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.”
You have established nothing, and apparently plan to continue doing so. LOL
Thank G*d!
What happens to the central protectionist claim that certain industries are vital to our national security? What about the necessity of protecting our sovereignty by maintaining a strong industrial base? You'd rather that Boeing not exist at all, or simply not partner with our government on any project? What form would you have Boeing take in order to avoid insidious and unconstitutional partnerships with the government that you fear so much? (2x)
Please explain to me how you protect our sovereignty by institutionalizing fascism?
Is something the matter with you today? You seem to be ambivalent about nearly everything. You have the ingredients, you have the ideas, but you're not putting them together. Does this have something to do with your comment #103? I mean, you're not even sure of your sex.
How can institutionalizing fascism protect our sovereignty? As a proponent of "free trade", how is a public-private partnership "free"?
If you wish to have any hope of continuing your line-of-thought, you must first answer the topical questions I posed to you in my comment #138, and then again in my comment #145. Howl all you want of fascism, first let's see your non-fascistic alternative to government contracting.
You're being awfully generous.
Only because I'm amused.
Once again. She?
She.
You seem quite sure. On what evidence?
Under the concept of silent affirmation, you are a woman until you state otherwise. When that happens, you will either be a man, a hermaphrodite, or an extra-terrestial of non-human origin.
That could explain her sour attitude.
Personally, I think she's trying to get someone to waste the time in going-back and finding where she admitted she's a woman. No thanks, Fosters Lager is on sale.
Thats because it isn't there
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.