Perfectly logical

Of course the Cons can't reveal anything about their planned U.S. security deal to MPs from other parties.

After all, not only would they sacrifice the "they're criticizing it without even seeing it" talking point by doing so, but they'd also enable rival MPs to oppose the plan based on better information. And what right does a mere opposition party have to do that sort of thing?

A helpful hint

Michael Ignatieff mindlessly repeating the Libs' decade-old talking points about how votes for more progressive parties don't count: not news.

Michael Ignatieff declaring in the same interview that he's in full agreement with the Cons' plans for a North American security perimeter, giving Stephen Harper yet another gift of political cover on an issue where he's completely at odds with Canada's voters: news.

You're welcome, media. Now please, report the actual news before it's too late.

On thick analysis

Alison has already taken on much of the Star's latest trial balloon about a Canada/U.S. "security perimeter". But there's another point of sheer absurdity in the argument that Canada should continually offer up key elements of its sovereignty in hopes of currying favour in Washington.

After all, the sole reason given as to why Canada should volunteer to give up control over its own borders is that the Canada/U.S. border is "thickening" due to American domestic politics.

But if that's the case despite the concessions Canada has already made in order to sign agreements which were specifically aimed at protecting our market access, then doesn't that offer fairly conclusive evidence that nothing we can do as a country will actually trump those domestic calculations? And wouldn't giving away the "last truly huge step" for nothing more than what we're supposed to have already simply encourage even more blatant ignorance of whatever the U.S. agrees to on paper?

When all you have is a bag of hammers...

Shorter Canada-U.S. Project:

Having spent the part two decades agitating for deep integration with the U.S. under a number of different names, rationales and structures, we can surely be taken seriously when we say the Obama inauguration represents a unique opportunity to do what we've been demanding all along.

Fundamental contradictions

Shorter Stephen Harper:
Canadians don't need to worry that the U.S.' downturn will affect us since we're on fundamentally different economic ground. Which reminds me: who's up for some regulatory harmonization and deep integration?

(See here for more about how Canada's independent financial system has helped to avoid a U.S.-style meltdown.)

A steaming pile by any other name

A sneak preview of Barbara Yaffe's column for May 2, 2009:
So it turns out that renaming the SPP as the "North American Standards and Regulations Area" didn't manage to fool anybody. But I'm sure if we just rename the exact same type of integration as the Motherhood, Frolicking Puppies and Wealth Beyond Your Wildest Dreams Coalition, we won't have any trouble selling it.

Incidentally, with the SPP back in the news, it's worth drawing a contrast between the Cons' stance on deep integration and their obstruction against World Health Organization labeling requirements. Apparently they're all for setting international standards when it means avoiding democratically-made regulations to make sure that more goods get sent from country to country. But when it comes to actually allowing consumers to find out what it is they're buying, the Cons' appetite for cooperation disappears.

h/t to Alison and pogge.

On recognition

It's already been noted (if perhaps not widely enough) that the SPP discussions this week will take place in almost total secrecy. But the CP reports on part of the agenda which the Three Amigos are willing to make public - and even that gives rise to reason for serious concern, as Deceivin' Stephen is apparently eager to have Canadian regulatory decisions made based on politicized data from Bushco's FDA:

The border announcement is one of several expected at the summit. The leaders also plan to announce that they will recognize the research of each country's food and drug regime in an effort to reduce costs and avoid duplication.

Now, the plan might not be such a dangerous one if there was any reason to think that the research itself would be equally accurate from country to country. But the recent history of the country whose research figures to be "recognized" the most often says otherwise.

Remember that Bushco's track record is one of constant political interference in the operations of the Food and Drug Administration, including:
- muzzling the Surgeon General to prevent him from even speaking about "stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education or prison, mental or global health issues";
- consistently demanding that scientists alter or suppress their work for political reasons, particularly in the area of drug research; and
- ordering that an application to make "Plan B" contraceptives available over the counter be rejected before a required manufacturer's study was even complete.

And of course the FDA examples are only part of a wider pattern of political interference with scientific research in areas ranging from global warming to abortion.

Until now, the U.S.' politicized research at least wouldn't have had a direct impact in Canada (though of course the shape of public knowledge on both sides of the border has surely been altered by the U.S.' anti-scientific sense of priorities). But if Canada signs on to an agreement to recognize fudged U.S. data without question, then every bit of flawed evidence coming from the U.S. will affect Canadian citizens no less than American ones.

Needless to say, Bush himself would surely be happy to spread the influence of his political appointees as far as he can. But for Canadians who want to see regulatory decisions made based on accurate data rather than Bush's political agenda, there's no benefit at all to be had from signing on to the planned deal. And if Harper is going to the bargaining table on Canada's behalf lacking either knowledge or interest about the serious problems with the FDA under Bush, then Canadians have yet another reason to think that the Cons can't be trusted with power.

Nothing to see here

Shorter David Emerson and Susan Schwab, trying to minimize media discussion about their NAFTA negotiations:
NAFTA is great - but too dull to be worth reporting on. So please go away and stop asking questions.

Still behind closed doors

There's been plenty of discussion of the news that the RCMP and the U.S. Army have stepped in to prevent a Council of Canadians meeting based on the apparent conclusion that Maude Barlow should be treated as a security threat, as well as at least one great suggestion in response to boost public awareness of the SPP.

Let's note, though, that it isn't only the anti-SPP side that sees a serious problem with the secrecy and exclusivity of the process. After all, a month ago even a leading (if unusually principled) SPP advocate was demanding greater public input and participation - suggesting that perhaps more interaction would be allowed and encouraged, if only toward the goal of softening opposition.

But this week's move demonstrates that the forces actually pushing the SPP aren't any more interested in suggestions of openness and public involvement coming from their side than coming from those of us concerned about the possible effects of the SPP. And that can only lead people to be all the more rightfully concerned about what's to come from behind the security perimeter.

Transparent

Shorter Security and Prosperity Partnership cheerleader Robert Pastor:
Having heard nothing but support for the SPP from the corporate actors chosen to push integration forward, I see no reason why the groups excluded would feel any differently. So let's let them have a seat at the table too.

Stopping the sellout

It's already been mentioned elsewhere, but it's worth highlighting the NDP's efforts to call attention to the ongoing U.S./Mexico integration process which both Lib and Con governments have so happily bought into:

The Harper government must pull out of further talks on continental integration with the United States and Mexico or risk our national sovereignty, says NDP Trade Critic Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster). Julian commented in advance of the February 23 meeting to be held in Ottawa where American and Mexican officials will join Canadian cabinet ministers to push forward the so-called “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP) agenda. Julian was joined by NDP Energy Critic, Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic).

Julian denounced the sellout of Canada.

“The previous Liberal government engaged Canada in a slow merger process with the United States and Stephen Harper is accelerating the agenda,” said Julian. “The NDP demands a full debate in Parliament on this issue. Everyday Canadians have the right to know what is being negotiated.”

Changes to some 300 policy and program areas are being promoted as benign “efficiency” measures. The ongoing extensive consultations in the SPP process will lead to an unacceptable level of regulatory harmonization with the surrender of Canadian energy, immigration, health care, food safety, and environmental policies and to complete military integration with the US...

“Canadians should know that the SPP process supports a North American Union (NAU). The NDP rejects the secretive process surrounding these ongoing discussions. Canadians will never support a political ideology which aims at turning North America into a fortress for corporate interests and neglects the interests of ordinary Canadians. Canadian sovereignty is not for sale to the highest bidder and the federal government has no authority to push for a NAU without a mandate from Canadians,” said Julian.

Predictably, the call has received little media attention. But the issue is one in desperate need of added public notice - and it's a huge plus to see the NDP lending its voice to the cause of preserving Canada's sovereignty.

Update: Once again even when the integration process itself gets prominent coverage its critics are almost entirely ignored, the NDP receives zero mention by name in the CP's coverage of today's SPP meeting.

Update II: More from Alison.

Neglected dissent

Sadly, it's progress just for the National Post to have recognized that there's a serious debate to be had over the ongoing Security and Prosperity Partnership deep integration scheme. But does CanWest really have so little idea where to find Canadian voices on the issue as to feel the need to present the American far right as the only opposition to the plan?

What lies beneath

Scott Piatkowski highlights one side of the Cons' agenda which has somehow managed to stay largely hidden (at least within the mainstream media) since they took office:

Mention the phrase “Stephen Harper's hidden agenda” and most Canadians are likely to assume you're referring to his party's pre- Paleolithic stance on social issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage.

But since being elected last year, the reality is Harper has been equally at pains to hide his real views on foreign policy matters. The reason for this subterfuge is not all that mysterious: he knows that there is absolutely no market for a foreign policy that is blatantly pro-American.

Just how captivated is Harper with the rocket's red glare? In 2003, Harper made a speech to the Montreal Economic Institute in which he called for the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. to have “cabinet rank.” According to Harper, “this will directly link the activities of our government in Ottawa to our activities in Washington.”

The incredible suggestion received little attention at the time, which makes it far easier for the Conservatives to pretend it was never spoken. But even if one accepts the notion that Harper has experienced a genuine change of heart on the proposal, the fact that he thought it was a good idea at the time speaks volumes about the depth of Harper's willingness to pledge allegiance to Washington...

His other comments at the time indicate a clear willingness to allow American military objectives to determine Canadian policy. At an event in April 2003 dubbed the “Friends of America Rally,” Harper called the U.S. “our best friend in the whole wide world.” On Fox News, Harper told Americans that he was speaking “for the silent majority” in Canada endorsing the war (in Iraq)...

With (minority-Parliament) political considerations in mind, Harper's desire to fulfil the wishes of his “best friend in the whole wide world” has been relegated to lower profile issues such as the egregiously one-sided softwood lumber agreement that his government signed last year.

While the Conservatives continue to pretend they're maintaining a respectable distance, Canadians would be well-advised to watch for more signs of the mask slipping. And if Harper is successful in gaining a majority, we can expect the hidden foreign policy agenda to be revealed in its entirety.

As much as the Cons have done to shroud their entire government in secrecy, it's worth noting just how much further they've gone when it comes to talks about North American integration. And it would only make sense that the extra layer of denial and obfuscation exists due to the content of the discussion - i.e. that the Cons' longstanding desire for further integration (and proportionally less Canadian independence) has already been thoroughly discussed between the Cons and their American counterparts.

Not that the Libs are anything close to blameless in getting the SPP process started during their stay in power. But it seems clear - from both Harper's past positions, and the extra walls surrounding Canada/U.S. relations today - that the Cons are looking to push the issue much further. And based on those signs, it's entirely possible that a Con majority would lead to not just a revealed "agenda" for future discussion, but a fully-formed and agreed plan to give up even more of Canada's ability to think and act for itself.

Predictable

The CP reports on a collaboration that looks to deserve nothing but mockery: a Fraser Institute report on "Canada's role in North America's tri-national energy market", to be written by Ralph Klein and Brian Tobin. If there's anything uncertain about the report, it's less the question of just how much independence the authors will want to give up in the name of better serving the U.S., and more whether the report has been completed and ready for the authors' signatures from the moment they agreed to lend their names to the Fraser cause.