The Canadian National Newspaper: Canada’s socially progressive news and current affairs blog

Secrecy fuels concern about U.S.-Canada ‘partnership’

Before you go into the voting booth next week, there’s something you need to think about. Though under-reported in the media, over the past few years Canada has been involved in disturbingly secretive negotiations aimed at further integrating our country with the United States.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was officially launched in 2005, though there have been multiple efforts in the same vein by various governments and think-tanks for a lot longer than that.

In other words, Liberals too have done their fair share of preparing for further Canada-U.S. assimilation. But I would suggest it is the Conservatives — and particularly, their arch-corporatist fellow travellers — who would be most willing to haul Canada down a dark road to becoming the 51st state.

I agree with Mel Hurtig, the intensely nationalist publisher who once again sounds the alarm in his recent book, The Truth About Canada. By cataloguing Canada’s eroded performance in realms as diverse as manufacturing, environment, medical care, social spending and international peacekeeping, he makes a strong case that the era of so-called free trade has been anything but good for the country. Canadians now confront more poverty, more income disparity and less control over our resources than we did in 1984.

And the backroom bureaucrats and business leaders who would sign away our national self-interest are not finished, though you’re not likely to hear much about the work of some 20 committees who are currently pondering “harmonization” of continental policies.

Hurtig points out, for example, when such a meeting was held at the Banff Springs Hotel in 2006, involving a blue-ribbon cast of government officials, military brass and corporate heads from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, neither the agenda nor the outcome of those talks was ever officially released.

When Hurtig himself came into possession of a draft agenda and a list of VIP attendees, he immediately sent them to national newspapers and networks. Yet none reported on the event. Indeed, an Ottawa Citizen reporter later discovered a consulting firm was engaged specifically to impose maximum secrecy on the meeting.

Even Peter C. Newman, the renowned biographer of Canada’s elite, was kept out of the loop. “I tried phoning people I trusted and I thought trusted me, and no one would tell me anything,” he wrote to Hurtig. “If it isn’t a conspiracy, they’re doing their best to make it appear like one.”

Knowing the players behind “deep integration” is enough to arouse suspicion about what has been described as an anti-democratic process. The SPP is being steered by the North American Competitiveness Council, which is made up of business heavyweights.

On our side, all of them are drawn from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, leaders of the country’s largest corporations. When these people sit down to discuss, say, environmental regulation, do you think it is to make those laws tougher?

And how about Canada’s vast freshwater resources, which were specifically excluded from NAFTA. What are the chances that emergent “security” needs will put water back on the table and thus guarantee the U.S. permanent access, just like they got with our oil?

Meanwhile, the federal Tories showed which way they lean with the release this summer of their report into cross-border issues by the competition review panel. Among its recommendations: Loosen up foreign investment restrictions. Scrap the ban on bank mergers. Let Americans own our uranium. All in all, the Tories are telling us that the SPP is moving too slowly. And that’s why I fear what they might do next, under a cloak of secrecy. With all of the structural problems in the U.S. economy, is now the time to give deep integrationalists encouragement to do what we never asked them to do in the first place?

Kevin Brooker, Special to The Times Colonist  

About the writer:

Kevin Brooker is a Calgary writer. Editorial LINK

It takes courage to be a soldier, especially in Canada. Canadian soldiers not only put their bodies in harms’ way and act as a buffer for their government and fellow countrymen, but our soldiers do so knowing that in their time of illness and injury this same government body and Canadians, in general, will do very little for them.

It takes courage to be a soldier; to sign an oath offering up life itself, to enter into this noble profession in exultant, healthy youth only to return within months in a state of infirm and wretched old age brought on decades too soon, due principally, to injuries incurred in service to Canada.

How is the value of a soldier’s oath and offering estimated? Evidently, it is in the lengthy, costly lawsuits the government forces thousands of veterans through when they dare to ask for that which they have earned and are entitled to, as in the case of Agent Orange, Pension Claw-Backs, Retirement Benefits and Services as well as deductions from long term disability declared unfair by both House and Senate Committees; not to mention two different DND Ombudsmen. In a rare and generous moment, as with the Atomic Veterans and the Merchant Marines, a stipend may be thrown their way, sixty years after the fact, in the hope it will shut them up.

Apparently, the theft of soldiers’ and veterans’ money is acceptable in Canada. It no longer takes an Act of Parliament to make radical changes to the pension funds of our soldiers as seen by the transfer of $16.5 Billion from the Canadian Forces Retirement funds to pay down the National Debt. As recently as 2003-04, as the body count of Canadian Soldiers dying in Afghanistan rises, the politicians ordering our young men and women to their deaths think nothing of stealing a further $630 Million from the Canadian Forces Pension Account to pay for other government programs.

At one point, over the past decade, the Canadian Forces Retirement pension had an accumulated surplus of over $20 Billion. The hard-earned money put there by our soldiers has now been taken by government to pay for inefficiencies in other departments. Canadian Forces members have long paid into the Employment Insurance fund when as soldiers and yet those same soldiers will never be allowed to collect from the EI fund upon their release from the military.

Why is this allowed to happen?

Because the simple truth is that the soldier stands low in the social order. Politicians wrap themselves in the flag and shamelessly parades our bravest before the public as an election tool; an accessory when it suits their own selfish aims.

They play and prey upon the public’s indifference, confusions and sympathies with deceit and unrivalled hypocrisy using hollow weasel words like ‘support the troops’. When politicians make speeches, they are skilfully arranging words to suit the sentimentality of their audiences. They seek to draw us into a belief that their values and beliefs are our values and beliefs; that we are one and the same. However they may move their lips and mask their words, they fail to hide their true belief, that when the soldiers have lost their value, the Government, and by association, the Canadian public just don’t care.

These leaders are willing to gamble with the lives of our soldiers without putting their own lives on the line. Members of the House of Commons and Senate sit in judgment on whether the veterans deserve the same pensions and benefits that they have, so handsomely, rewarded themselves without ever having been under deadly fire. These leaders, who give little thought for sending soldiers into harm’s way, are the least likely to share in any of the burdens when the soldiers return wounded and broken. ‘Thanks a bunch. Welcome home. Here’s a medal. Now, shut up!’

What’s left when the insincere statements are stripped away? The most cowardly of acts: Blatant Robbery and negligence causing lifelong harm to our soldiers, veterans and their loved ones.

Treatment of soldiers’ and veterans’ welfare should be a non-partisan issue. Under the Liberal watch, soldiers have been neglected and negated. Under the Conservative watch they have been lied to, tricked and used. The Conservatives have delivered billions of dollars in Corporate tax breaks while ignoring to honour their last election promises to ensure the welfare of soldiers and veterans is not neglected.

These promises are part of a longstanding social and moral contract between the Canadian public and its military which guarantees that no matter what the injury or sacrifice, the soldier and his/her family will always be cared for. Although this contract has been written in blood tens of thousands of times over the last century, including our tragic losses in Afghanistan, politicians and Canadians have shirked their side of the deal, taking advantage of the shame soldiers suffer in asking for help.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has claimed he has shed a few tears for the families of our fallen. All Canadians have done that much. To their credit, the NDP’s Veteran’s Motion received a majority vote in Parliament which the Harper government failed to recognize and act upon, thereby, ignoring the will of the people. In the past, the NDP have stood in support of our finest but, regrettably, have yet, to put their money where their mouth is in this present election. Could it be that they, also, don’t want to make this promise because they, too, have no intention to make good on it? Why do political leaders act in complete opposite to whom and what they say they are and what they say they are doing?

Because we let them.

That the majority of Canadians limit their support to the troops in spirit, bumper sticker and red t-shirt, only leaves me feeling empty. Do we dare to claim otherwise when we continue to allow corrupt, uncaring and incompetent men be appointed to execute laws of self interest, to ignore the will of the people and squander public revenue in the billions of dollars for corporate tax breaks, stylist, juvenile TV ads, etc. while begrudging the Military what they have so costly paid for themselves?

So, I ask, are the ideas and beliefs of Canadians really the same as those of the politicians? Have Canadians lost the comprehension of what justice, compassion and honour are? Do we truly want to listen to a soldier or a veteran when he or she makes a plea for help and do we really understand what our debt to them involves?

Wake up, Canada. These are your sons and daughters. An election is here and the foxes are out wooing the chickens with still more promises. As you exercise your freedom to vote without persecution and as you enjoy the daily freedoms we all take for granted, each Canadian must decide for himself, alone, what is right and what is wrong; what is fair and unfair. Will you remain ignorant and silent and only sing the praises of our men and women in uniform when it suits you?

I’m weary of all the clichés, platitudes and pieties about supporting the troops.

To paraphrase, the 19th Century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, I believe; ‘time plagues our existence and pursues us like an unrelenting task master with a whip’: None more so than with our veterans. Time is running out for many of them. Can’t we take a few minutes to write or call our MPs and leaders to say enough is enough? Don’t our wounded and fallen soldiers merit a few minutes of our time? Are they not worth the price of an envelope; postage is free.

When leaders act contrary to the conscience of Canadians then Canadians must act contrary to their leaders. It’s time we took care of those who have taken care of us in times of trouble and disaster and who have guarded our many freedoms. If we shirk this small action of defending those who now wear or once wore a uniform, then let our conscience and others label us as they may.

Recommended websites and online petition:

www.agentorangealert.com
www.afp-aac.org
www.mcinnescooper.com/sisipltdclassaction.cfm
www.petitiononline.com/vets8

by Claudia Schibler

Canadians seem to be demonstrating to the world, that without the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau to champion the cause of nationhood, they are generally apathetic. This critical observation does not include those Canadians who have been kept ignorant of the fascistic North American Union (NAU) agenda. Rather, this critical observation refers to those Canadians who are aware of the NAU agenda, and elect to do nothing, other than whine and bitch in their cliques. Keep whining and bitching about the corporate media (and its cover-up of these matters), and let’s see how that actually saves Canada.

The current 2008 Federal Election, has provided those with NAU awareness, so-called “activists”, with a potentially great opportunity to further raise awareness. However, the supposed Canadian so-called “activists” have apparently sought to favour more whining and bitching over actually constructive action.

Let’s see CTV, CBC, Global, TVOntario, the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Macleans, the National Post, Radio Canada, TVA, and other the other Establishmentarian media organizations ignore 20,000 Canadians on Parliament Hill requesting political party leaders to give account for their participation in the sell out of Canada. Imagine Canadians on Parliament Hill with Canadian Maple Leaf flags, various signage, and eloquent speakers, demanding answers.

Indeed, Americans activists who are aware of the NAU agenda, have been much more active in organizing against it. Oh, profuse apologies. You would have much more luck these days apparently, trying to get Canadians to check out a hockey game, or to line up for Tim Horton’s coffee, than to organize to protect the fundamental abrogation of their citizenship and human rights as Canadians, in relation to the NAU.

When the Stephen Harper government because of the NAU agenda, decides to stop universal public healthcare, or when our cities in Canada, have growing areas of despair like Detroit, the Bronx, the south side of Chicago, or Watts, don’t blame Mr. Harper.

The Canadians who have been kept ignorant of the NAU, may wish to critically consider the NAU as a manifestation of the lack of social responsibility. The result is that Canadians seem to be more and more comfortable with supporting Harper’s Americanization agenda, that supports venal tax cuts, over social programmes that affirm our quality of life, that in turn keeps crime naturally low; and militarism over peacekeeping; and greed over altruism.

Union leaders in Canada could easily organize well over 50,000 people to converge on Parliament Hill on the NAU agenda. This could be organized very quickly with a simple phone call by either Jack Layton; the President of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), in association with other union leaders. But it is apparent, that the NDP, union leaders, and apparent lazy Canadians who aware of the NAU, and who call themselves “activists”, seem to seeking to prove Benoit Bouchard’s assertion that “Canada is not a nation”, to be a correct statement.

Indeed, a nation would not be allowing itself to go away in what Trudeau once referred to as a “whimper”, rather than a “bang!”.

Canadians must wake themselves up in this election, or face an arranged take-over by U.S. far right wing agenda, that Canada arguably would deserve, under the apparent prevailing context of naivety, laziness and apathy, by its citizens. These citizens notably also include what be described as treasonous skulduggery by complicit “fifth column” politicians.

by Gérald Brisson

In his 1970 introduction to Lament for a Nation, Professor George Grant modestly expressed doubt whether his study had an enduring importance beyond the particular circumstances occasioning its appearance.

He questioned whether his appeal to the distinctiveness of our political heritage would strike a responsive chord in a generation witnessing other historical events and participating in new social experiences. Yet, Grant’s modesty aside, one should urge readers to renew their acquaintance with his passionate defence of our Canadian identity, if for no other reason than that we are still, and perhaps to an even greater extent, subject to widespread homogenizing, pro NAU, and self-proclaimed “North Americanists” who coordinate continentalist forces which have been shaping our destiny for the past two decades.

“Lament for a Nation should be respected as a masterpiece of political meditation… In this study Professor George Grant [had] opened Canadian public debate, with frankness and depth, to include the most fundamental and perennial questions a nation must ask itself about the full meaning of its own political existence. He challenged us to reflect on the unique possibilities and limits constituting our destiny as Canadians.” once declared Peter Emberley, Professor of Political Science, Carleton University. “Masterpiece is not a word to use lightly, but Lament for a Nation merits it. In it Grant distilled his years of study of theology and philosophy, together with his knowledge of history and his acute attention to the daily passage of political events. The former adult educator put it all into a book that was instantly accessible to the broad reading public, but rewarded repeated reading by academic philosophers,” once said William Christian, author of George Grant: A Biography.

For those whose lives have been deeply affected by massive continental economic restructuring, who have begun to experience the political and social implications of living within the new continental trade region formed under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and who are attempting to navigate between equally powerful globalizing forces and the recrudescence of fragmenting local attachments, Grant’s tocsin still warns with unsurpassed clarity of the dangerous shoals surrounding us.

Special to The Canadian

Saskatoon resident sends a message to Ottawa City councillors

This is a message in defence of Canada that is directed at Ottawa City Councillors. A wise resolution was passed by the City of Ottawa in 1989: “city facilities not be leased to ARMX or other such arms exhibitions.”

I urge you to uphold the resolution. Imagine Canada as Iraq. Imagine that the USA dropped cluster bombs and bullets coated with depleted uranium on us. … Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There should be no tolerance for Arms Bazaars in Canada.

The spread of the American military-industrial-government complex into Canada is insidious.

Under “offset agreements” in the contracts between the Government of Canada and these people who make billions of dollars in the business of killing people and simultaneously destroying the environment, 75% of the contract value is spent in Canada.

The exorbitant profits made possible by tax-payers become generous grants made by the corporations to Canadian universities (e.g. Dalhousie University - $2 million in May 2008 from Lockheed Martin Corporation). There are strings attached to the grants.

The Government should be sending taxpayers’ money directly to the universities, to serve the public interest. It should not be filtered through the hands of the corporations, through exorbitantly-priced contracts.

But Canadian companies are the main beneficiaries of the spending through the offset agreements. And so WE (stupid Canadians?) are financing the spread of the American military-industrial complex into Canada.

The American economy is dependent upon going to war. In the current financial news from the U.S., you will find that recession does not affect the fortunes of the military corporations (like Lockheed Martin and the others who will be at the Arms Bazaar).

I am 59 years old. If you have time for the 4 points appended, you will see that Canada is drastically changing its role in the world, from the years during which I learned Canadian values. We are no longer peace-keepers. Read the “Canada First Defence Strategy” released by the Government in June.

Violence begets violence. It does not solve problems. It is a rather obsolete and stupid approach. The mightiest generals have been Mohandas Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. They brought oppressive regimes to their knees using the weapon of non-violent resistance. With little or no money. Others, for example the East Germans have learned the ways of non-violent resistance and successfully brought down a ruthless Communist government.

Please, NO military expositions.

May we all fight to defend the heritage given to us by people of honour, integrity, intelligence and humanity like Canadian Prime Minister, Lester Pearson.

by Sandra Finley

I believe, in general, that we Canadians are very proud of our unique historical traditions Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I believe also that Canadians feel good about way we assisted Americans who did not wish to serve in the Vietnam War. There is a strong sense that it was the right thing to do and it has become a proud part of our national identity. For a moment in history, we stood up for a justice that transcends borders and nationalities. We stood up for humanity and decency and our actions were an accurate reflection of the collective Canadian spirit on the issue.

I am now concerned that this Government is moving us farther away from some of the positions that made Canada the envy of the world. You are beginning to change the face of Canada in ways that many of us are uncomfortable with. I am beginning to feel like the Government of Canada is attempting to adopt an ideology as our national identity and I am very disturbed by that. I feel that some of your polices are beginning to depart from deeply held traditional Canadian values. And you are transforming the face of Canada with the mandate of a minority Government. You also have a majority in the House of Commons who voted, on behalf of Canadians, to support the request made by American War resisters to remain in Canada. I believe you are turning your back on a majority of Canadians on an issue that is very important to us. That is not the sign of a democratic Prime Minister. Somehow Canada has always been a little bit different and we have always been proud of that. We don’t want to be more like anyone else.

Sir, I believe that the war in Iraq lacked any legitimate justification. The evidence now makes this painfully clear. America has lost its credibility at this time in our history. This war in Iraq is only a notch above the Vietnam War in terms of its sheer brutality and the lack of any meaningful justification. The main difference is that the “lies and the spin” this time around have convinced some people otherwise. Others have just concluded, “Well, there is no justification for it that I can see. However, there must have been a good reason for it.” Most people are now wising up and recognizing the truth about this war and we are all seeing and reading about the unbelievable toll it is taking on young American soldiers and their families.

Many returning veterans, especially those who have been subjected to the psychological torture of the “stop loss program”, are coming back completely destroyed. Many of them are beyond the reach of those who would like to help them. The number of suicides amongst returning vets of the Iraq War is so very high. This tragedy has to cause your heart to sink, as it does mine. Would you really want your own son or daughter to serve 2 or 3 tours of duty in Iraq sir? Wouldn’t you worry terribly about his physical and mental health?

Sir, in the name of decency, compassion, and a higher justice, I implore you to allow American war resisters to remain in Canada as conscientious objectors . Please don’t send them off to have their lives and families destroyed by an unjust war. Your decision to begin deporting American war resisters lacks decency and compassion. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position.

by Spencer Spratley

Largest gathering of wealth and power ever assembled on American soil off-limits to American media

Eugene, OREGON — A press corps recently scourged by former White House Press Secretary, Scott McCellan, as being “too deferential,” have once again bowed to pressures, and decided not to report the largest gathering of corporate, banking, governmental and royal power ever assembled on American soil.

Over 140 of the world’s most elite powerbrokers gathered in a high class hotel in Chantilly, Virgina, June 5-8, not far from this nation’s capital for the annual Bilderberg Conference. First held in 1954, the Bilderberg Group has, until recently, never even acknowledged its own existence and attendees, who even today, will not admit they attended or what they actually discussed.

In a rare moment of public relations, an anonymous group affiliated with the ultra-secretive Bilderbergers, called Friends of Bilderberg, issued a list of power elites invited to this year’s conference. The list included American Secretary of State Rice, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson, National Security Agency Director Alexander, World Bank president Zoellick, Fed Chairman Bernanke, NY Fed President Geithner, along with Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, George Schultz, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Holbrooke, as well as major European politicians, bankers and businessmen.

All the major corporations, the royal houses of Europe, and representatives of the media, such as Donald Graham of the Washington Post and Paul Gigot of PBS, were also invited. Yet, not one photo or word documenting the event showed up in the mainstream media, despite a howling blogosphere rife with rumours that Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama secretly attended.

The Friends of Bilderberg press release also states that the “meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion” and that “all participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity.” Under the Logan Act, passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994, it is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years, for any U.S. citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. The attendance of U.S. citizens at annual Bilderberg Group Conference in an unofficial—meaning unauthorized — capacity raises the question of violation of federal law on a rather large scale, which should at the very least draw the mainstream media’s attention.

Daniel Estulin, author of The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (TrineDay; September, 2007), is recognized as the only reliable source of information on the meetings, attendees, and agendas of this secretive group of corporate titans, media moguls and political powers. For years, he has been tracking the movements, speeches, and political webs of Bilderberg members to glean what he can about their plans to re-invent the world in their own image. According to Estulin, and other printed sources, the funds for the first conferences were supplied by intelligence organization interests, and security at these conference are still handled by corresponding government agencies.

“The fact of this sinister conclave, as spooky as any midnight meeting of the KKK in a piney wood, was bound to get known to the world eventually,” says Estulin.” There is a queer parallel between Bilderberg´s secret meeting in Chantilly and a conference on Jekyll Island way back in 1908 in which the currency of the United States and of the world was manipulated — to what effect, whether for good or evil, opinions vary. There have been many excited versions of that secret meeting on Jekyll Island in 1908, but relatively few have ever heard of it at all. Most Americans are not aware of Bilderberg nor understand that the decisions taken at their secret confab affect the lives of the entire planet.”

Underlining the serious nature of the meeting, Estulin reports that Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas spoke at the Bilderberg Conference Thursday, June 5, calling for the elimination of superpowers and sovereign nation states. Estulin quotes Haas as saying in his speech on International Non-Polarity, “The United States’ unipolar moment is over. International relations in the twenty-first century will be defined by nonpolarity. Power will be diffuse rather than concentrated, and the influence of nation-states will decline as that of non-state actors increases.”

Estulin has reported over the past few years that the true Eugenic-inspired purpose of these “private” and “informal” discussions, under the disguise of solving world problems, such as nuclear arms and terrorism, are in fact organized to:

– Dissolve national hegemonies and create a neo-fascist super state, spanning North America and Europe (in other words, Goodbye Canada);

– Centralize control of the people—eliminate the middle class, leaving only rulers, their helpers and workers;

– De-industrialize industrialized nations (except for computer and service industries) by moving industries to Third World, non-unionized countries;

– Reduce human populations around the globe;

– Centralize control of all education;

– Empower the United Nations to bring nations under a “New World Order”;

– Create and expand the western trading bloc throughout the western hemisphere to establish an “American Union” similar to the European Union (in order words, an American Empire ruling over continental North America, South America, Latin America, and the Caribbean/West Indies);

The True Story of the Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin exposes this powerful cabal as no one else can. Estulin spearheads a network of activists and journalists tracking their every move.

by Kurt Aldag, TrineDay Editorial Coordinator

Become a member of The Canadian, with your donation-pledge. Help support independent, progressive, and not-for-profit journalism.

COMMENTS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. MAKE A MEMBER PLEDGE. 

Lou Dobbs, who is Harvard educated, and anchors at CNN, has revealed in many of his programmes, an agenda among elites to create an anti-democratic North American Union. This revelation includes the accompanying video. CNBC television video that is attached, reports an apparent criminal conspiracy, which us being orchestrated by elites, to replace the U.S. and Canadian dollars with a devalued “Amero” currency. Elites who are plotting to create an anti-democratic North American Union (NAU), are apparently in the process of actually minting the “Amero” as the proposed currency for the NAU. A U.S. radio talk show host has apparently received Amero coins minted in Denver, Colorado, in the United States. The NAU is the agenda of elites that are associated with the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP).

Would you like to see additional articles and critical commentaries about the NAU, SPP, and “Amero” in The Canadian National Newspaper? Then, show your support. Make a member-pledge donation, in support of the Membership Drive of the Pro-Democracy Media Foundation.

The Canadian is the only Canadian national newspaper that has provided on-going coverage of the anti-democratic NAU, SPP, and “Amero” agenda. However, we can only do that with your support.

The Canadian is a socially progressive and not-for-profit national newspaper, with an international readership.

Become a member of The Canadian, with your donation-pledge. Help support independent, progressive, and not-for-profit journalism.

by Paul Chen

Dr. Thomas Axworthy, co-chairman of Canada’s Liberal Renewal Commission, was opposed to NAFTA from its infancy 15 years ago. Today he is equally adamant against the possible formation of a North American Union.

Having served as former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s Principal Secretary from 1981 to 1984, as well as the Chairman of the Centre for the Study of Democracy and Chairman of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, one would assume Dr. Axworthy has our nation in his best interest.

While he respects the U.S. as a neighbouring country, the author of Our American Cousins (James Lorimer & Co.) has no faith in America’s word. After all, “The US is very capricious.”

Mr. Axworthy expands, “I was involved in the 1988 dispute; (with the emergence of NAFTA), they said there would never again be disputes because there are rules. But with the soft wood situation, they didn’t follow the procedure.”

In short? “The jurisdiction process means nothing. If the U.S. wants soft wood lumber, they’ll get it. So we still faced the same problem after NAFTA that we had before.”

The only difference being that the problem has expanded into possible annihilation of national independence.

Quietly, behind closed doors, in a manner similar to the pigs of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, Harper and Bush are signing away the rights of Canadian citizens.

It’s been a gradual process, beginning in 1992 with NAFTA when former Progressive Conservative Party Prime Minister Brian Mulroney gave up sovereignty over our oil and gas industries; it was then supported by former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s signature in 1993; furthered by the development of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in 2005, and established by current Prime Minister Harper’s Leader’s Joint Statement in 2006. The latter presented six action points to move toward a North American Union (NAU).

Today’s government, says Axworthy, “is easily the most pro-American government we’ve ever had.”

With queried about the implementation of the “North American Community,” Mr. Axworthy exclaims, “God be with them if they try! Canada has a very distinctive way of life. We have a different value system. We have a different set of priorities …”

To compromise even more of Canada’s resources, says Axworthy, such as the Great Lakes, would lead to our nation’s demise.

“We need more independence and more autonomy in order to preserve our distinct way of life.”

He acknowledges the importance of being on friendly terms with the US; after all, in case of a pandemic, for example, “You’d like to have protocols that agree upon sharing resources or procedures.”

However, Mr. Axworthy is quick to add, “You don’t want your neighbour moving into your house. So you lock the door.”

When questioned on his views of the “Amero” – the name assigned to the possible single monetary system between Canada and the U.S. – Axworthy becomes quietly enraged.

“That’s nonsensical. Ridiculous. When you think of sovereignty, there are relatively few instruments. One is having an independent monetary currency.

“The second is independent power over taxation, and the third is regulation. What we have done with NAFTA is we gave up regulation on the oil and gas; you would certainly want to keep the other instruments.”

Ultimately, Canada is at the verge of losing its identity – yet its citizens are unaware. Again, paralleling the Seven Commandments in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the “pigs” are discreetly changing Trudeau’s Charter of Rights and Freedom, assuming their “labourers” are too ignorant to notice.

The only way to prevent our complete Charter from being altered or eradicated is to wake up and take action. We must stop working blindly for our “pro-American” government, and refuse to let our identity slip away.

“There’s no question Harper is a great admirer of neo-conservatism (like going to war in Iraq, for example),” says Dr. Axworthy. “I don’t think he has Canada at his heart. I’m in favour of an independent foreign policy. My goal is to (see) Canada have as much independence as possible.”

Personally, I’m beginning to wonder if the pros of being a ‘peace-keeping’ nation still outweigh the cons.

At what point does peacekeeping verge upon complacency, particularly when confronted by power-hungry adversaries?

As proven through numerous occasions, including the current war on Iraq, the US has an insatiable appetite, feeding off unsuspecting citizens of peaceful (or under-developed) heritages.

Metaphorically speaking, Canada is America’s younger sibling. They are playing a game, which we’ll call “Monopoly.” America assumes the role of ‘rule-maker,’ and dubs these rules “NAFTA.” It then proceeds to ignore every rule infringing upon its winning the game. In other words, NAFTA is a consolatory way of appeasing Canada’s conscience, holding no real leverage whatsoever.

I will close with a quote from the Right Honourable former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau: “Americans should never underestimate the constant pressure on Canada which the mere presence of the United States has produced. We’re different people from (them) and we’re different people because of (them). “Living next to (them) is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is effected by every twitch and grunt. It should not therefore be expected that this kind of nation, this Canada, should project itself as a mirror image of the United States.”

by Emily Wierenga

The average Canadian citizen does not have a sufficiently high degree of political awareness to permit any political awareness to permit any political party at the present time to enact the type of legislation, and enforce regulations that would make possible a reversal of the tread toward Americanization.

Your manifesto [pro-Canadian] speaks of “some costs and sacrifices”.

In an ear when demands are made on the government by interests groups of all sizes and descriptions, from foreign students to major industries, the average Canadian does not seem prepared to say NO. Rather, he joins with them in making his own demands for higher wages, subsidies, tax exemptions and so on. There are too few Canadians today who are really prepared to tighten their own belt to secure our heritage for ourselves, far fewer for our children.

by Sterling Banks [Excerpted Featured Retro article]

About article

This Retro article was originally published in the Toronto State, Saturday, March 21, 1970 in response to the Toronto Star’s Forum on “Canadian nationalism or Americanization”.

It has become the “great North American non-issue.”

At the end of 2006, the Canadian Press compiled a list of the year’s major news events. The March meeting in Cancun between Stephen Harper, Vicente Fox and George Bush, where the three leaders furthered the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), did not make the cut.

When it comes to the SPP, the Canadian (and American) mass-media organizations seem to have adopted a “see no evil, report no evil” strategy. Every major Canadian daily newspaper is the property of a parent owner with interests that extend far beyond publishing.

As the media officer for the Council of Canadians, it’s my job to get journalists interested in social justice issues. I figured that the SPP had all the makings of a great news item. It’s full of what journalists refer to as “news values” - characteristics that would make a story newsworthy. After all, the SPP will have a significant impact on a large number of people. It involves prominent and powerful government and business leaders.

But the public is being left in the dark.

In March, it will be two years since the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership in Waco, Texas. By now, if the media had done its job, the SPP would be a household name like NAFTA and the WTO. Yet most Canadians remain blissfully unaware of this powerful new agreement.

So, you may ask, why has such a contentious issue drawn so little media attention? And what does this say about the state of the Canadian news industry?

Media convergence

According to Christopher Dornan, “by 2002, with only a handful of exceptions, every major Canadian daily newspaper was the property of a parent owner with interests that extend far beyond publishing.”

Daily newspapers in Canada are owned for the most part by large media conglomerates that also own broadcasting and/or telecommunications outlets. CanWest, for example, owns dailies, including the National Post, the Montreal Gazette and the Ottawa Citizen and television networks across the country. The Globe and Mail, Canada’s largest national daily, is owned by Bell Canada Enterprise, a corporation with both broadcast and telecommunication interests.

Large broadcast and telecommunications corporations in Canada like CanWest have been pushing for the relaxation of foreign ownership rules in order to attract U.S. investors and gain access to U.S. markets. The harmonization of broadcast and telecommunications regulation across North America would help serve this goal.

In fact, both Power Corporation of Canada (owner of La Presse) and Bell Canada Enterprise (owner of The Globe and Mail and CTV) sit on the North American Competitiveness Council, the business advisory body created at the Cancun leaders’ summit to counsel governments on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (which in turn are protagonists of the North American Union agenda).

No wonder it’s so hard for groups like the Council of Canadians to get stories critical of the SPP published in the mainstream press. The Council’s opposition to deep integration directly challenges the big media corporations that are fighting for the deregulation of broadcast and telecommunications policies across the continent.

by Meera Karunananthan [Excerpted]

If you read any Canadian newspaper, you’ve been treated to the same refrain: NAFTA has been good for Canada. It has led to economic growth and jobs for Canadians. And given that it’s been so wonderful for Canada, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) could only make things better, right?

What proponents of deep integration are not telling you is this: the notion that NAFTA has been good for average Canadians, Americans and Mexicans is a lie. The truth is that NAFTA has been responsible for growing poverty, the creation of a new underclass called the “working poor,” and the concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

The numbers don’t lie

When political and business leaders sold Canadians on the merits of NAFTA, they promised that trade would boom, our economy would grow, more jobs would be created and our standard of living would skyrocket. In Mexico, politicians promised that free trade would lift people out of poverty. Look closely at the numbers, however, and all these promises begin to ring hollow.

A September 2006 study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that Canadian exports to the U.S. peaked in 2000 and started falling in 2001 and 2002. They have since risen again, but only because of a commodities boom particularly related to the minerals, forestry and energy industries.

In other words, if it weren’t for natural resources, especially oil, our exports to the U.S. would be falling steadily. Furthermore, a federal Industry Department study quoted by EPI reveals that 90 per cent of the export surge in the 1990s was a result of the low Canadian dollar.

In addition, Canada’s share of the American import market has stayed the same throughout the NAFTA years. So those who claimed that NAFTA would give us a “privileged” and growing access to the American market have been proven wrong. Canada is rapidly losing ground to India and China, two countries that have not signed trade deals with the U.S.

Exports don’t equal jobs

NAFTA’s proponents point out that Mexico has become the world’s eighth largest exporter. This, they say, is proof that free trade has been good for the Mexican people. But researchers at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University recently concluded that foreign investment was “largely disconnected from the domestic Mexican economy.”

In other words, large corporations are exploiting a cheap labour force for quick profit. The products of this labour immediately leave the country as exports. This accounts for the high trade numbers but it is not an accurate reflection of Mexico’s economic strength. The country as a whole does not benefit from technology transfers or new infrastructure.

A 2004 article in The Economist stated that NAFTA “champions” had oversold their case and that it was “never plausible” that NAFTA would be a net creator of jobs. The magazine went on to explain that free trade affects the pattern of jobs, not the total number of jobs created.

Disappearing middle class

In Canada, the middle class has taken the biggest hit. Wage growth has been almost flat since 1989 - it grew at a paltry rate of 0.63 per cent per year. NAFTA defenders point to the creation of “millions” of new jobs since the agreement was implemented, but a 2004 study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) questions the quality and stability of those jobs. According to the CCPA, 560,000 jobs were created in 2002, but 40 per cent were part-time and 17 per cent represented self-employed persons.

The CCPA’s study reinforces an argument that the labour movement has been making for years: free trade eliminates unionized, steady, well-paid jobs and replaces them with temporary, non-unionized and largely part-time “McJobs”. And this has come at a time when Canada’s social programs have been devastated by cuts - especially since the mid-1990s. In 1989, the CCPA points out, 87 per cent of unemployed people in Canada qualified for unemployment insurance benefits, whereas by 2001 only 39 per cent qualified for coverage.

Canadians aren’t the only ones suffering. Despite a flood of investment in the manufacturing sector along the Mexican border with the U.S., the real value of the minimum wage has dropped in Mexico by 18 per cent. A 2003 study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace points out that while the manufacturing sector in Mexico created 500,000 jobs between 1994 and 2000, the agricultural sector, where one-fifth of Mexicans still work, has lost 1.3 million jobs since 1994.

To add insult to injury, many of the manufacturing jobs are leaving Mexico for China, where wages are even lower. The most revealing indication of this trend is the skyrocketing numbers of Mexican immigrants to the United States. According to Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics, the flow of undocumented workers to the United States has ballooned from an estimated 200,000 a year in 1994 to more than 300,000 a year in 2004.

The irony is that the U.S. middle class has also been devastated by job losses in recent years. Between 2001 and 2003, 2.9 million manufacturing jobs were lost in the U.S. According to Forbes Magazine, the United States’ largest employer is now Wal-Mart, which pays its employees an average wage of $7.50 per hour. The growing gap

Here is the crux of the matter: If NAFTA has created so much wealth, why is poverty growing in all three countries?

Study after study reveals that the gap between rich and poor is growing both between countries and within countries. In the book Living with Uncle: Canada-US Relations in an Age of Empire, Bruce Campbell argues that after decades of declining inequality, the bottom 20 per cent of Canadian families saw their incomes fall by 7.6 per cent in the NAFTA era, while the top 20 per cent saw their incomes rise by 16.8 per cent.

A 2004 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada produced by Campaign 2000 reveals that nearly a third of Canadian children have lived in poverty for at least a year since 1996. According to the report, the richest 10 per cent of Canadian families have an average income 11 times as high as the poorest 10 per cent. The authors blame low-paying and insecure jobs for widening the disparity between rich and poor families. In other words, a “strong economy” has done nothing to close the gap.

The idea that free trade would make Mexico rich was the biggest fallacy of all. Under NAFTA, the number of Mexicans living in poverty has actually increased. According to a May 2001 World Bank study, Mexicans living in poverty represent 58.4 per cent of the population. That’s almost 8 per cent higher than in 1994.

The much-celebrated “NAFTA labour side agreement” - an after-the-fact peace offering that was supposed to appease the U.S. labour movement - has proven too weak to enforce labour rights in Mexico. The mechanisms it created to defend workers have no enforcement powers so there has been little impact on the lives of the people the agreement was meant to defend. The Wall Street Journal put it eloquently in 1997, reporting that under the agreement “not a single worker was ever reinstated, not a single employer was ever sanctioned, and no union was ever recognized.”

The evidence makes it clear that under free trade, the losers are the Canadians, Mexicans and Americans who are struggling to contend with low wages and insecure working conditions - if they are lucky enough to find a job. NAFTA has made corporate investors very rich, so it’s no surprise that they are the ones pushing for deeper integration with the U.S. and Mexico through the Security and Prosperity Partnership. They are the only clear winners under the NAFTA model, so they want to make free trade irreversible and broaden its scope.

In 1994, Canadians took a leap of faith based on false promises. In 2007, we know better.

by Jean-Yves LeFort  

About the author:

Jean-Yves LeFort is The Council of Canadians’ Trade Campaigner.