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.
I have to agree with the Liberal party on this one. Why should the Canadian Conservative government guarantee an energy supply to the U.S. when it won’t do the same for Canada? This is an issue that will resonate with Canadians.
Hmm, so he took his ball and went home.
The Bush Administration has gone off the deep end with NAU.’
Sorry, I don’t buy the fringe view concerning NAU.
////////////
The NAU is the fringe. There’s a lot of guys out there who are going to find their careers sidelined for getting onboard that boat. Its fortunate for many that their careers are mostly done.
“As a matter of policy, any sovereign nation should want to be as independent on foreign supplies of strategic resources as it possibly can be. That’s just prudent, for any number of reasons.
For example, if conditions warrant, it enables your diplomats to tell a neighboring country’s diplomats to go soak their heads.”
Its a nice theory, but as you and I both know, its unworkable as things stand today. Personally, I would have launched a decade long ‘crash program’ along the lines of the Manhatten Project or Apollo with the goal of a viable alternative energy source.
Reread my comments is the best advice I can give you.
Don’t be...
“The NAU is the fringe. There’s a lot of guys out there who are going to find their careers sidelined for getting onboard that boat. Its fortunate for many that their careers are mostly done.”
Like who?
Thats supposed to mean something too me?
You’re really convincing me here. Another couple informative and educational posts like this and I’ll be sure to come around to the benefits of mortgaging our National Security so Xiang the 12 year old chinese laborer can make 12 cents an hour while our southern black population hangs out on the roofs of the gubmint houses waiting for a ride from the USCG.
Yes. That means it's in Canada's best interest to change the way things stand.
‘Yes. That means it’s in Canada’s best interest to change the way things stand.’
I’d say its in both countries best interest.
We have been importing ethanol longer the G.W. Bush has been president.
Ethanol Imports and the Caribbean Basin Initiative
www.gulfethanolinc.com/docs/RS21930.pdf
I wonder how many acres of US corn AF1 flew over on the way to Brazil?
Corn does not become ethanol without a processing plant. Current plants are running at maximum capacity and many new ones are being built. This still does not reach the demand for ethanol with the current government mandates. 
Afterall, we do have a lot in common with Canada....they even think this SPP is crappola.
And corn cannot cost effectively be processed into ethanol without substatial government subsidies. If ethanol production were not subsidized, it would cost 3-4 times it's current price. It has to be subsidized because ethanol production from oil is very cheap. Without the subsidies, we would still have oil dependence, but for ethanol instead of gasoline.
Canada, Menu Foods, has nothing to do with China? By the way, the NWO calls it interdependency. Like I said, we will have to wait 5 years to find out if there is relevancy about energy being sold to the U.S. by Canada.
I am not in favor of the subsidies. I believe use of ethanol should not be favored over any other domestically produced fuel.
I believe you are mistaken about ethanol being produced from petroleum.
The “socialists” world-wide, do not want public debate on their agenda.
Free people have a right to trade.
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.