quoted from:
APRIL 5, 1994 Pages 10-16

Canadian-American Free Trade Deception

(Contact) Editor's note: The following is a transcription of an audio tape sent in to the office by a loyal CONTACT reader in Canada. This is an incredible interview in which you will hear about some of the more outrageous shenanigans which went on concerning the shaping of the so-called Free Trade Agreement by a career bureaucrat who was involved with the matter from the Canadian side of the dance floor. In the larger picture, the revelations are universal.


With host, Dave Rutherford

We have here Shelley Ann Clark with the Federal Civil Service. She has some information from behind the scenes of the Free Trade Agreement. She was asked by her boss, she said, to do some very secretive midnight paper shredding, clause altering, skullduggery. She says the provinces were basically lied to. Her story hasn't reached the West, yet. I see it in one bit of media in the East, but so far very few media have picked up the story, so you are going to hear about it today, probably for the very first time. The free trade charade, she says.
We are finding out from somebody who was a career bureaucrat, who was indeed inside government, right there. Her name is Shelley Ann Clark and Shelley Ann Clark is joining me right now.
D: Hello, Shelley Ann.
S: Good afternoon, Dave.
D: Well you were indeed inside. Tell us the role you played, the positions you held in the federal government at the time of the free trade negotiations.
S: I was the executive assistant to the third in command, Germain Denis, who was the one reporting directly to Brian Mulroney, which was most unusual because the chain of command in federal government at those levels should have been Mulroney to Reeseman directly, which he did at times; but, the secrecy of the phone calls between the third in command and Mulroney made it possible for me to realize that something was going on that wasn't quite kosher right from the start.
D: Ok, so you know, Simon Reeseman, for those of you who have forgotten, chief negotiator for the Free Trade Agreement. Germain Denis was also on the negotiating team, was he?
S: Yes, he was the third down the line of command but he had the major areas of agriculture and subsidies.
D: Ok. In what department did you work for?
S: The Department of External Affairs, which is presently known as Foreign Affairs.
D: Ok, you're in external affairs. You're in the trade negotiation role. What was your job?
S: I was principally the main liaison between the trade negotiations office and the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council. [A select group of individuals with more power than the Prime Minister and which functions as the Queen of England's direct means for controlling Canadian Parliament ].
D: Did you speak with the PMO [Prime Minister's Office] and Privy Council people?
S: Yes, I did, indeed. They would come to me for directives at all times or any complaints they received from the provinces.
D: You couldn't get any closer to the heart of government. You were right there?
S: I was right there. Dead center. Yes, that's correct.
D: Now, some of what you've said about the free trade negotiations at this time back in the late '80s and '88, of course, in the election year when free trade was shown to us, given to us, rammed down our throats, whichever way you want to perceive it. At that time what were you asked to do that you didn't like doing.
S: I was asked to come in at midnight to prepare the briefing books for the provinces. The first time around I didnít understand the midnight business until I got there and I was asked to bring up the text from what had been negotiated in Washington and create an entire different file on the computer and asked to delete certain paragraphs, especially where energy was concerned and our water supplies and subsidies. I was asked to delete entire paragraphs and to alter the figures. If we had given away 50% to the Americans, I was asked to show only 10% to the provinces.
D: Ok. Now you are dealing with...
S: I'm dealing with a computer screen and I've created a second file stemming from the main negotiating file which had been used in Washington.
D: So Simon Reeseman and his negotiators meet with the Americans. They agree to a certain section, bring it back, type it up.
S: They bring it back and give it to Germain Denis and we pull it up on the screen. And Germain Denis, who would be briefing particular members of each province, would ask me to create a separate briefing book. To create that separate briefing book which was presented to the provinces, I had to create a second file on the computer, make the changes, delete the paragraphs, change the figures, then promptly erase it from the network. That second file was always deleted from the network completely, so all I had left would be one version which I would then photocopy ten times for the ten provinces, which were presented to the provinces. I had total control. Each book was numbered. Alberta would have number one. New Brunswick number two, etc., etc., so that if any book would have gone missing after he had briefed them, we would know exactly who would have the book. These people were never given the time to photocopy anything. They were given the book five minutes before the briefing would start. The books would be picked up immediately afterwards.
D: Shelley Ann, this is deliberate deception of the provinces.
S: Absolutely, extremely deliberate plus what I took out to the...I was asked to sneak out the material to Germain Denis to the trunk of his car and all of this was reported to the Public Service Alliance on July 22, 1988. I put forth a complaint using them as the vehicle in order to bring it to someone's attention safely as to what had been done. My report is dated July 22,1988, to the Public Service Alliance and in there it reports the entire story of everything that I carried out to this official's car and I had to sneak out through a period of between 12:00 noon and 6:00 p.m. at night at particular intervals. Amongst the documents that went out to the trunk of that car was a particular document that is the one that is totally disastrous for this country. It is the one showing the implementation scheme to arrive at a point where Canada would have to "sell out* to the United States.
D: What do you mean "sell out"?
S: "Sell out", in the sense that they are, the first step that would have to occur would be that Quebec separates. That is why Lucien Bouchard is in place. The second was the Grand Canal project keeping all of our, containing all of our, damming the James Bay, keeping the water in such a way that it was re-routed through to the states and from there we ' would be short of water. So, if you take away all of our minerals and resources and separate Quebec, Canada would be in a very desperate economic situation and we would have to send an SOS to the United States for them to come and help out.
D: Shelley, I'm going to stop you there for a second. What you have said, we are going to take a couple of minutes to absorb this because there are so many questions springing from this. Ill take a commercial break and come back. Shelley Ann Clark is my guest. We are going to find out where you are now, what you are doing, and who else knew about this whole scenario. We are talking about her involvement,óshe saw it happen, inside government, the heart of government during the free trade negotiations and what was told to the public in the provinces, and what really happened. We're back after this.

D: Good afternoon. I'm Dave Rutherford. My guest is Shelley Ann Clark who has a story to tell about her involvement in free trade negotiations. I say "involvement" like you were some sort of criminal. You actually did blow the whistle in July, 1988. What happened after that? Where is that report today at the Public Service Alliance?
S: The report was returned to me with a covering letter by the Public Service Alliance telling-me to destroy this document immediately because, should it fall into the wrong hands, it would be highly dangerous. The document was returned to me and this is the document that was sent out and disclosed to the media and to all the premiers of every province across the country by my lawyer, Mr. Harold Funk, who was my lawyer at the time of the disclosure last June. So there have been several disclosures. On May 26, 1993, there was a first disclosure to the Prime Minister of Canada, Kim Campbell at the time, and to all the ten provinces and to the media across the country by my lawyer. Then on June 3, 1993, our local radio and television station CJ AWAKES, Charlie Greenwell's Insider's Report, was given a disclosure which they aired for approximately 45 seconds and after that I have been disclosing using the vehicle of the National Party and the last election.
D: Alright, I'll ask you about your political involvement in a second but I want to go back to what creating these separate files now, and the negotiator, Simon Reeseman, etc., bringing back what they had agreed to do with the Americans and you creating a secondary file, changing numbers, changing information, virtually destroying the original agreement and deceiving the provinces. At that point, who do you think knew about that?
S: I would have to say from what I observed that Germain Denis was in on it with Mulroney and perhaps, Gerald Shannon, who was the Deputy Minister of International Trade at the time.
D: The Prime Minister was aware of it?
S: Oh, yes, because there were conversations directly between Germain Denis and the Prime Minister.
D: Was it organized and engineered by the Prime Minister's office?
S: I'm sure that it was organized and engineered by Mulroney and whoever was instructing him.
D: Who do you think was instructing him?
S: Well, I guess it would be the, it would have to be the bankers who give all the money to support Mulroney in his campaign. They would have complete control over him.
D: You are suggesting, though, that the potential for virtually destroying Canada was there and agreed to and Mr. Denis had a copy of it that you spirited out to his car, this implementation agreement. Why would they do that?
S: They could not possibly afford to let the provinces see any of what had been done because the provinces, even though we didn't need the act governing all of this does not require the signature of the provinces to get the Free Trade through, they still needed the agreement of the provinces because it meant the provinces would have to change their trade rules to begin with. Indeed, they would have certainly made a humungous fuss at our having to sell out to the U.S. by the year 2005, which is when the implementation scheme is geared for.
D: 2005?
S: Yes. That's what is on the chart.
D: Those agreements on oil and water that you altered, do you remember what the originals said?
S: Well, I wouldn't remember exact figures at this point in time because, as I repeated many times to the (garbled) as they were investigating, I never, even though I had every opportunity, knowing the penalty for stealing a government document, I never did take a copy for myself even though the opportunity was there.
I am going by what I wrote to the PSAC in 1988, plus memory, but I don't remember exact figures. I remember approximate figures but the year 2005 is something that is major and that I am not guessing at. That was an accurate figure on the chart.
D: There has been much concern about water in the Free Trade Agreement. People who don't like the free trade deal always raise water as this secret thing that's going to happen and the Americans are going to suck all the fresh water out of Canada.
S: Well, they are absolutely right. I have saved every article when we are talking about water and every study that I have read and all their assumptions are absolutely correct because water is one of the major things that they arc planning to deprive us and to let the States have and then we would have to purchase it from the States.
D: Shelley, I want to talk a little more about you and your background because the reaction some people will say is, "You're a nut. This woman is a total nut and why should we believe her?"
S: Well, I guess I have been with the Department of Foreign Affairs since 1961. I've had a top secret clearance and to obtain a top secret clearance, which I still have to present day and which has never been removed, and I've been an employee. I would have to say that the investigative work and all the investigation carried out by CSIS and RCMP before you can obtain a top-secret clearance should take care of any assumption' that I am nuts or unbalanced. They even research back into almost 100 years of your family background when you get top secret clearance to see if there has been anyone that has been mentally ill in your family. And if your grandmother had been mentally ill in your family, they would hesitate before giving anyone a top secret clearance. The fact that today I am an employee of the Department of External Affairs still and that nothing has been. removed speaks for itself.
D: Where are you now? Are you working in government anywhere now?
S: I have been on paid leave for exactly one year, right up until December 23. After the new government was in place on December 23, I received a call and I'm in a high profile position within the Department of External Affairs.
D: Does the change in government then ...
S: Yes, I would say that it had an impact because before we had a change in government I was staying home on full-paid leave.
D: Shelley Ann, I want to talk to you some more about this. Frankly, it is chilling. There are huge repercussions to what you say.
S: The repercussions are just so enormous. That's why I tried to use the Public Service Alliance to submit, to disclose, believing that I would get their protection because I know the enormity of what I am saying. Unfortunately, they left the decision with their number one as to whether to report it or not and the number one decided not to say a word.
D; Shelley Ann, stay with me please. We are talking about the free trade negotiations and Shelley Ann Clark's knowledge of what really happened.

D: I'm Dave Rutherford of the Alberta Talknetwork. My guest is 32-year veteran of the Civil Service, Shelley Ann Clark, who is telling us the story that has tremendous proportions. I'm going to have to say if true, Shelley Ann, because there is no way we can really verify this ourselves until something happens, and then we can say, "Oh, my gosh, she was right!". What about the RCMP, [Royal Canadian Mounted Police ] what is their role? They looked at it. Are they going to fully investigate?
S: No, they're not. They officially decided that because I didn't have any documents to back it up and that it did not require the signature of the provinces, that there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation. But I must say that I have written a letter to the Liberal ministers imploring them to have the canisters opened up where the Free Trade Agreement is locked up outside of Ottawa. The Free Trade Agreement, all the negotiating documents should have been in the archives for the Canadian public to view but they are not.
D: They are not now.
S: They are not now and even if a person or anyone, even someone like myself - I went there with a researcher and asked if I put in an access to information request, exactly what would I get. I was told that the act governing the access to information had declared the free trade negotiation documents, approximately 95% of it, a threat to Canada's national security.
D: You mean revealing them would be a threat to national security?
S: Yes, to Canada's national security. That I have evidence of: that I was told by the person, a Mr. Paul Maraden, that is the person in charge of all the free trade negotiating documents said to me, in front of a witness, a Mr. Bruce Campbell, who is a researcher and wrote the book, TAKE BACK THE NATION with Maude Barlow, who is the chairperson of the Council of Canadians. He was with me and he heard it also. I was told that approximately 95% of the documents could not be released because they had been declared a threat to Canada's national security and when we asked, we both asked immediately the same question as to when Canadians would get to see the document, we were told in approximately 30 years time.
D: Ok. If, in fact, and I'm not that familiar with how computers work, if you were there and were revising documents and made a hard copy, you printed it, is it not saved somewhere in that system electronically?
S: No. We had the key word that would delete everything even though someone has come forward, there is a newspaper that was carrying and following my story every single month. Apparently at Christmas time on December 22, they put out a further story on me and someone came forth, who would not reveal their name, but apparently this person, who was transferring material from the computer files to the archive stated to this journalist that I was telling the absolute truth and that he or she had seen what I was talking about.
0: So the revised documents then are somewhere.
S: This is what this person is saying. This person is saying that somewhere in the computer files she (he or she) has seen exactly what I'm talking about.
D: Ok. I guess that must mean that they have seen the original and the revised ones, which are the ones that are in the hands of the provinces, in fact, are fraudulent.
S: Everything that's in the hands of the public or the provinces is totally the incorrect version. Two versions came out. The first version that came out which I personally carried and gave to the Prime Minister in his hands was carried by me. On October 4, 1987, I brought to the Prime Minister of Canada the 33 paged summarized version of what had been agreed to on that famous weekend of October 2 and 3, 1987, in Washington. This was the weekend where Reeseman was left out in the hallway and the negotiations went on with James Baker all by himself in the star chamber but with Carney, and Wilson, and Derrick Burney from Canada. That version that came out was delivered to the Prime Minister on the Monday morning after that famous weekend by me. Now the second version that came out was the legal version. Then there is a third version that's the real version.
D: Now the one you gave the Prime Minister is not.
S: That was just a summary. What I gave to the Prime Minister was a summary and that is what he tabled that Monday morning at the House of Commons.
D: Are you saying that summary two is fraudulent?
S: Well the summary has absolutely no details. It's 33 pages compared to the legal version that is 1500.
D: Shelley Ann, stay with me. I need one more break. We have to take a newsbreak from the newsrooms here in Alberta and well come back with your story, Shelley Ann Clark. If you are on the phone lines waiting to talk to her, I know many people are. They'll have questions I have not asked. We are talking about the free trade negotiations, the paper work that is different. In external affairs in her role, you have heard her tell her story and it really is a chilling story, if you think of the ramifications of what this means. Shelley Ann has told us there is the legitimate, the real agreement between Canada and the U.S. for the Free Trade Agreement from 1987, '88. The real one has some very, very scary implications in it including the wholesale, is it sale or giveaway of our water, Shelley?
S: We'd be giving it away and we would have to purchase it back from the States.
D: The water has been a key concern of critics of free trade. Before I get to my phone calls are you motivated byóyou mentioned Maude Barlow, the Council of Canadians which have been anti-free trade for along time and Maude Barlow has been in the studio talking about her objections to free trade, or are you motivated by the fact that you saw illegal subversive things going on?
S: Illegal subversive things which are destroying the country because I have children who are part of this country, who will be severely affected by the time this is in place.
D: The RCMP won't pursue it any further because you don't have hard documentation. Do you think that's the real reason?
S: No, I don't believe that that is the real reason. I know that the commissioner of the RCMP was a Mulroney appointee. Surely, that has affected the decision to an enormous degree. Perhaps, well have more hope when his term is up.
D; What have you heard, or have you heard anything from the provinces, the recipients of the doctored version?
S: I have heard from the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan who thanked us for the documentation and said they would carry out an investigation.
D: Nothing from those yet, that you know of?
S: No, nothing at all. What I am counting on is that Canadians would start calling or writing to the Prime Minister's Office requesting that they break into the canisters and have a look at what's there.
D: These canisters are containing what?
S: These canisters, apparently, all the negotiating documents are in sealed canisters 16 miles outside of Ottawa.
D: Where are they held? In a bunker somewhere?
S: I have to assume that they are in our bunkers that are out there and I have already put in a request to our federal Liberal ministers that something be done about entering those sealed canisters. But, I think it would be far more effective if instead of just me asking, that the rest of the country started writing in to the Prime Minister demanding that they get into those sealed canisters.
D: Even though this was negotiated under the Mulroney government, the Liberal government has proclaimed it. I mean it's a done deal. What motivation is there by the Chretien government to open things up again?
S: Because if Chretien means it, that he cares for this country, he should want to have a look at what I'm saying is the truth because if he can find the evidence that I'm telling the truth, perhaps he can do something about it before we are sold out to the States. Or perhaps Chretien wants us to be part of the U.S. It all depends on how he feels personally. I have no idea. Does Chretien want us to be part of the U.S., therefore he won't open the canisters?
D: Well some would say he proclaimed North American Free Trade rather quickly. We were the first country to endorse it so I don't know. We don't know what the motivation of either of these governments is at the moment.
S: Exactly. Especially since they are funded by the same people. So one has to have a serious concern about that.
D: Shelley Ann, my listeners want to talk to you. Is that alright?
S: Yes, absolutely.
D: Ok. Let's go to phone calls from across the province. First to Steve. Hi, Steve, go ahead.
Steve: Good afternoon, Dave and Shelley. I was just wondering. There are a couple of things you ought to be aware of. It's amazing that you are not a hit-and-run yet, Shelley.
S: Absolutely amazing, you are right.
D: But, on that point. Obviously, we've all thought of that, Shelley Ann. Are you taking protective measures?
S: No. I have not taken any protective measures even though I have had my life threatened twice, because I feel that it is in the hands of others and if I am meant to die, I could die crossing the street tomorrow, so if they want to get to me there arc no protective measures that I could take that would guarantee my safety. I have learned to accept the fact that they could get me at any time.
D: And your family.
S: Yes, absolutely.
Steve: Ok, Shelley. What about the generation of jobs or the actual job loss in this country. Has some paperwork been manipulated on that as well? I'm just wondering that if like the way we have to increase our company productivity in this country, we have to buy new equipment which would automatically displace all kinds of workers. I'm thinking of, like a backhoe. Every time the city company buys a backhoe it probably displaces 20 or 30 ditchdiggers, let's say.
D: Are you concerned about the information that comes out of the government generally, Steve?
Steve: Yes. Is that correct that we are going to get more jobs or are we actually going to lose a whole pile of jobs?
S: Oh, you are not going to get more jobs. Absolutely not.
Steve: I'm aware of that. I'm just wondering why the media and a lot of the government keeps pushing that we are going to get more jobs than we can shake a stick at. I cant buy that as truth at all.
S: Ok. Well, the media, first of all, are owned by several of Mulroney's friends, therefore, the media is controlled. That's why here in Ottawa no one has printed up on the Free Trade story.
D: Shelley, let's be clear. When you say the media, primarily, do you mean the print media?
S: Yes. I'm talking about the print media plus, of course, CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] which is owned by government.
D: Has the CBC done anything with your story?
S: Absolutely not. They won't touch it.
D: Private television has CJOH in Ottawa.
S: CJOH did one month's worth of investigation and the lawyers cleared that they could go ahead.
D: And obviously, we're doing it today. Have you done many of these interviews?
S: I've done Montreal. CJAD, a main radio station in Montreal, and I have done many other private interviews for secondary newspapers.
D: Steve, thanks. I've got to move along. There are a lot of questions about this. But the media, generally, has not picked up the story, sensational as it is. Had this been in the U.S. you'd be on the front page of every newspaper in America.
S: Exactly, because I was interviewed by a major radio station in New York City in November.
D: So the control, you think, the arms of the political and financial control reach into the media so deeply your story is being ignored.
S: Absolutely. There is no shadow of a doubt about that, especially that the Ottawa Citizen here, our main newspaper. People were putting extreme pressure on them to write up on Shelley Ann Clark and after several months of pressure they came up with a story on a Shelley Ann Clark that was blind and was a social director for the John Howard Society. So now when someone says you haven't written up on Shelley Ann Clark, they can say they have.
D: Alright, well go to Dan. Thanks for waiting. Go ahead.
Dan: Good afternoon. First I'm going to assume that everything you are saying is totally true. Now, I'm going to make a few comments. You are saying Quebec is going to be leaving. Well, first of all, the people of Quebec have to vote in referendum to leave. Let's say they vote to leave. Now, financially, the rest of Canada would be much better off if Quebec left because all those billions and trillions of dollars that we've been pouring into their economy to keep them afloat wouldn't be going in there anymore. Now, another thing that you mentioned, that sounds totally absurd is the damming of James Bay. Why would they dam James Bay when just a few hundred miles to the south you have five Great Lakes. The only areas of the United States that actually need water is Southern California, parts of Arizona and eastern Texas. This is absurd.
S: If it seems absurd, then I have to ask you why Simon Reeseman was the head of that project in 1985 and was making plans for it already two years prior to, one year prior to becoming the ambassador for the free trade negotiations. Simon Reeseman was already discussing the project of the Grand Canal and secondly, by re-routing the water from James Bay out into the Great Lakes and out into the ocean beyond that would provide you with only salt water at this end and we would have to purchase our fresh water.
Dan: Ok, now the water in James Bay is practically fresh water. There is very little salt in there and it would probably cost at least a trillion U.S. dollars to build it and...
S: But Canada is planning to do this.
Dan: Well I don't think that we could afford to do that. We are talking at least, this is about 150 kilometers across at least.
S: I have the plan. I have the plan. I know exactly about the cost.
D: But Shelley, what do you mean you have the plan?
S: Well there is a map showing exactly where this Grand Canal will be built. I have a copy of that.
Dan: Ok, you may have this, but I think it is in somebody's deluded mind that they can realistically do this.
S: Well then you should be speaking to Simon Reeseman because he was the one selling the idea.
Dan: Well, fine. He may try to sell an absurd idea. Anybody can do that but what is driving me crazy is that this is a typical Canadian attitude that my God, we have these resources, let's keep them in the ground forever. Let's not sell them.
D: But, Dan, despite your agreement or disagreement about the sale of water, that really is secondary. It is whether or not you and I were told the truth about what's in the Free Trade Agreement.
Dan: Now, that's the only thing that bothers me. But, everything really sounds so .absurd if it was totally true.
S: That's why they have labeled those negotiations a threat to Canada's national security, is because what they have done is absolute treason: By disguising documents, I would agree.
D: Thank you for your suspicions because we should be suspicious of what Shelley Ann is telling us, but based upon everything you've said so far, it's impossible for us to verify one way or other. You were inside, we weren't, and that's the story. Larry, go ahead.
Larry: Shelley Ann, first of all, I think you are a very brave person and the epitome of a patriot: I 'm wondering, on the Access To Information Act, when you say that 95% would be declared for national security, is there any way to expedite it so that you could re-list it to them and have it made available for the-court's eyes only? Surely, the judges are... ē
S: The judges are Mulroney appointed judges, most of them.
Larry: Surely they can't say the judges are a threat to our national security, and thereby they could look at it. We wouldn't have to or you wouldn't have to. If I were a judge and they refused to let me look at it, I would be pretty upset.
S: Well, somebody would have to take this to court to demand that the judges take a look.
D: Based on that, who would you trust to look at it?
S: Exactly; there is no one I would trust to look at it.
Larry: But, in order to get the canisters out, you are going to have to go through the courts to do it.
S: Exactly, but can you imagine the sums of money it would take from me to take this to court! I don't have that kind of money to take it to court myself and that's why I have been appealing, even although I could be appealing to the wrong government to do something about it. If the Chretien government refuses to do anything about this, it should tell Canadians where they stand because if I did not ask them you would never know where the Chretien government stands.
D: Thank you, Larry. What about the other side of the deal, the American side? Are they as secretive, have they done the same thing to states and to other people?
S: Well, I was told by some people in my writing, some researchers that have gone into Washington to try, when I first brought out the story, to try and locate some documents, thinking that there they would find something but, they did not. They've been just as secretive.
D: So is there then a public version and the real version in the U.S.?
S: That's correct.
D: Nancy, go ahead. This was related to me by these researchers that went down to Washington.
Nancy: I will but please don't cut me off because I've got some juicy information about this too. I really appreciate what Shelley Ann is doing. We were working with David Orcheck against the Free Trade Agreement and the little version that Mulroney was dragging around during the campaign was just for the public. The other is supposed to be a secret one. Now I have one of these and you know what I heard ...
D: You have one of what?
Nancy: The Free Trade Agreement. The original one, the good one and the short one, too.
D: Ok.
Nancy: But you see, when the fellow was talking with Mr. Chretien, Mr. Chretien demanded he see some revision of, you know, NAFTA, but the American guy on TV said, "No. Everything's good." And I knew why, because this about the water is what Chretien was worried about. It didnít have to be in NAFTA because it is in the Free Trade Agreement. It was made and I've got that in my book. It says Canadians are obliged to provide U.S.A. with water, ice, and snow. I wish they'd come and take it today from Edmonton. They are supposed to provide it and even at the same cost or even lower than the Canadians.
D: Ok, but the people who interpreted that would say that's bottled water. That's not free-flowing rivers.
S: That's not free-flowing, that's correct. That is bottled water.
Nancy: Why snow? Why snow?
S: Because that can be self-contained.
Nancy: I see, but, anyway I took this out when Mr. Mulroney didn't know about it. I duplicated that and I wrote to him. I wrote a letter. It applies to the energy as well. Even if the United States got into war, Canada is supposed to provide energy for them even if it is short in Canada.
S: That is part two because the energy chapter was only included on the famous weekend of October 2-3, 1987. Before then they were refusing to include it as a separate chapter.
D: But Nancy, you've got the NAFTA agreement, North American Free Trade, not the original Free Trade?
Nancy: No, I havenít got that one. But Iíll tell you what I did. I duplicated copies and I sent copies about this energy to Mr Chretien, personal, I wrote. I sent it to Paul Martin, the Finance Minister. I sent it to Mr. Manning and the leader of the Party of the Reform Party, all four of them and months ago, and now on the first one I hear that Mr. Mulroneyís government accepted the Free Trade Agreement as is, God have mercy on us.
D: No response from anybody, no response from any of the leaders of the party? Nancy: No response from any of them.
S: I believe her! I believe her!
D: Nancy, thanks.
Nancy: You're doing an awful good job and we'll protect you 100%.
S: Well, thank you very much.
D: Shelley Ann Clark is my guest. We are talking to you about the Free Trade Agreement and what Shelley Ann has seen going on behind the scenes. We're back with your calls after this quick break on the Alberta Talknetwork.
D: Good afternoon. I'm Dave Rutherford on the Alberta Talknetwork. My guest is Shelley Ann Clark who has a story of incredible intrigue, subversion, a conspiracy theory. Shelley Ann, the people who'd know about this must be quite extensive on the inside of the core of power. You're the only leak, is that it?
S: Yes, that's correct. I'm the only leak.
D: Shelley Ann, to be perfectly blunt, I don't know why you are allowed to walk around.
S: I don't know, either, except that there must be people who are against it and I am convinced that certain things were done in order to put me in a position that I would indeed leak the information for them.
D: Alright. The conspiracy is even broader then. There are those working behind the scenes controlling you as you leak the information, in opposition to those behind the scenes who are controlling the other side.
S: One is assuming that I have been put in position to do such a thing and that's why nothing has been done to me. You have to assume that there are many who have found out about this that wanted it out. That I was the person to do it, because there has to be a reason why nothing has happened.
D: Yes, there does have to be a reason. Stan, Hi, Good afternoon.
Stan: Good afternoon. Very, very interesting. I've studied things like this now for a number of years. I was wondering if Shelley Ann could tell the people of Alberta who actually controls the government. We always assume that the people vote the politicians into power and that they're the ones that control what's going on but in her position she actually knows that it's big money, it's business, the shadow government that controls the politicians. If she could just kind of maybe enlighten the Albertans about that?
S: Yes. The government- whatever government is in power is controlled. We will take the Conservatives and the Liberals as an example, that they are both being funded by the same bankers. The leaders are being controlled by the same bankers. They are funded, there is a funding for the PCs [Progressive Conservative Party, also called Conservatives and the PCs] and the Liberals and all the funds are being provided by the same people.
D: But you're saying this is not money that is obviously reported to anybody.
S: No, this is secret money and by having that kind of control they are able, they pull the strings like it's the leaders' republic, they tell them what they want and what to do.
D: Alright, Stan, thanks for questioning. I have to move along to one more quick call. I know our time is short. It goes by so quickly.
Barbara, nil
Barbara; I wanted to thank you, Dave, for having this program. I also wanted to thank Shelley Ann. She must be a very brave and courageous lady.
D:. This is Barbara Baxter, Council of Canadians. Barbara, Good afternoon.
Barbara: And what Shelley Ann is saying fits with much of what we know about the Free Trade Agreement, and as I understand, of course I didn't hear the whole program, but what she is really saying is, "Don't take my word for it but have it checked out".
D: But even checking,, though, we're not going to find out anything, Shelley Ann, are we?
S: No, not unless those canisters are opened. I cant believe that the documents that I saw are not somewhere. They must be.
Barbara: Or there should be other people who could verify that they saw what you saw.
S: See, there is already one person who saw it in the transfer of the files to the archives. That's from sources without a name.
Barbara: Of course, I didn't hear everything that you and Dave discussed earlier. Have you written a book?
S: Well, two people are writing a book. There is a journalist from Montreal and one right here in Ottawa that are writing a book and someone else is coming forth from Montreal, a producer who is thinking of a movie.
D: (Chuckle) I don't want to see the movie. Barbara, when I know about it I will tell you and I'll tell everybody on the air. Thank you very much, Barbara.
Barbara: I wanted to add one thing that I know in talking to Dennis Mills, who is an MP [Member of Parliament ] from Toronto, is that he has a copy of a 600 page thesis written by Crayton Yoiter, who was the American chief negotiator, Reeseman's counterpart, describing how water could be re-diverted within North America.
D: Barbara, thanks for the call. Shelley Ann, do you have to go, or can you stay for a little bit?
S: Shelley Ann, I can stay for a little bit, no problem.
D: I'm over time now. I have to go to a newsbreak across the province but I'm going to come back with you. Shelley Ann Clark, my guest, if you want to talk to her. I'm going to keep her for the next few minutes because it's an incredibly interesting topic. David Cox, the Canadian Center for Global Security on Bosnia, also standing by and well get to him briefly.
* * *
Good afternoon, I'm Dave Rutherford on the Alberta Talknetwork. My guest is Shelley Ann Clark and we are going to continue our discussion with Shelley Ann past the time we had allotted because of the incredible interest expressed by you, obviously, and by all Canadians in what's going on. My scheduled guest, David Cox, the Canadian Center for Global Security. We are going to be talking about our peace-keeping efforts in Bosnia and it's time to get us out of there. We just have to come home. Well talk to David Cox in just a few minutes. But, I do want to give you some more time to talk to Shelley Ann Clark about her story. Let's go to Peter. Thanks for waiting, Peter, go ahead.
Peter: Hi! First of all, congratulations! You are doing much more than what any soldier could do in the very front line of a war. You are jeopardizing not only your life like the soldier, but also your family. You are really, truly a super Canadian citizen. God bless you! Your forecast is very very true. I've been saying this for ages. The States want Canada more than anything. And if Quebec is broken and the rest of Canada is separated, etc., Canada is a wounded and an easy prey. Water deprivation disaster will finish Canada in no time and it is happening with our gas. Look: we are sitting on gas and we are paying twice as much for the damn thing as what U.S. citizens do.
S: That's correct.
D: Yeah, but we are in contracts that we apparently control that price, though, in the delivery of that natural gas.
Peter: We are being told to get rid of it by the bankers. It's all arranged. It's George Orwell. The Indians are being killed already in Mexico and it will be just a short while that the war, I wouldn't call it free trade, I'd call it slave trade.
D: One of the difficulties of the name of it, it should not be called free trade, but anyway, you say it's slave trade, Peter...
Peter: But regardless whether we agree or not, we can't resist. It's not even whether we agree or disagree on the free trade. The point is that there were gross injustices happening and unless we can somehow reveal this in front of the world, not only to Canada and the States but the whole world, the U.K., we are dead ducks) I came to Canada 40 years back believing in freedom, in justice, and liberty but George Orwell is doing it all. He stole it all.
D: Shelley Ann, listen, what is happening and Peter is maybe on the leading edge of that, it's this belief that the entire country, the world being run by this grand conspiracy. We've resigned ourselves to the fact that the bankers are running the world. Have we given up, if we succumb to that kind of thinking?
S: Yes. We have given up if we stop doing anything about it. If you keep living with the illusion that you are under control and that we are under control, then you are giving up.
D: But is it that grand, is it that immense, is it that broad?
S: I can only speak for what I know because I've only seen what's happening here in Canada and I can only assume that the same thing is happening elsewhere, in Europe, etc, etc. Whether it is a worldwide scheme, I have no way of knowing and I wouldn't even want to pronounce myself on that but I do know that we used to have freedom here in this country, freedom of the press, freedom of choice and that is something that we no longer possess.
D: How do we know that? How do we know we had freedom, I mean, at some point this conspiracy began. I'm sure it's long...
S: Oh, I mean, there's been corruption going on in politics for hundreds of years, sure, but it never has controlled our freedom to the extent that it does now. I remember in the '80s I was the executive assistant to Doris Anderson, who was the president of the Status of Women and she and I uncovered a major story with one of our Liberal ministers and certainly the freedom of the press was existing because at that time, Doris Anderson and I were in every major television station and newspaper in the country for eighteen months solid. Nothing was hidden from Canadians. I believe that there was more freedom at that time.
D: Ok. Joanna, go ahead.
Joanna: I think my question might have been answered. I was going to ask if past Prime Ministers like Pierre Elliott Trudeau were controlled to this extent and if the populist elected Prime Minister, maybe like Manning or someone, in the future would be controlled also if they were elected by a populist movement?
S: From what I know I would say that with Trudeau it was to a certain extent but with Manning it would be the same as it is with...
His hands would be tied.
D: Well, don't take that as gospel, Joanna. That's an assumption.
Joanna: That's right. I just wanted an opinion.
D: George, go ahead. Hi, George. (No answer.) Let's try this one. Ken, go ahead.
Ken: Yes, hello Dave. Thanks for having Shelley on this afternoon. I'm stunned at what she's revealed here. Shelley, I'm wondering whether this disclosure document is going to be made available publicly by you?
S: Yes, it has certainly gone public and anyone who wishes to have it can certainly have it to confirm what I'm saying, that indeed the disclosure was made in 1988.
Ken: And where can it be accessed from?
S: By simply writing to me.
D: Well, I guess if people want to do that, Shelley Ann, we are not here to promote your book or your potential movie but tell us where to write anyway.
S: You can write to...
D: Do you want to put it on the radio?
S: Yes. The Canadian Institute for Political Integrity, P. 0. Box 1634, Station B, Kax, Quebec K8X 3XF
D: I have the address here so if the caller misses it I have it.
Ken: Dave, one last question. It is obvious that this story needs greater circulation and exposure. Is the Talknetwork planning to make a tape and a transcript of this interview available?
D: Tapes and transcripts are something that we really haven't gotten into in a large way yet. It is an expensive process to distribute transcripts and tapes so the short answer is, no, we don't have them available. The procedure itself, though, is always being examined as to whether we will do it but, no we wont be making them available.
Ken: Sorry to hear that.
D: Yes, go am I but it is such a labor-intensive costly business to do it that we haven't got the resources at the moment to do it unless we can find somebody that's in the business doing it cheap but I don't know. But thank you.
Ken: Maybe things will change with this story.
D: One more break. Thank you for staying with us, Shelley Ann.
* * *
Good afternoon.
I'm Dave Rutherford on the Alberta Talknetwork and my guest is Shelley Ann Clark. We're talking about the free trade charade as it has been billboarded in one publication called THE MIRROR which we have. What town is that from, is that from Ottawa?
S: No, that's in Montreal.
D: That story about you in August is what I'm referring to. Let's go back to our calls, Shelley Ann. Leticia, go ahead.
Leticia: Hi there, Shelley Ann. I have to congratulate you on bringing this. For those people who are probably a little bit skeptical about how any of this happens, there is a more recent author who wrote a book, CAPTAINS AND KINGS by Taylor Caldwell. I think if people read this they would find they have far more insight as to the major conspiracy that Shelley Ann is talking about and thank you so much for bringing this out.
D: Alright, thanks Leticia. Let's go to George. Are you there?
George: Yes, I agree with what the callers have all said that, Shelley Ann, it is a tremendously brave thing you are doing. I can't believe and yet I can because you are probably aware of the crusading that Glen Keeley does against this very thing too. He was in Edmonton a while back and we heard a lecture and he revealed some of the things you are telling us at that lecture.
S: Yes, because as a matter of fact he was asked to market the Grand Canal Project at the time that it was brought forth. So, I am very well aware of Mr. Keeley's...
George: He reiterated the importance of Quebec being removed from the confederation so that the James Bay water would be much more easy to negotiate through Dontel.
D: For those of you who are interested. Glen Keeley is going to be on my program next week, so, we will talk to him then.
George: A lot of the people who were at that meeting poo-pooed it as being crackpot, you know, but look how politics have unfolded.
S: Hey, that's why I have been able to confirm that what he has said is accurate.
George: Oh, I'm sure it is. But it's one thing that bothers me, Shelley Ann, that shouldn't bother me knowing the capabilities of some of these elected politicians we have, how could a man like Mulroney do what he did in full knowledge of what he is doing, what does it take to commit treason? What is the definition of treason?
S: A stream of money, I would say.
George: Well, I suppose we are all - Glen Keeley also told us about the homes that Mulroney owns and how did he get the money to own these homes, the beautiful home in Florida.
S: Exactly, because where he began it would be absolutely impossible.
George: He couldn't do it with the money he earned. No, we know that. Does anyone actually know 55 O'Conner Street? I think it's 50 O'Conner Street in Hull, Quebec and the goings on in that place?
D: What is that?
George: That's where a lot of government offices are. That's where a lot of the contractors are domiciled. That's also where the BCCI bank was that was revolving money that was going to Luxembourg. He told us all this stuff. Nobody believed anything he told us.
D: Alright, George, we've got to thank you. Let's go to Mike.
Mike: Hey, Dave. I'd like to ask your guest one question pertaining to the Free Trade the original, the first one. What about the six-month clause that we can get out of the deal if it is not to our satisfaction?
D: Alright, Shelley Ann, what about the six-month clause?
S: That clause expires this month and that's why I've been pushing so hard to see if the Liberals would do anything about it.
D: But, it expires this month. It was a five-year duration and it's over this month?
S: That's right, at the end of the month, to my recollection.
D: So there is no more out, from the Free Trade Agreement.
S: Yes, if it goes beyond the end of January, that's correct.
D: I donít know if the five-year time limit was as well known as you say it is. You know, I donít know if we knew it was expiring in five years. We thought it was always in existence.
S: No, there is an expiring date to that, which is January 30, 1994.
D: Jerry, hi, go ahead.
Jerry: Hi, Dave, how are you?
D: Well, I don't know yet.
Jerry: Thanks for extending the program. I only have a couple of things I want to say. Shelley Ann, I want to ask you one quick question. Is this type of documentation and stuff you are talking about here, is it available to all the Members Of Parliament?
S: What documentation exactly are you talking about?
D: You mean the original one, the real one?
Jerry: Yeah.
S: Well, the real version...
Jerry: Wouldn't the opposition have had a chance to see this?
S: No. I would have to say "no" because I'm sure that even within the Mulroney ranks there would have been desertion.
Jerry: I guess, Shelley, I hope you don't mind me being skeptical. I'm not going to call you a dishonest person or anything like that and credibility is one that I've got to say the whole story is lacking a little bit of credibility because you donít have the evidence and I understand that so I think you are very articulate and well educated; I believe in you. I'd like to mention this to you and the rest of the listeners that I did stop by Grant Hill's, my MP, and I told him to tune in and I believe with the Reform Party being as strong as it is now in the government and I Ye also made a call to Preston Manning and I'd like the rest of the callers in Alberta to do the same thing. Phone your MP and demand them to research it and get to the answers.
S: I agree completely and I thank you for doing that.
Jerry: Ok. As the people of Canada, this is what these people are there for and if the pressure is put on the Reform Party - I believe in the Reform, I voted for them and they've got to get this thing out in the open.
S: There was certainly belief in me at the all-candidate meeting this past election. There were a lot of Reform people that came up to me and bad no shadow-of-a-doubt about what I was saying.
Jerry: I hope Preston gives you a call. I asked him to, and I also asked Grant Hill to give you a call.
D: Jerry, that's a good note to end it on. Your right about going to your MP. That's the way to go even though I think that Shelley Ann, I think, is on the other side of the spectrum.
D: Ok, Shelley Ann. Thank you for being here. It has been a compelling story and, you know, I hope it's not true.
S: Yes, well, there are a lot of people - I hope that it has disappeared somewhere and canít be reinforced but I'm afraid that is not the case.
D: And Shelley Ann, we will keep track of you and will talk to you very soon.

"Now read that back to me - both versions

NESARA INTERNATIONAL Return to the CANADA Page or to the

Your use of this site is subject to
Terms and Conditions of Use
See also our
Privacy Policy
Click to subscribe to