Border Opens to Anti-War Activists

There has been a new development in the saga of anti-war activists Medea Benjamin and Ann Wright.

As you may recall, over the past year they have been turned away at our border time and time again because prior non-violent protest-related arrests had placed them on the FBI’s National Crime Information Database. In its efforts to 'harmonize' our border security with the U.S., Canadian Border Services has been using this list even though it has been roundly criticized for including misdemeanour offenders like Benjamin and Wright in a database that was originally intended to keep violent felons, parole violators, gang members and sex offenders from crossing the border.

It's too soon to tell, but this policy may be changing. Wright tells what happened when they tried another crossing on June 1st - this time with an MP in the back seat:

On June 1, Canadian parliamentarian Libby Davies, drove to the US side of the border and rode in the same van as Medea and I. Diane went ahead in a different car and was not stopped by immigration despite her numerous arrests. Parliamentarian Davies told the immigration officers that she had knowledge of our peaceful, non-violent protests of Bush administration policies and vouched for our character.

During three hours at the border, immigration officers made phone calls to various offices. At the end of the process, Medea was given a 24 hour visitors permit and I received an exception to my earlier exclusion order, apparently from a high official in the Ministry of Immigration.

The next day, June 2, Veterans for Peace (VFP) national president Elliot Adams and VFP member Will Cover, drove from New York to Ottawa to observe the vote of the Canadian parliament on the non-binding resolution that would allow US war resisters to stay in Canada. After being asked at the border crossing if either had ever been arrested, they both acknowledged that they had been arrested for protesting Bush policies on the war in Iraq. They were further questioned in secondary screening about the character of the protests and arrests, and after two hours, were allowed to continue into Canada. They drove on to Ottawa and attended the 137to 110 Parliamentary non-binding vote to permit US war resisters to remain in Canada.

The border crossing by two groups of high profile anti-war activists with arrest records in a two day period, both dealing with the issue of US war resisters in Canada, may indicate a change in the position of the Canadian immigration service on misdemeanor arrests for political protest in the United States.

We hope so, as we pose no threat to Canadian security and indeed our actions in the United States for which we were arrested seem to reflect the views of most Canadians that the war in Iraq should end and that US war resisters should be able to stay in their country.

It remains to be seen whether this is an actual policy change and not just the result of direct intervention in these specific cases, but all in all it sounds like good news.

(crossposted from Canada's World)

Tomorrow Is Another Day

Shorter Jim Prentice on the MacDonald Dettwiler sale: "I don't feel like deciding today. I think I'll decide later, after everyone's stopped paying attention."

Feds delay ruling on sale of Canada's top space firm

OTTAWA -- In the face of mounting domestic pressure, Industry Minister Jim Prentice is holding off government approval of the sale of Canada's top space company and a multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded satellite to a U.S. weapons maker, CTV News has learned.

Government insiders say Prentice has ordered another 30-day review of the proposal sale that has been strongly denounced by Canadian scientists, editorial writers, and Calgary Conservative MP Art Hanger.

Remarkable how many of the comments on that article are drawing parallels with the Avro Arrow. They have some valid points, but I'm looking more at parallels with AECL. There is an emerging pattern of hiving off the most successful and profitable divisions of public companies or (like MDA) companies with significant public investment, and selling them off for a quick profit. Then the government can point to what's left and say, "See? Why should we keep throwing money at such an unprofitable enterprise?"

Kinda like eating all the carrots and croutons and bacon bits out of your salad, and then saying you don't like salad.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to watch Prentice and Harper squirm their way out of this one, because I have no doubt they are determined to see MDA sold, one way or the other.

_____________

UPDATE: This bit from the Globe & Mail really says it all, doesn't it?

"Shareholders were expecting a windfall from this transaction. At this point it may not happen," Dundee Securities Corp. analyst Richard Stoneman said yesterday.

The controversy has placed Mr. Prentice in the delicate position of having to balance pro-business considerations with concerns about Arctic sovereignty and military security.

Hmm... shareholder profits versus national security and sovereignty. Profits, sovereignty... profits... sovereignty... the corporation... the country...

Yeah, I can see that being a tough one, Jim. Let me know when you work it out.

Arnie vs. the U.S. Government: Round Two

The Governator is at it again.

After putting his state way out front in the battle against global warming by legislating strict GHG emission standards on cars in California (and fighting the EPA and the federal government tooth and nail to do it), Arnie is taking the same approach with another environmental issue:

Toxic chemicals.

Arnie's "green" chemicals proposal shames Montebello Agreement on toxics

Once again, the California state government of Arnold Schwarzenegger has stuck its neck out for the environment. Amidst federal movement toward a continental approach to toxics regulation -- the so-called "Montebello Agreement" -- California is exploring "a wholesale shift" in the way industry manufactures everything from prescription drugs to plastics, pesticides and household cleaners.

"In an effort to reduce industry's reliance on toxic compounds, state environmental officials today will lay out a framework for transforming California into a leader in the development and use of 'green' chemicals," wrote the Los Angeles Times last week.

"The goal is to blast California way ahead of the world," Maureen Gorsen, director of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, told the paper. "We're trying to develop an entirely new state policy framework to move California to a... sustainable society. No government's ever done that."

You know, if he keeps this up they're going to take away his key to the Republican bathroom.

The article is well worth reading in its entirety because it outlines the fundamental difference between the U.S. 'risk management' approach to regulation, which puts the onus on the EPA to prove a chemical is dangerous, and the European 'precautionary' model, which puts the onus on the chemical company to prove that it isn't.

You can guess which model the Bush and Harper governments prefer.

From the sounds of it, Arnie is going to have a fight on his hands over this one as well. The chemical industry is lobbying hard against European-style regulations and encouraging the U.S. government to "preempt state laws on chemicals" - just like the auto industry lobbied against a "patchwork" of state laws on GHG emissions. And even assuming a regime change on both sides of the border within the next year, I'm not naive enough to think that these corporate interests are going to lose their political influence any time soon.

The irony is, the chemical industry is already adapting itself to a greener way - partly because of stricter European regulations and partly because of the soaring costs of petrochemicals. But with the American economy tanking and many Canadian businesses looking to Europe to help soften the blow, our government's regressive attitude towards regulatory policy might just shut us out of the European market altogether. At which point the Americans may just go from being our largest trading partner to being our only trading partner.

Now there's a cheery thought.

2007 Detritus, Part 1

I have an open file on my computer called 'blogpost.doc'. It's like a notebook into which I paste links to articles and posts that catch my eye, sometimes adding a title or a few of my own thoughts as a preliminary step towards writing a blog post. Some of these evolve into actual posts, but sometimes they simply languish as the news marches on and other bloggers say whatever it was I wanted to say first, and better.

Or I just get lazy and forget about them.

I thought it might be interesting to browse through these abandoned links and share some of them with y'all. Sort of a combination year-end retrospective and writer's housecleaning. Enjoy!

---

April 21st: The Wall, Redux

From The Guardian:

Latest US solution to Iraq's civil war: a three-mile wall

The US military is building a three-mile concrete wall in the centre of Baghdad along the most murderous faultline between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

The wall, which recognizes the reality of the hardening sectarian divide in Baghdad, is a central part of George Bush's final push to pacify the capital. Work began on April 10 under cover of darkness and is due for completion by the end of the month.

The highly symbolic wall has evoked comparisons to the barriers dividing Protestants and Catholics in Belfast and Israelis and Palestinians along the length of the West Bank.

---

May 3rd: It’s not easy being green

John Baird seems to be having a tough time finding anyone to support his new, ‘aggressive’ environmental plan. David Suzuki hates it, and finally caught up with Baird to tell him so in person, despite concerted efforts by the PMO to avoid that particular confrontation. Al Gore, obviously wary of having his words misconstrued again, called the plan "a complete and total fraud". Even economists who had once supported the Tories are now backing away from Baird’s plan, saying it’s too full of loopholes to actually have much of an effect and that his claim that Kyoto will cost billions and spark a recession is "an extremely simplistic calculation".

(Boris at The Galloping Beaver says it beautifully.)

And now they’re mocking the Environment Canada website.

---

April 26th: Who's Afraid of the Big Bad NEP?

A bit of perspective on that great western bugaboo: the National Energy Plan. An article by Gordon Laxer, and another on the Council of Canadians website.

---

May 14th: The Kyoto Implementation Bill Passes 3rd Reading

From the Ottawa Citizen:

Forcing Ottawa's hand on Kyoto

...Bill C-288 could force the federal government to take action to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

The bill has had little media attention, but legal experts say it actually has the power to force the Conservative government to meet Kyoto targets, something the Harper government has repeatedly said it cannot and will not do.

"This is the one thing that the Conservatives can't circumvent," said Lalonde, a translator from Notre Dame de Grace who launched the petition campaign last week on his EcoContribution website. "Once it's law, it's law."

Bill C-288 would do two important things if it became law: It would force the government to publish a plan to meet its Kyoto targets within 60 days of its enactment, and to enact legislation within six months that would enable Canada to meet those targets.

(It passed, of course, and the Conservatives did... nothing. Let's see if it actually ends up in the courts this year.)

---

May 19th: Tony Rosato

As a long time SCTV fan, this story made me very, very sad:

Rosato a step closer to release

KINGSTON–Former television star Tony Rosato moved a step closer yesterday to getting out of the jail cell where he has been held without trial for the last two years.

Rosato, a one-time star of SCTV and Saturday Night Live, appeared in Superior Court – less than a week after his plight was reported in the Sunday Star – to make a bid for a bail review. His trial on charges of criminal harassment is set for November.

News of the comedian's plight shocked civil libertarians and his show business friends who say he should be held in a hospital until his trial.

More background on Rosato's story here.

---

June 5th: Big Brother Really Is Watching

A chilling little tale from south of the border.

---

June 28th: Harper Allows Armed U.S. Service Agents Into Canada

A nice op-ed by Thomas Walcom in The Star:

The federal government plans to give an unspecified number of American police agents carte blanche to carry guns in Canada. It insists that in the post-9/11 world it is just being sensible. It is not.

Few things are more crucial to a nation's sovereignty than its control over legalized violence. It is quite often lawful for the police to shoot you. It is almost never lawful for you to shoot the police. We accept that arrangement only because those who have been given this remarkable life and death authority are in some sense "ours" – they are responsible to governments that we elect.

Ottawa's plan would dramatically change this relationship. It would introduce a whole new array of armed peace officers into this country that are answerable to a foreign power.

Stephen Harper's government, which quietly published these proposed regulatory changes in its Canada Gazette last weekend, suggests the move is designed primarily to accommodate armed air marshals who routinely fly back and forth across the border. But it also says the arrangement would apply to other situations, including "various cross-border enforcement initiatives between Canada and the United States."

Ah, yes. More of those unimportant "regulatory changes" meant to harmonize our security with that of the U.S. Nothing to see here.

---

July 10th: China executes ex-food safety chief

China executed the former head of its food and drug watchdog on Tuesday for approving untested medicine in exchange for cash, the strongest signal yet from Beijing that it is serious about tackling its product safety crisis.

Ahh... I got nuthin.

---

August 11th: What's a 'Blue Dog', Anyway?

An interesting analysis of the two wings of the Democratic Party, why some Democrats are trying to win by becoming more like Republicans, and why that is a monumentally BAD IDEA. Courtesy of the Daily Kos.

---

August 11th: Support Our Troops. Unless They're Gay.

Church learns vet was gay, cancels memorial

ARLINGTON, Texas - A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.

Officials at the nondenominational High Point Church knew that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service, said his sister, Kathleen Wright. But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors, she said, it was called off.

Charming.

---

August 31st: About Those SPP Petitions...

It seems the raison d'être for the big March on Montebello wasn't quite as important to some of the organizers as one might have thought:

Letter to Council of Canadians

[Andrea from People's Global Action picked up the CoC's petitions at the anti-SPP demonstration and decided to make a few points while offering to deliver them.]

Dear Maude and Staff at the Council of Canadians,

I just wanted to write to let you know that the 10,000 petitions you delivered with great fanfare to the gates of the Chateau Montebello last week are safe. You know, the ones in the three clear plastic bins with the blue lids. The ones featured in that photo on your website (www.canadians.org).

You are probably frantic right now. You've likely been searching for them since you put them down in front of the line of riot police and retreated back to the family friendly zone when you finished your media scrum and speeches...

And so on. OOPS!

---

More miscellany later. Promise.

U.S. Activists Turned Away. Again.

You may remember the sorry tale of Retired U.S. Army Col. Ann Wright and her peacenik colleague from CodePink being turned away at the Canadian border because their names appeared on an FBI database of dangerous terrorists, pedophiles and peaceful protesters.

This time Wright had a specific invitation from six Canadian Members of Parliament, but when she arrived at the airport in Ottawa they once again refused her entry:

Wright said she is now been banned from Canada for a year because she knowingly failed to bring proper documentation that might have allowed her into Canada despite the convictions.

"I failed to produce proper documentation, which is the court documents about these convictions and a temporary resident permit from a Canadian embassy. They said by my failure to bring those with me I was purposefully flouting the Canadian law," Wright said.

On an attempted visit to Canada in August, Wright and and fellow activist Medea Benjamin learned that their names were in an FBI-maintained database meant to track fugitives, potential terrorists, missing persons and violent felons. They were told they would have to apply for "criminal rehabilitation" and pay $200 (€139) if they ever wanted to visit again.

Canadian Border Services is arguing that they can turn back anybody for any reason they like or no reason at all. This, of course, is true, but it's also a convenient way of skirting certain uncomfortable questions. Specifically, how much more fascist can you get than putting peace protesters on a 'list of undesirables'? And how can the Canadian government justify this ON THE VERY SAME DAY that they are demanding that Maher Arar be removed from the U.S. no-fly list?

And from the Canadian MSM... crickets.

MSM Columnists Gone Wild

I'm starting to understand why my father doesn't read the Globe & Mail so much any more. The old grey lady has obviously been taken over by a bunch of long-haired, left-wing radicals:

Standardize jellybeans with care
By Rick Salutin

Stephen Harper turned his tin ear to the sound of protesters at Montebello. He'd heard there were about a hundred. "It's sad," he smirked. This kind of nyah-nyah isn't a sign of political astuteness. Astute politicians say, "I understand their concerns." They're avid listeners.

Then he turned his other tin ear to what he'd been told they were worried about: loss of Canadian sovereignty and "deep integration." "Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jellybean?" he said of the issue, raised by a New Brunswick candy maker.

You know what? If they're talking about integrating jellybean standards, it's because there's little else of our economies left to integrate.

A depressing thought, but still: this is about the only mainstream coverage I've seen so far that hasn't swallowed whole Harper's arrogant, chuckling dismissal of SPP concerns. He then proceeds with a well executed towel snap to Travers:

The Toronto Star's Jim Travers said it's time to "debunk" the "myth of galloping integration." That would be because what remains can be done at a slow trot. This isn't about a secret conspiracy, it's about fait accompli, a stately procession that included free trade in 1988, NAFTA in 1994 and the current, amorphous Security and Prosperity Partnership.

He even makes a comment on our military entanglements with the U.S. that leads me to believe that he might have been reading Linda McQuaig.

What's the world coming to?!

The Enemy of my Enemy... is Still a Nutjob

Dear crazy American right-wingers, racists, xenophobes and One-World conspiracy theorists:

Please, STOP TAKING OUR SIDE!!


That is all.

(Tinfoil H/T to Alison)

Countdown to Montebello

The motel room is reserved, the rental car is booked, and in two days I’ll be hittin’ the road to Ottawa with my fifteen year-old son.

It’s gonna be duelling CDs all the way. Hendrix vs. Lily Allen, White Stripes vs. Squirrel Nut Zippers, The Doors vs. Howlin’ Wolf. Good thing we have some appreciation for each other’s music.

The SPP Summit and the attendant protests have finally surfaced on network news. CTV Newsnet ran a blurb about it yesterday, interviewing a couple of the student organizers in Ottawa, then showing the requisite file footage of assholes throwing large objects through windows in "other protests that turned violent".

Great. That’s helpful. Thanks.

This sort of coverage does nothing to reassure my husband. He’s still convinced that he’s going to have to call my dad for bail money at some point this weekend.

It occurred to me yesterday that this will be my first protest since I marched against Cruise Missile testing on Canadian soil back in the 80s. This illustrates that a) I am really, really old, and b) very little has changed in the past couple of decades. We still have to fight for our sovereignty tooth and nail.

I still believe it’s worth fighting for. Come join us.

Turner Revisits SPP

It's like pulling teeth, but Garth Turner has finally posted another blog entry about SPP - specifically, the Super Secret Summit in Montebello next month. It seems he's still taking an agnostic position, but he appears to be warming.

I'm still trying to convince him to carpool with me and my son as we attend the festivities. I'll let you know.

SPP: Move Along, Nothing to See Here

Given my abiding interest in continental integration issues, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership initiative in particular, I was looking forward to traveling to the site of the next SPP Summit in Montebello, QC this August to express my displeasure. I was especially excited about taking my teen-aged son with me to give him an education in political issues and a taste of activism at work.

This might be harder than I thought:

RCMP, U.S. Army block public forum on the Security and Prosperity Partnership

The Council of Canadians has been told it will not be allowed to rent a municipal community centre for a public forum it had planned to coincide with the next Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 20 and 21.

The Municipality of Papineauville, which is about six kilometres from Montebello, has informed the Council of Canadians that the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the U.S. Army will not allow the municipality to rent the Centre Communautaire de Papineauville for a public forum on Sunday August 19, on the eve of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership Leaders Summit.

"It is deplorable that we are being prevented from bringing together a panel of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canadians," said Brent Patterson, director of organizing with the Council of Canadians. "Meanwhile, six kilometres away, corporate leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada will have unimpeded access to our political leaders."

As well as being shut out of Papineauville, the Council of Canadians has been told that the RCMP and the SQ will be enforcing a 25-kilometre security perimeter around the Chateau Montebello, where Stephen Harper will meet with George W. Bush and Felipe Calderón on August 20 and 21. According to officials in Montebello, there will be checkpoints at Thurso and Hawkesbury, and vehicles carrying more than five people will be turned back.

I’m stunned. Twenty-five kilometres?! You’ve got to be kidding! Even the G8 Summit in Alberta in 2002 only had a 6.5 km security perimeter - and that had eight world leaders, not just the Three Amigos. Additionally, the G8 Summit was expecting hordes of anti-globalization and other protesters from around the world. This event isn’t likely to attract anywhere near the numbers, or the potentially violent passions. After all, we’re Canadians!

Also, what the hell does the U.S. Army have to do with security on Canadian soil? The RCMP, the SQ - even the Secret Service I can see being involved. But the U.S. ARMY? Did someone mis-speak? Or was this the real purpose behind Harper deciding to start letting armed Americans into our country?

This just pisses me off, to the point where I’m more determined than ever to make the trip. And I suspect that once I give my son this latest bit of news, he will be even more anxious to come with me.

Who’s with us?

(Update: This story actually made the front page of the Ottawa Citizen! Wow - you mean that somebody other than me and a few other bloggers is following this? Good luck keeping us out now!)

Tories go red

OTTAWA (BS News) - The Conservative Party of Canada today announced plans to change the traditional ‘Tory blue’ to a more Republican red in an effort to further harmonize Canadian regulations and standards with those of the United States.

Under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the Conservatives have agreed to change the colour of all their logos, signs and fonts from blue to red in order to avoid confusion south of the border.

"Some Republicans apparently thought we were a bunch of pinkos just because we were blue" said an unnamed spokesperson from the PMO. "Plus, the whole ‘red state / blue state’ thing was really confusing to our western caucus members", some of whom have apparently been making crank phone calls to the governors of North Dakota and Idaho.

The Minister for Trade and Integration defended the colour change as essential to good relations with the U.S., and insisted that it is in no way a threat to Canadian sovereignty.

"It’s just a color. What’s the big deal? There’s nothing sinister going on here."

When asked if the decision was made in response to a recently leaked memo from Washington suggesting the change in livery, the Minister replied, "Thirteen years of inaction on the part of the Liberals has left us in this mess, and now it’s up to us to remedy the situation".

It is still unclear how the change might impact future election battles with the still-red Liberal Party, but the opposition leader’s office has reportedly been receiving anonymous colour swatches in the mail along with notes suggesting a nice teal would bring out Dion’s eyes.

Garth Gets a New Chew Toy

Maybe old dogs really can learn new tricks.

After months of being poked, prodded and cajoled on the issue by myself, 'Charles', 'Bill-Muskoka' and a few other regulars on his blog, Halton MP Garth Turner has finally started to look seriously into the implications of SPP and Deep Integration.

Glory Halelujah!

He is starting cautiously, refusing to take a firm stand one way or the other until he can gather more credible information. And who can blame him? After all, the administrations and 'stakeholders' involved have been exceedingly careful to put the most non-threatening face they can on their little project. It's only when news items surface about relaxing standards on pesticide residue on food, or the adoption of a Canadian no-fly list that isn't likely to work any better than its American counterpart, that the real agenda behind the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership' is made apparent.

It also doesn't help that the whole thing now has every right-wing 'World Government' conspiracy nut on the web positively foaming at the mouth (please, guys, don't take our side, ok?).

I'm not sure if Garth is actually going to be able to put aside decades of received conservative economic wisdom long enough to really fight against this threat to our society and our sovereignty, but he seems to be getting the point:

For a century and a half, we have resisted the siren song of wealth and influence and cultural assimilation that union with the United States would bring. We have stubbornly set our own course, even when it meant paying more in taxes, doing with fewer innovations and making the costly and difficult choices of being a bilingual, multicultural, tolerant and largely pacifist nation.

Is that now changing? Not with a bang? Not even with a whimper?

As I indicated, I do not know what to make of SPP. That alarms me.

My voters did not send me to the capital to worry about railway crossing safety, the crab fishery, ABM fees or appointment terms for senators, while the independence of our nation was being silently and steadily eroded by the unelected. My job is not to jump to conclusions, or raise false alarms. It is simply to defend my country. It may well be time to do so.

It may indeed.

I truly hope that Turner takes up this cause with the same vigour as income trusts and pension splitting. Because once our little pit bull gets something like this in his teeth there won't be anything left of SPP and it's supporters but a few bloody scraps.

Go get 'em, Garth!

CPAC Sunday

I’m not usually a CPAC junkie, but today’s airing of the May 3rd meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade was fascinating.

If the long title sounds familiar, this was earlier in the same series of meetings where Tory chairman Leon Benoit had his meltdown last week. The Committee is studying aspects and ramifications of the Security and Prosperity Partnership initiative (SPP, and don’t call it a treaty - not yet, anyway), and is hearing from a broad range of witness from business, labour, policy and citizen groups.

At the May 3rd meeting televised today, one of the BQ members put forward a motion that the Committee recommend that the Government take steps to finally and officially exempt water and bulk water exports from our NAFTA obligations. Currently, the only protections against water export are provincial ones, and those are vulnerable to challenge.

This would seem like a no-brainer for a quick vote, except one of the NDP members suggested adding two words ("...and federal") to one sentence. Apparently this was too much for a Conservative member, who first challenged the accuracy of the line on some basis or other, and then insisted on having the clerk photocopy the revised motion and put it in front of him since he was having trouble remembering such a complex amendment.

Before the clerk got back from the copy room, the clock ran out. Benoit was determined to end on time, despite being asked to extend things a few minutes so the CPC member could get his copy and vote. The vote was deferred to the next meeting, which was… oh, yeah, that meeting. Well, I suppose they’ll get to it eventually.

If you think you can take it, meeting transcripts up to April 26th are available at the Committee website. It’s interesting reading just for the insight it provides into the attitudes of the committee members and their respective parties toward SPP. The NDP are very obviously against it; the Bloc almost as much so. The Conservatives seemed to be going by the usual Conservative assumption that "what is good for business is good for everybody", but I did notice that Conservative member Dean Allison was always careful to refer to business as "small business" - because really, this is all about the little guy.

Another word the pro-SPP camp seems to like is the word "stakeholder", referring to anyone they feel has a legitimate reason to be involved in SPP-related negotiations and working groups. As far as I can tell, they consider "stakeholders" to be those with something significant to gain or lose financially from the outcome. This does not, apparently, include anyone whose name doesn’t end with "Inc." or "Corp.". The rest of us are invited to visit their informative website.

The Liberal committee members seem to be asking mostly technical questions without really addressing the larger issues and controversies surrounding SPP. I suppose this could be seen as taking a balanced, open-minded approach, getting all the information before taking a stand. It could also be seen as fence-sitting, which is what I suspect the official Liberal policy is on this right now. We’ll see how long they can keep that up.

Interestingly, a rather public crack in the SPP’s official "nothing sinister going on here" line appeared earlier this week in the Ottawa Citizen:

Canada lowers standards on pesticide use on fruits, vegetables to match U.S. limits

Oops.

Edit - Oh yeah, I almost forgot about this one:

Canada about to introduce no-fly list for airlines

I thought Bruce Campbell of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives summed it up nicely at the end of the second meeting:

"It's great to have regulatory cooperation, as I said, but how far do you go? That's the question. What are the limits to regulatory cooperation? When does it become a real compromise of policy flexibility and democratic accountability?

"It's sort of like the question of the frog in the pot of hot water. If you put a frog in boiling water, the frog will jump out immediately. If you put the frog in a pot of cool water and heat it gradually, the frog will not jump out and will be boiled alive. It's that sense of this very slow, incremental, sometimes fast, under-the-radar process that is the basis for my concern and the concern of a lot of groups and individuals in Canada."

Ribbit.

Tories Take Their Ball and Go Home

This just keeps getting better and better:

Tory chair storms out of SPP hearing
Freezing in the dark 'not relevant' to talks on integrating with 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, will commit 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 Mr. Laxer to halt his testimony, saying it was not relevant.

Opposition MPs called for, and won, a vote to overrule Mr. Benoit's ruling.

Mr. Benoit then threw down his pen, declaring, "This meeting is adjourned," and stormed out, followed by three of the panel's four Conservative members.

Lovely. Our country is being run by four year-olds.

The thing that bothers me the most is that nobody but the politicians directly involved and a few crazy bloggers seem to know or care that this is going on. Honestly, if you took a poll today and asked Canadians if they would like closer economic and security ties with the U.S., what do you think their answer would be?

Of course, nobody actually gives a rat's ass what we think because it isn’t about what’s best for Canadians - it’s about what’s best for big business.

I’ve asked my MP a couple of times now what his position and his party’s position is on SPP, the Harris/Manning report, and deep integration. I’m still waiting for a response. Given that Garth is probably the most responsive MP on the Hill right now, I suspect he’s either desperately busy or he knows full well that I won’t like his answer.

What I really want to hear from Garth and Dion is this: "Yes, the previous Liberal government bought into SPP, but I believe that was a mistake. The vast majority of Canadians don’t want it, I won’t continue to support it, and I will do my best to put an end to any measures already enacted under this initiative".

What do you think the chances are?
______________

(edit - Dave at The Galloping Beaver just posted a detailed account of the many, many rules and standards of practice Benoit's tantrum violated.)

My Canada Doesn’t Include the Fraser Institute

One of the best things ever shown on Canadian television was Paul Gross’ two-part political thriller ‘H2O’. I know, it’s hard to imagine a Canadian political thriller, but believe me - this thing was slick, well written, and extremely disturbing. When I first saw it three years ago, I thought it presented a fascinating but unlikely, maybe even paranoid scenario.

Right now, I’m starting to wonder if the writers didn’t somehow arrange to have Steven Harper’s memoirs transmitted from the future.

The story centres around the son of a beloved Canadian prime minister who dies under suspicious circumstances during a canoe trip. The son makes a stirring speech during the funeral (sound familiar?), and is encouraged to run, which he does - seemingly reluctantly. He wins the party leadership and thus the prime minister’s office, at which point he begins to do some very strange things like creating loopholes in environmental assessment laws, stacking the bilateral committee overseeing boundary waters, and bribing the premiers of Ontario and Quebec into opening the door to bulk water sales to the U.S.

Behind all the machinations and intrigue stands a shadowy group of international power brokers, businessmen and right-wing economists who belong to ‘The Burnham-Wood Institute’, a thinly-veiled reference to The Fraser Institute and other similar organizations.

As it turns out, the sale of water is only the first step in a much larger Machiavellian scheme which is articulated at the climax of the film in a speech that sounds a lot like…

Well, like THIS:

Canada must reduce trade and ownership barriers, integrate economy with U.S., say Manning and Harris

Toronto, ON - Canada needs to fully open its economy and drop restrictions on foreign ownership in all business sectors including banking, financial services and telecommunications, Preston Manning and Mike Harris say in a new policy paper released today by independent research organizations The Fraser Institute and the Montreal Economic Institute.

The two also call for eliminating Canada’s supply boards and agricultural subsidies, establishing a customs union and common external tariff with the United States, and reforming Canada’s approach to foreign aid.

The recommendations are laid out in International Leadership by a Canada Strong and Free, a policy paper in which Manning and Harris argue that Canada should redefine its international position by becoming the world’s leading proponent of free trade.

And that's just the tarted-up version for the press release. The report itself is somewhat more blunt:

"For Canada, Mexico’s presence at the NAFTA table is no reason to avoid action on our urgent national interest in pursuing a formal structure to manage irreversible economic and security integration with the United States."

And my personal favourite:

"Government has no place in the decision-making of Canadian consumers, importers, or exporters."

Other bloggers have done a terrific job of excerpting the juiciest bits of this steaming pile of excrement document and explaining why these ideas are so dangerous to our country, so I won’t repeat all that here. Go read Creekside and The Galloping Beaver for a summary.

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

….

I’m old enough to remember when NAFTA was first brought in. I even remember its predecessor, the U.S./ Canada Free Trade Agreement. Those of us who protested loudly at the time were generally dismissed as paranoid protectionists with no faith in Canada’s ability to compete and thrive in the open marketplace.

Since then we have seen American corporations shutting down factories in Canada and the U.S. and re-opening them in Mexico or wherever else they can exploit people willing to work for pennies an hour. We have seen how the U.S. can simply chose to ignore any trade rules that they don’t like, even when court after court insists that they abide by them. We have seen Canada having to import oil despite producing more than enough to supply ourselves, simply because there is a clause in NAFTA that says we have to export the same percentage of our oil to the U.S. no matter how much more we are producing.

Now substitute the word ‘water’ for ‘oil’ in that last sentence and see who’s being paranoid.

I spent some time this afternoon composing a lengthy (ok, lengthier) tirade against free trade and globalization, but I’ve decided to spare you since a) other people more knowledgeable than myself have already said it better (including my grandfather), and b) the elimination of trade barriers is one of the least obnoxious recommendations in this report.

The real issue here is this: do we want our country to become more like the United States, or less? And don’t kid yourselves - economic and military integration will inevitably result in social and cultural integration. At that point, it won’t even matter if we still have our own government and our own flag. In every other respect we will be indistinguishable from Americans. I’m sure this would all be very good for business, but very bad for anyone who would rather be Canadian.

That’s ok, though, since I am quite sure that the Fraser Institute and it’s members are not even remotely interested in what’s best for Canadians.