What a Surprise – Contradicted by the Fraser Institute (on North American Union) (March 24, 2008)
Canada and the United States must press on with negotiations under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and not let the agreement collapse under the weight of ill-founded conspiracy theories, says a new paper released today by independent research organization The Fraser Institute.
Just to mention some of the arguments by Professor Moens of the Fraser Institute:
1) To paraphrase, it’s not a conspiracy, not a conspiracy, not a conspiracy. Repeating that over and over in the media shuts critics up nicely.
2) Yes, he admits it’s secret, or too “low-key” in his words. Yes, and this is responsible for the conspiracy theories and so-called “concerns” about sovereignty and allowing foreign troops on Canadian soil and NSA-monitored biometric identification and God knows what kind of Abu Ghraib thugs onto our soil. But that doesn’t make it a conspiracy. Of course not.
3) It’s not intended to be political integration European-style, no of course not, it’s:
“simply an agreement to conduct negotiations in a wide variety of areas related to product standards, government regulations on trade, health and food safety, energy, and the environment as well as a wide variety of security measures related to border crossings. The objective is to gradually achieve more regulatory convergence and product standards compatibility as well as more streamlined border and security measures so that the costs of trade and border crossings can be lowered, while standards and regulations become more continent-wide.”
Sounds like an attempt at political integration to me.
By the way, notice how the Fraser Institute press release calls the SPP an “agreement” four times! Let me quote the U.S. government website http://spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp (as of March 21, 2008 ):
“Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.”
The jokers on the U.S. SPP website say the SPP is NOT AN AGREEMENT. Let’s get our “facts” straight! Ha ha HA! I can see why people might be confused.
(4) Another type of argument is wanting the SPP to be something that isn’t defined by the governments involved:
“This confusion around what the SPP stands for has skewed public perception. Governments need to redefine the process and articulate specific goals for the partnership.”
In other words, let’s project onto the SPP all our hopes and desires for good things for Canadians and it will become whatever good thing we want it to be even when we’re not involved at all as citizens – not in any way at all.
“He recommends defining the SPP as a means of creating a North American Standards and Regulatory Area (NASRA) that would include further economic integration beyond free trade but not political integration.”
No, he doesn’t want it to mean political integration – it shouldn’t mean that and people who think it means that are “conspiracy theorists” and “left-wing nationalists”. But a “Standards and Regulatory Area” sounds like political integration to me.
“With the protectionist noises emanating from the Democrats in the run up to this year’s presidential election, now more than ever we need cool heads and thoughtful leaders on both sides of the border who can recognize the mutual importance of trade and the benefits of an open border for both Canada and the US,” Moens said
(As if the Republicans haven’t been protectionist.) Yes, because our number one concern as good Canadians should be fear that the Americans won’t do business with us if we make them mad. It’s a compelling argument I “can’t” argue with and I should just shut up.
And flying the flag means I’m a “left-wing” nationalist. Sure… yes, the only kind of nationalist is a left-wing one and as we all know, left-wingers are just so wrong about everything, so they must be wrong about flying the maple leaf. And the right-wing nationalists, they must be xenophobes and nasty populists, and luckily we don’t have any of those sorts here in Canada. Oh no. That’s very convenient how the left-right paradigm works to shut down dissent.
You know what, Canadians, and free market believers and libertarians, don’t listen to the Fraser Institute on this issue. The Fraser Institute is defending a big government program called the SPP that is secretive and behind closed doors.
Tell your Members of Parliament to shut down all SPP negotiations and save what’s left of Canadian sovereignty. Protect your basic freedoms too before the U.S. government extends its “security” methods up here – if it hasn’t already.
Do something positive and assert Canadian sovereignty and let’s build a free and prosperous society independently of these other nations. Set them an example. Let’s treat tax-paying Canadians with respect, let’s restore private property which has been completely undermined, let’s restore self-defence rights and free speech, let’s treat aboriginals with respect, let’s find voluntary ways of helping those in need and let’s get rid of these “conservative-liberal” authoritarian structures and stop listening to their propagandists.
March 24th, 2008
Comments to What a Surprise – Contradicted by the Fraser Institute
- Powell Lucas
March 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Normally I am in agreement with most of the reports by the Fraser institute and, as far as domestic policy is concerned, I still am. However, on this issue I find myself on the other side of the fence. I have been reading the publications of various U.S. governmental policy groups and, although I don’t see any evidence of some SPOOOOKY conspiracy at work, I do see a fundamental difference between Canadian and U.S. interpretation of the goals of the SPP. The U.S. side appears to be following the track proposed by the large financial institutions and is pushing for greater economic integration between our countries. In light of the latest “funny money” scandal in the States, and keeping in mind the Savings & Loan debacle of a few years ago, this would be a disaster for our country.
The banks in Canada are no different than those in the U.S. when it comes to pushing for greater debt levels and the creation of money from that debt. The only reason Canada has escaped the financial fraud perpetrated on the American people is a) they depend more on actual deposits to fund their activities and b) they are smaller and can’t compete with the ‘big boys’ and c) they are more closely regulated under our banking system. What exposure they do have to the asset-backed financial instruments were mainly generated by their U.S. subsidiaries. However, these pin- striped thugs are in lock-step with their U.S. bretheren in that they now want to dump the whole mess in the laps of the general public. In the U.S. they are doing it by having the Feds guarantee the purchasing of defaulting brokerage firms while in Canada the banks are attempting to have the courts declare the 33 billion in bad loans as an incorporated entity so they can freeze it under bankruptcy protection and shaft the very investors they conned in the first place when they assured them that the investment was as safe as GICs. In the U.S. case it will be the general public that takes the hosing when it turns out that the ‘Phoney Money’ scam brings down even more financial institutions; in Canada it will be the investors only who take the big hit (we will all pay a smaller price), but tough…’you pays your money and you takes your chances.’
So, I think Canada would be much better off if they quietly backed out of these SPP discussions and probably NAFTA as well before we get sucked into adopting the U.S. style banking system as part of some overall agreement. No sense in tying ourselves too closely to a sinking ship.
Powell Lucas
