This page was originally found in Jeff Koftinoff's Canadian Conspiracy Pages,
through a link from the Green Party of Canada.
Redistributed by abfackeln for The RANCH.


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul <paul.ricci@rogers.com>

Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:13 PM
Subject: The Grand Canal Project & The Destruction of Canada - It's About Water !!

I present to you the following, as I do all such similar news and articles that cross my desk. It is for your consideration and edification. It is also in hopes of getting people to become more aware (get the old brain thinking) of what is happening around them and to ask more questions, like "What if". This does not mean that I necessarily agree with every comment offered by other writers. As always, when evaluating what is and is not truth, each of us must decide for ourselves -- an abiding principle of personal responsibility in all things, including our willingness (or refusal) to allow our minds to be molded by others.
 


THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF CANADA

THE QUEBEC REFERENDUM

THE GRAND CANAL PROJECT

US-CANADIAN CONTINENTAL UNION BY 2005

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:

  1. GLEN KEALEY: is the former Hull, Quebec, commercial developer who exposed the system of organized crime and corruption run by ex-Prime Minister Mulroney's government and the complicity of the RCMP and the justice system.

    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]
     

  2. SHELLEY ANN CLARK: the executive assistant to Germain Denis, Brian Mulroney's personal appointee to the Free Trade Agreement negotiations, during which plans were made to dismember and demolish Canada, first by Quebec's separation, and then by Continental Union in 2005.
     
  3. GEORGE KRALIK: An eleven-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces.

PLEASE RE-POST THE ENTIRE SERIES


THE FOLLOWING ASTOUNDING INTERVIEW HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM "NEW WORLD ORDER: CORRUPTION IN CANADA", PUBLISHED IN DECEMBER, 1994, BUT NOW OUT OF PRINT


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.

BACK ROOM MANIPULATIONS IN FREE TRADE DEAL

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.

THE INTEGRATION OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

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):

  1. Back Mulroney with cash and spin-doctors. Send money through the Mormon Bishop of Virginia, up to Winnipeg, and then to Montreal.
     
  2. Once elected, link Mulroney with Simon Reisman, the former Deputy Minister of Finance. Reisman is presently the Director of the Grand Canal fresh water diversion scheme.
     
  3. Appoint Reisman to lead a negotiating team which arrives from Canada begging for a Free Trade Deal. Let them pretend to be ne