Posted on 08/19/2007 6:40:35 PM PDT by JACKRUSSELL
To some, it is a "corporate coup d'etat," a conspiracy by big business to turn Canada into the 51st state by stealth. Others see it as a plot to destroy the U.S. by forcing it into a North American union with "socialist Canada" and "corrupt Mexico."
It is the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a sprawling effort to forge closer ties among the three nations in everything from anti-terrorism measures to energy strategies to food-safety and pesticide rules.
Launched two years ago by then prime minister Paul Martin, President George W. Bush and his Mexican counterpart, Vicente Fox, at the so-called Three Amigos summit in Waco, Tex., the SPP grew out of concerns that security crackdowns would cripple cross-border trade.
With juggernauts such as China and India looming on the horizon, the three countries agreed they had to act fast to stay competitive. Now the SPP has grown into a mind-boggling array of some 300 initiatives, involving 19 teams of bureaucrats from all three countries.
INTEGRATION BY STEALTH
Its stated mission is "to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade" by fostering "greater co-operation and information-sharing" in security protocols and economic areas such as product safety.
Little known in Canada, the accord, if implemented, could affect almost every aspect of Canadian life, from what drugs you can access to whether you can board a plane and even what ingredients go into your morning cornflakes.
While you may not have heard of the SPP, you may have heard about some of the controversies it has sparked: Canada's adoption of a no-fly list, negotiations to lower Canada's pesticide standards to U.S. levels or fears the deal will lead to bulk-water exports.
Liberal leader Stephane Dion charged Friday that, "under the veil of secrecy," Harper has let the Americans run roughshod over Canada, covertly using the SPP to impose a U.S. agenda on Canada. That's not what the Liberals intended when they signed the deal, which was meant to give Canada a stronger voice in Washington, not turn it into an"imitation" of the U.S., he says.
Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians says it is big business that is calling the shots, pushing aggressively for the harmonization -- and downgrading -- of everything from security norms to food standards, in a move that will lead to the "integration by stealth" of the three nations.
"Canadians would be shocked" if they knew the true scope of the SPP, says Barlow, whose Ottawa-based organization represents about 100,000 members.
Fringe groups such as the Canadian Action Party and the Minutemen in the U.S. go further, arguing the SPP is a plot to sweep all three nations into a North American union.
"Where are they getting this stuff?" says Thomas d'Aquino, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which helped launch the SPP.
"This is a very nitty-gritty, workaday initiative" to make trade safer and more efficient through such steps as expanding border crossings and information-sharing programs on plant and animal safety, he says.
Other SPP projects are no-brainers, such as plans to cooperate in fighting West Nile virus and flu pandemics.
As for fears of a North American union, "anyone who believes that is smoking something," says d'Aquino.
This weekend, the debate hits the headlines across the nation as the three heads of state and their advisers converge on Montebello, Que., 60 kilometres east of Ottawa, for the SPP's third annual summit.
Thousands of protesters are also expected to descend on the area, hoping to confront the "Three Banditos" about a deal they say is a secretive sellout to the cowboy capitalism and militarism of the superpower to Canada's south.
"We always hoped from the outset we could broaden it beyond security," says Roland Paris, a University of Ottawa professor who worked as an adviser in the Privy Council Office when the SPP was launched. He adds that the SPP's architects hoped the "regular high-level meetings" would help "overcome bureaucratic inertia."
SOVEREIGNTY UNDER FIRE
But they also helped big business and its government allies bypass both the public and Parliament to push through a host of controversial changes without debate or scrutiny, critics charge. They say the accord has enshrined and fast-tracked a longstanding effort to quietly harmonize Canadian programs with those of the U.S. in everything from military policy to food and drug standards.
"The SPP is an unacceptable, closed-door process with enormous implications for Canadians," says NDP trade critic Peter Julian.
Roland Paris scoffs at charges the SPP is a grand design. If anything, he says, it is a timid collection of piddling efforts that has become bogged down in bureaucratic red tape.
"This is not a political vision of the future of the continent. If it were, it would be worth the fuss."
Defenders of the SPP dismiss concerns about regulatory change as fear-mongering, saying the accord aims only to cut out minor, needless variations between the three countries.
The goal is to end the "tyranny of small differences" that can turn the border into a theatre of the absurd, says John Kirton, a University of Toronto professor and expert in the environmental effects of free trade.
If fact, the SPP could dramatically raise standards across North America, proponents say, because it promotes information-sharing among the three countries.
Scientists would swap data on everything from car safety to new chemicals, enabling regulators to better evaluate products and react more quickly to public health threats.
The SPP also includes projects with obvious benefits for all three nations, such as reducing sulphur in fuel and air pollution from ships, and coordinating efforts to curb plant and animal diseases.
All three governments insist that the three nations remain sovereign under the SPP: If Canada doesn't like the way the U.S. does something, it can go its own way.
But NDP trade critic Julian is not so sure. He worries about the effect regulatory convergence will have in the future.
If, for example, Canada wants to pass new rules to deal with greenhouse gases, it could mean "Canada would have to go to Washington and lobby for the kinds of standards and protections they want," he says.
We could do a lot worse than including Alberta as a 51st state.
Headline makes no sense — if this idea ever went forward it could not be that all of Canada would come in as one “51st state” — there would be at least 10 new states based upon current provinces.... but there would be great controversy about allotting 2 US Senators to the most sparsely populated provinces such as PEI, Nova Scotia, Yukon, etc. I see that the website does not allot senators to some of those entities, but it would be highly controversial either way.
I cannot see most people on either side of the border going for this, but who knows? As a US citizen with some Canadian ancestry I am not automatically averse to the idea, but it could be terrible if it merely cemented rampant socialism north and south, and that seems to be the most likely outcome.
Nah. Since the majority of the country uses the English units, we’d make the Albertans use ‘em too.
Give ‘em Massachusetts too.
What is the SPP?
Think European Community but for North America.
We all know where that ended up.
There are only 33 million Canadians. Their strain on our medical system wouldn’t be that huge. Plus Canada has a wealth of natural resources. Oil, wood, hydropower, metals, hockey.
go Flames!
I really like you...as a friend.
I'd trade Alberta,Yukon and the NW Terr. for everything east of the Hudson River. I'd throw in King County, WA for all of BC except metro Vancouver.
I share that funny ironic sarcasm, but where overseas can we go?
Thinking Iceland, where we are safe from Algore - but wait - all that geothermal activity, we're doomed!
Turning Canada or Mexico into States would require (A) giving them considerable representation in our Congress and presidential elections.
AND (B) they would have to vote to become states. Meanwhile our own sovereign status is crumbling.
The idea of Canada becoming a state (one or many) is silly.
As long as Northwest Territories makes the cut, I am in.
If we can have our choice, can we just take Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba? Leave the liberal part to Britain.
Each of Candada's provinces would make great states of our union. Except for a few historic events, they might have already been brought in.
Be careful what you wish for Sionnsar. They just voted to remove support the troops signs from city vehicles in Calgary.
I thought they already were.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nah! Russia's got first dibs.
They planted a flag up North to prove it. Thats more than the USA has done since the War of 1812.
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.