investments. It has everything to do with making the world a
playing field exclusively in the best interest of a global elite.It has
everything to do with the New World Order that removes citizens rights and
freedoms. Make no mistake, the language of "decentralization" and of
"regionalization" is the vehicle to deliver us into the hands of that new
world order. Weak, castrated federal nation states will crumble, capitulate
and submit to the power of the global interests. That is the intent.
Give the benefit of the doubt to many of these proponents of
regionalization and decentralization. Say they are "unwitting fools". But
what difference the consequence to be damned by an unwitting fool, a half
wit, or a witting traitor?
MY CONCLUSION is that it is essential that Canadian Action Party members
and all caring Canadians face these issues for the treachery that they are.
If we want to remain free citizens and Canadians, the time is shorter than
we think! The forces against the Canadian interest are stronger than we
realize and moving rapidly to destroy not only our sovereignty, and our
very nationhood, but also our individual liberties.
I write this paper for myself to have ready at hand the points set out
herein, but also to present to CAP for consideration and comment. It is my
hope that CAP will be a vehicle to raise these points specifically in the
interest of Canadians. No political party provincially or federally is
speaking out on these issues and tying everything together. None has
clearly nor forcefully delineated the process unfolding. None is warning
the citizenry. If CAP does not do it, what hope? The agenda is being
effected and is taking hold so rapidly that individuals cannot expect to
quench the fire.
If you agree with what I have set out in this paper, if you share my
concerns, and if you have broadcasting capacity or even have only a few fax
contacts, I urge you to distribute this information and this argument for
contemplation by the ordinary citizen. Link by link by link we can forge
protection for ourselves.
CONNIE FOGAL August 2, 1997
--- end of quoted message ---
--
For MAI-not subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other MAI sites please see http://www.flora.org/mai-not/