Posted on 05/11/2007 6:31:26 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Amid heated charges of a coverup, Tory MPs on Thursday abruptly shut down parliamentary hearings on a controversial plan to further integrate Canada and the U.S.
The firestorm erupted within minutes of testimony by University of Alberta professor Gordon Laxer that Canadians will be left "to freeze in the dark" if the government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America.
He was testifying on behalf of the Alberta-based Parkland Institute about concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a 2005 accord by the U.S., Canada and Mexico to streamline economic and security rules across the continent. The deal, which calls North American "energy security" a priority, commits Canada to ensuring American energy supplies even though Canada itself - unlike most industrialized nations - has no national plan or reserves to protect its own supplies, he argued.
At that point, Tory MP Leon Benoit, chair of the Commons Standing Committee on International Trade which was holding the SPP hearings, ordered Laxer to halt his testimony, saying it was not relevant.
Opposition MPs called for, and won, a vote to overrule Benoit's ruling.
Benoit then threw down his pen, declaring, "This meeting is adjourned," and stormed out, followed by three of the panel's four Conservative members.
The remaining members voted to finish the meeting, with the Liberal vice-chair presiding.
Benoit's actions are virtually unprecedented, observers say; at press time, parliamentary procedure experts still hadn't figured out whether he had the right to adjourn the meeting unilaterally. Benoit did not respond to calls for comment.
It's "reckless and irresponsible" of the government not to discuss protecting Canada's energy supply, says Laxer.
Atlantic Canada and Quebec already have to import 90 per cent of their supply - 45 per cent of it from potentially unstable sources such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Algeria, Laxer said.
Meanwhile, Canada is exporting 63 per cent of its oil and 56 per cent of its gas production, mostly to the U.S., he says.
"It's shocking the extent to which the Conservative party will go to cover up information about the SPP," says NDP MP Peter Julian, who also sits on the committee.
Other MPs raised concerns about recently revealed plans under the SPP to raise Canadian limits on pesticide residues to match American rules.
Questions were also raised about whether the effort will open the door to bulk water exports.
Representatives from the departments of Industry and International Trade defended the SPP as an effort to protect Canadian jobs in a competitive global market, without sacrificing standards.
They denied charges SPP negotiations have been secretive, saying civil-society groups are welcome to offer their input, and referred MPs to the government website, which lays out in general terms the SPP initiatives.
“The firestorm erupted within minutes of testimony by University of Alberta professor Gordon Laxer that Canadians will be left “to freeze in the dark” if the government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America. “
The fact this statement is ludicrously false shouldn’t be overlooked by anyone.
PING
So there’s an UP side to Global Warming?
We also provide defacto military defense to Canada which is something that most people don’t consider.
‘So there’s an UP side to Global Warming?’
That myth has nothing to do with the laughable assertion Canada will leave its citizens ‘in the cold’ via a sale of energy to the United States.
‘The Bush Administration has gone off the deep end with NAU.’
Sorry, I don’t buy the fringe view concerning NAU.
If Laxer actually said this during testimony, I agree with Benoit’s ending of the testimony.
This clearly shows an agenda (fear, like all good liberals use) and is irrelevant. After being over-ruled, he should have moved immediately to the next witness, not acted like a baby.
Isn't it strange that the conservatives are the ones doing this? This has nothing to do with conserving any kind of sovereignty, regardless of what country is being discussed.
Then, what do you buy? Or should I say, luego, que compra Ud.?
“If Laxer actually said this during testimony, I agree with Benoit’s ending of the testimony.
This clearly shows an agenda (fear, like all good liberals use) and is irrelevant. After being over-ruled, he should have moved immediately to the next witness, not acted like a baby.”
Thats how I see it.
Sure it is just because it hasn't happened yet. Five years ago, I might have agreed with you. But now after China is importing most of our food, with very little inspected, I can see anything happening from melamine poisoning to anything else. Socialism just doesn't work. It never has and never will no matter what label (SPP),( NAFTA). Well, gotta run. Checking chicken labels today.
“Sorry, I don’t buy the fringe view concerning NAU.
Then, what do you buy? Or should I say, luego, que compra Ud.?”
Right, because I don’t buy this fringe view, I simply must be what? An ‘open border’ nutcase?
Knee jerking will hurt you, I suggest you avoid it.
And, btw, I don’t ‘habla’ sorry to crush your hopes.
“Sure it is just because it hasn’t happened yet. Five years ago, I might have agreed with you. But now after China is importing most of our food, with very little inspected, I can see anything happening from melamine poisoning to anything else. Socialism just doesn’t work. It never has and never will no matter what label (SPP),( NAFTA). Well, gotta run. Checking chicken labels today.”
Nothing you cite here has anything to do with energy being sold by Canada to the United States. I’m concerned about our dependence on China for wheatglutton as much as anybody, due to my dogs, and my concern they might be screwing up the food you and I consume as well.
But that has nothing at all to do with this topic. Just my opinion.
Translated - ya' got nuttin'. Instead of stating a position on the benefits of free trade gone wild, you attack.
Knee jerking will hurt you, I suggest you avoid it.
How'd you know I need arthroscopy? I gotta find a way to turn this web cam off...
And, btw, I don’t ‘habla’ sorry to crush your hopes.
Better learn.
Right, because I don’t buy this fringe view, I simply must be what? An ‘open border’ nutcase?
Translated - ya’ got nuttin’. Instead of stating a position on the benefits of free trade gone wild, you attack.
Knee jerking will hurt you, I suggest you avoid it.
How’d you know I need arthroscopy? I gotta find a way to turn this web cam off...
And, btw, I don’t ‘habla’ sorry to crush your hopes.
Better learn.
You launched a personal attack, not me. No reason. This is kookery associated with fringe websites. I’m surprised its here at FR.
Very surprised.
For example, if conditions warrant, it enables your diplomats to tell a neighboring country's diplomats to go soak their heads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.