Posted on 08/24/2006 8:14:38 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
NACC should not be writing Canadian policy, says Council of Canadians
According to the U.S. Department of State, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) met in Washington today to find ways “to cut red tape or eliminate unnecessary barriers to trade in North America,” and to set priorities for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).
“Corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Wal-Mart, Suncor and Chevron should not be shaping economic policy between Canada and the United States,” says Jean-Yves LeFort, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians. “The North American Competitiveness Council gives far too much power to business leaders who are clearly more interested in profit than in what’s best for Canada.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper named ten corporate executives to the NACC at a meeting of North American leaders in Cancun, Mexico this past March. Nine of those ten appointees represent corporations that are members of the powerful Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), whose North American Security and Prosperity Initiative led to the signing of the SPP by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. in March 2005.
The CCCE makes no secret of its ultimate goal: the integration of the Canadian and U.S. economies, the harmonization of our foreign, security and immigration policies, as well as common environmental, health and other regulations. In a meeting this past March, the U.S. branch of the NACC set five clear objectives for the SPP, including “energy integration,” and “private sector involvement in border security.”
“Harper and Bush have clearly given business leaders the green light to press forward on a North American model for business security and prosperity,” says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians. “How truly accountable is the Harper government to the Canadian people when it gives preferential treatment to the big-business community in the design of its policies.”
The Council of Canadians demands that Canada cease all further participation in the North American Competitiveness Council and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and that Stephen Harper consult with Canadians in a meaningful and participatory way on Canada-U.S. relations.
“During the elections, Harper promised to submit any ‘significant international treaty’ to a vote in Parliament,” says LeFort. “It is his duty to make Canada’s ‘security and prosperity’ a matter of public debate.”
The difference between the NACC and the NABC is considerably more substantial than a letter of our alphabet. Unless you honestly think Plácido Domingo is also one of them. [sinister music]
The NABC is a standing committee of the council of the Americas, which you showed as the head of the 'US Secretariat' for the NACC.
Have I mischaracterized you position? How?
As far as I can tell, the Council of the Americas is not even remotely related to the NACC. You really need to step up.
The NACC is an off-shoot of the SPP, according to this press release, and thereby part of the Administration.
The Council of the Americas is some sort of a non-profit organization created by David Rockelfeller.
It also appears to go by the name of the Americas Society.
Oh, I see . . . a member of the NACC is also a representative of the Council of Americas. Not quite "[t]he NABC is a standing committee of the council of the Americas, which you showed as the head of the 'US Secretariat' for the NACC." You weren't even close.
Actually, it looks like two NACC members on the United States Secretariat (whatever that is) are representatives of the Council of Americas, and another two are representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
No, really. How can the Council of the Americas hold a meeting of an executive branch department, the SPP. Really. I want to know. How is that reflective of a 'representative republic'?
Now you are contending, again, that your right to participate in the political process (as a voter or whatnot) is somehow compromised by this meeting. So what is your problem, again?
A public/private partnership, is NOT a constitutionally defined instrument of our representative republic, a fact, which I am sure you are well aware.
Why are you defending it? For money? For the usurpation of power? Why?
I am aware of no Constitutional restriction against operating the Trans Alaska Pipeline, or the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company.
So what??? This new Republican North Americanization is far worse for the sovereignty of our countries than anything the Democrats have come up with thus far...
Why do you defend them?
Her "victim" gambit is getting VERY old!
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.