Fascism in Canada
Herb Dhaliwal, Minister of Natural Resources, recently expressed some concern that we in Canada are moving toward a “third world democracy”, “where the people who are in control make sure they control it and don’t let other people in”. Jeffrey Simpson has written that we live in a “benign dictatorship” where our Prime Minister has an inordinate amount of power. I think we are moving toward what essentially amounts to fascism.
Just so we are clear about our definitions here, I should state that I take my definition of fascism from someone who should have known what it was. Benito Mussolini founded the fascista in 1919. While the jackboots and national fervor are gone from public view, what remains is the core of an idea that has taken root in this country, primarily among our more finely tailored. It is called corporatism. Mussolini said that Fascism should more correctly have been called “Corporatism” because as he put it, Fascism is a “merge” of corporate and government power. I take him at his word.
That corporate power in Canada is represented by a group of 150 Chief Executives who now call themselves the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. These executives represent the most powerful corporations in Canada. I mention this group because it is they who have been identified by Peter C. Newman as being the people who actually run Canada, and have since about 1998. According to Mr. Newman, in a CPAC (Canada) interview recently aired, they have a meeting with government about once a year, they tell the government what they want and they get it, period.
(Please note that the Canadian CPAC and American CPAC are not related entities. CPAC in Canada is the Cable Public Affairs Channel, a service devoted to the coverage of public and government affairs. CPAC in the United States refers to the Conservative Political Action Conference.)
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives has recently embarked on a campaign to influence you and me on a new plan for Canada which is more in tune with their interests. An article published in the Globe and Mail on January 15th, 2004, section B, Page 3, outlined their new plan for Canada and a timetable for its implementation.
According to the article, this council wants to “reduce the Canada U.S. border to an internal checkpoint, bring together the resource industries of the two countries, reform the regulatory and standards environment and beef up the Canadian Military as part of a perimeter defense against terrorism,” this will include “identity cards”. They intend to “effect the changes over the next 3 to 4 years”.
Canadians have always believed that the United States wants Canadian water, and we have always been assured that no such want exists or will be fed. I am suggesting that bringing “together the resource industries” is nothing more than double speak for give us your water, a demand that began to be heard in 1998 when the corporate sector began lobbying for the water market.
Two years later, multinational companies backed by the World Trade Organization successfully strong armed the U.N. into defining water as a human need as opposed to a human right. This human need in the United Sates, who’s leaders, like Canadian leaders, feel that we don’t need a national water conservation policy, is best represented by the Ogallala Aquifer.
The Ogallala Aquifer stretches from the Texas Panhandle to South Dakota, is mined by over 200,000 groundwater wells and is now being used at 14 times its natural replenishment rate. This aquifer is going to run out of water and when it does there will be strident demands to replace that water.
One of the member corporations of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives is Bechtel, (an American Corporation,) which coincidentally happens to be, among other things, in the water business. If you are looking for other corporations who would benefit from and have the capacity to produce the machinery of war, of managing the business of reducing human rights, or of controlling and manipulating the mechanisms of a free press, they are all represented by this council, and they are not benign.
Carl Joudrie: January, 2004