Paul Hellyer : REMARKS TO NEWSMAKER'S BREAKFAST
National Press Club (Canada), Wednesday 3rd October 2001

Paul Hellyer (pictured below) held senior posts in Canadian government of the 1950s and 60s, becoming Deputy Prime Minister in the Trudeau administration. In the Spring of 1997 he joined a coalition of concerned Canadians to launch the Canadian Action Party (CAP/PAC) which he now leads. The CAP summarises itself as : a federal political party fighting for Canada's independence and promoting monetary, democratic and electoral reform, to restore hope for all Canadians.

My subject this morning was to be related to the re-shuffling of the Canadian political deck which is currently underway and the need to unite everything left of the right. But in view of the unbelievably evil and tragic attack on our American cousins there are some important world issues that I would like to discuss as background material to help explain what I will later propose as a choice for Canada.

It is trite to say that the world will never be the same again after the events of September 11th -- but it's true. What is still to be determined, however, is whether September 11th was a milestone on the road to Armageddon, or a turning point in world history -- a time for taking stock and asking ourselves some really tough question. We have to ask why did it happen, when if ever will it stop, and what can we do that would be really helpful both in the short term and the long term.

For Canadians some things are self evident. We have to cooperate fully in tracking down and rooting out terrorist cells wherever they may be found. That means that we have to undertake a complete overhaul of our Immigration Department, immigration policies and refugee screening practises. We can no longer pretend that the status quo is acceptable because it isn't. It was unacceptable before September 11th and it is unacceptable after.

The far more fundamental question is the extent of harmonization, and general acceptance of U.S. laws and practices that we are going to accept. Personally, I totally reject the concept of a common perimeter where U.S. laws would apply. We should tighten up our borders and the Americans should tighten up theirs. Polls suggesting that Canadians should go further, at this stage, are understandable in the emotion of the moment but I suspect that few of us have thought through the long term implications of such a fundamental and probably irrevocable loss of sovereignty. Sovereignty, which really means the right to have some control over our own destiny, is the most important issue facing Canadians at this point in our history. The question is whether we want to remain an independent country, and have some control over our own affairs, or throw in the towel and join the United States. That is the issue, and there is no point in pretending that it is anything less than that.

The National Post of Saturday, September 29th contained a lengthy article by Prof. Michael Bliss entitled "September 11th: The End of Canadian Nationalism". In effect he was arguing that our ultimate demise and annexation by the United States has become inevitable. I had always thought it was the function of historians to explain events after the fact, and not to usurp the role of prophet. But the questions Canadians must ask themselves are these. Would it be good for us to become part of the United States, would it be good for the U.S. and would it be good for the world? After giving the matter a great deal of thought, over a number of years, I am one Canadian who gives a resounding no to each of those three questions.

We would become just a poor northern state, or states, with little if any influence on our own or American affairs. The United States would be a loser too, because, apart from the realization of its dream of manifest destiny, it would no longer have an independent ally which could be useful in various situations. We were of immense help when we sent troops to Cyprus to prevent a war between two allies in a situation where American troops would not have been welcome. Canadian assistance was also critical in the escape of Americans from the embassy in Iran and in other situations from time to time. The world is better off with an independent Canada that can launch a project such as the land mines treaty, or a world court without American approval.

The U.S. needs a good friend, ally and neighbour willing and able to express a voice of reason in a world portrayed as black or white -- those who stand at attention and salute whatever decision the president and his advisers make as white and those who reserve the right to express reservations or doubt as black.

Dividing the world arbitrarily between those who are uncritically with the United States and those who want to reserve the right to think for themselves is stupefyingly naïve and dangerous. We don't live in a world that is either black or white. We live in a world where there are many shades of grey.

For example, most Americans and many Canadians believe that the evil acts of September 11th were totally unrelated to U.S. foreign policies since World War II. They should apply for the Pollyanna of the year award. Everything the United States does has consequences that are good or bad. And that is the reason that they need friends to challenge their assumptions.

I was heartened to learn that President Bush now believes that a conventional war in Afghanistan is not the answer. That is encouraging because such a war would be lost the day it was launched, regardless of the military outcome. It would be lost because this is not just a war against terrorists and the people who harbour them. It is the war for the hearts and minds of men and women everywhere. So the death of thousands of innocent civilians as a result of either war or starvation, or both, would produce an enormous blow-back -- as the Americans call a negative reaction to some action taken.

There can be no permanent victory against terrorism in an unhappy and unjust world. Terrorist cells can be detected and neutralized. But if the world continues on its present course new cells will form to replace the old.

In his inaugural address President George W. Bush said: "We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge." But in my book Goodbye Canada (which is being launched today) I say, somewhat prophetically, "Those are brave words Mr. President but what you are promising is impossible. The reality is that there is no such thing in today's world and there never will be. So to suggest otherwise is really misleading."

The only hope for a relatively secure world is a total reversal of American foreign policy on several fronts including economics. Unfettered free trade and unfettered foreign investment are a recipe for exploitation and subordination. The distribution of income between individuals within countries and between rich and poor countries is becoming increasingly unjust and divisive. Unhappiness is spreading like a prairie grass fire.

Americans are babes in the woods when it comes to knowledge of what their government is doing in their name. Canadians are almost equally unaware of the near-universal havoc being wreaked on poor countries and innocent people by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These have become institutions of oppression rather than liberation.

That is the reason for the protests in Seattle, in Washington, in Quebec City, in Genoa, and people who don't understand the protests don't understand what is going on in the world. If they did most of them would become protesters too.

The major powers are pushing a brand of economics which is increasingly destructive. It is the same system that we had in effect before the Great Depression which had such a devastating effect on the lives of millions and which sowed the seeds of despair that led ultimately to World War II.

Now we are suffering another global slowdown which is totally unnecessary. There are just as many or more workers today than there were a few months ago. and just as many machines. So why the slowdown, with thousands of people being added to the bread lines daily.

This recession, like others before it, is a direct result of an economic fundamentalism which has done more harm to more people than the fundamentalism of all other religions combined. Because that's what orthodox economic is -- a religion, both fanatic and perverse. So when the FBI and other investigative agencies finish their immediate job of tracking down the terrorist cells they should be assigned the job of analyzing and exposing the sources of such universal malevolence.

Transform Hate to Hope

If the so-called civilized world -- and I use so-called because really civilized countries would show more concern for their fellow humankind than we do -- really wants to be able to live with some semblance of security its number one priority, after coping with the immediate terrorist threat, must be to transform hate to hope. This can only happen in a world where justice outranks exploitation.

The western world should resolve to eliminate poverty and homelessness everywhere in the world. This should include the total elimination of third world and developing country debt which is now well beyond the capability of those countries to repay, due to policies inflicted on them by the west. There is enough wealth and expertise available to achieve the goal in ten years if the project commanded the same sense of urgency and priority presently applied to terrorism. U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for a "A humanitarian coalition" to feed the desperate refugees in Afghanistan. The same idea should be expanded to include food, shelter, portable water, health care and education all around the globe.

There is no guarantee of Utopia. But the sheer goodness of the operation would provide moderates of all religions with the moral ammunition they need to fight extremism. Without any tangible expression of hope even moderates will be tempted to give vent to their sense of hopelessness through acts of violence.

Re-shuffling the Political Deck

What should Canada's role be in all of this? It should be an instigator, a catalyst, and an interpreter of universal human aspirations in the G8, and beyond. It is a role which an independent country with its own vision and values can play.

Unfortunately, the political situation in Canada at the moment does not lend itself to such possibilities. We are, in fact, a one-party system. And the governing party is leading us in the direction of ultimate annexation by the United States. It should not allow the sale of our best industries and resources and with it the loss of top decision-making jobs and the tax base required to maintain our way of doing things.

It should not have allowed the sale of our icon forest industry, MacMillan Bloedel. It should not have allowed the sale of Anderson Explorations. It should not and must not, allow the sale of West Coast Transmission to Duke which would be the final tip-off of its lack of resolve to keep Canada Canadian.

One option currently being explored is to unite the right. This would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. Unfortunately many people on the right are more continentalist and less protective of Canadian sovereignty than the governing party -- although that is a difficult to achieve. So either the status quo, or a united right, means goodbye Canada, the title of my book. Personally I think it would be a terrible tragedy. Among other things it would mean the ultimate end of the French language and culture in North America.

In the postscript to my book I suggest a third alternative which is the only hope of keeping Canada independent. It would be a broadly-based progressive and nationalist party comprising the NDP, the Canadian Action Party, hopefully the Green Party, the fifty percent of progressives of the Progressive Conservative Party and nationalists from the Liberal and Alliance parties. It would be a party determined to keep Canada independent so that it can play an important middle-power role in world affairs....

It would be a party that would reclaim some of Canada's sovereignty already lost under NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.

It would be a party that would say no to a common periphery. No to a customs union, and no to the adoption of the U.S. dollar. All of which would be giant steps along the road to annexation.

It would be a caring and compassionate party that would be dedicated to the elimination of poverty and homelessness in Canada as a beacon for what should be done on a global basis. It would be a party which would use its sovereignty, including its monetary sovereignty, creatively to show how much can be accomplished through cooperation as opposed to confrontation.

In other words it would be a party that would appeal to the hopes and aspirations of the majority of Canadians and become a government in waiting which would give Canadians a real choice. In other words they would have the opportunity to decide whether they want to join the United States or remain Canadian, without having the decision occur by default without them ever being consulted or having the opportunity to express a preference. In effect a party that would make democracy work.

For the next sixty days I will be travelling across the country promoting the idea -- One Big Nationalist Progressive Party -- in the hope that the first and most critical decision necessary to make it happen will be taken by the NDP at their convention in November. It is my belief that Canada's fate will rest on the decision taken at that time.