One down, many more to go

There's seldom much doubt that the causes of tying Canada to the U.S. and handcuffing government in the name of corporatism will always emerge in some new format as soon as the last one falls by the wayside. But Stuart Trew is right to note that the official demise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership still calls for at least some celebration - if only to help build energy for the next battles to come.

Update: Of course as Alison points out, the successor to the SPP is already in the works.

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.)

On sugar-coating

We've seen this all before. When word about the TILMA first started reaching a national audience, every apologist for the deal managed to simultaneously develop a deep concern about hay-stacking and margarine regulations, an equally deep concern that other Canadians shouldn't bother worrying about matters as dull as hay-stacking and margarine regulations, and a devout belief that the TILMA would deal with only those regulations and nothing more. Which led naturally to a barrage of commentary questioning how anybody could possibly care enough to oppose the TILMA.

Of course, the whole argument was ludicrous based on the actual terms of the TILMA. Whatever the merits of dealing with hay and margarine alone, the fact of the matter was that the TILMA was designed with a scope wide enough to threaten literally any government action. And from a practical standpoint, the pro-TILMA argument was patently dishonest, as every minute spent trying to push the broad agreement was a minute which could have been far more productively spent actually reconciling non-controversial regulations.

Fortunately, both the text of the TILMA and the well-cooked evidence which supposedly supported it were both made subject to public scrutiny. And as a result, enough reality seeped into the discussion (at least in Saskatchewan) to stop the TILMA from spreading east of Alberta.

But if there's anything a Con won't do, it's to acknowledge that a strategy has failed. And so, when it comes to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Deceivin' Stephen himself has taken on the role of pretending that the whole process is beneath any public attention or question, with an even more innocuous-sounding example:

Harper said it was important to work together, giving an example of a business leader who manufactured jelly beans but had to maintain separate inventories because the content rules were different in Canada and the United States.

"Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jelly bean? You know, I don't think so," he said.

Unfortunately, so far Harper hasn't faced even the slightest challenge in his attempt to minimize the SPP: even some columnists who should know better have accepted the spin without question rather than applying the tiniest bit of scrutiny to Harper's diversion.

Which is a shame, since Harper's attempt to characterize the SPP process is at best misleading. Surely even the most Kool-Aid-addled Harper supporter, if pressed, would be forced to acknowledge that Canada, the U.S. and Mexico haven't entered into an extensive, multi-year set of high-level meetings and consultations based on candy-related issues alone. Which means that Harper's decision to change the subject to jelly beans is at best a transparent attempt to deflect attention from the real issues - whatever those may be.

Of course, in the case of the SPP, there are plenty of questions about just what the real issues are. In contrast, the text of the TILMA was at least open for public analysis once it was signed by B.C. and Alberta - meaning that those concerned about the agreement could deal directly with what its proponents had actually developed. In contrast, nothing about the SPP process has been made the least bit accessible to anybody but the participants - which can only give rise to reasonable suspicions about what's going on that's being hidden from the public.

In that respect, it may well be true that the current SPP discussions aren't currently addressing the thorniest possibilities, such as currency integration and bulk water exports. But if the leaders were genuinely concerned about speculation about such talks, then the obvious answer is for the leaders involved to open up the SPP talks to demonstrate just what is going on - rather than to make obviously misleading statements about what's happening, and then blame the very people who are being denied information for not having concrete evidence behind their concerns.

So why haven't the leaders involved acted on the desire of even some SPP supporters to see the process opened up? As best I can tell, they likely see it as easier to cast aspersions against specific opponents rather than actually having to justify the process as a whole. As long as the main question is a matter of trust or distrust as to what's actually going on, the political fallout is likely to be negligible: those likely to be suspicious of the negotiators anyway may get all the more frustrated, but the lack of substantive information flowing either way ensures that the the battle is largely fought to a draw.

In contrast, there's substantially greater political risk if public attention instead narrows to the concrete issues. For example, Harper would face the task of trying to publicly defend policies which many Canadians - including those who might otherwise be willing to consider a Con vote - will have serious reason to doubt. And even the nearly air-tight SPP process has let out some major ones such as no-fly lists, weaker pesticide standards, and unquestioned acceptance of politicized data.

Unfortunately, mainstream coverage of the SPP has neither called out Harper for his diversion tactics, nor reported widely on the issues which have already been identified as part of the SPP process. Which may well be exactly the result the Cons have been counting on all along - but which only ensures that Canadians will have ever more reason to worry about what Deceivin' Stephen is hiding from them.

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.

Questionable assumptions

Shorter Gazette editorial on the Security and Prosperity Partnership:
If you assume that not a single important law can be changed without going through Parliament, and that we can count on philosopher CEOs to properly represent everybody's best interests, and that the word of government spokespeople about the process can and should be taken without question, and that Canada is the chosen country of the Flying Spaghetti Monster such that nothing we do can possibly have bad consequences in any event, then there's no reason at all to worry about the SPP.

An unwanted import

One more post on the Cons' efforts to hide the SPP's participants from protesters, as it seems to be confirmed that the media is giving the Cons a free pass on their means of shutting out protesters (as well as the likely source of the idea). From Sun Media's coverage:

Adding a truly Canadian flavour, police and government officials have designated two sanctioned sites outside the fenced compound where demonstrators can air their beefs. A closed-circuit camera and television will allow the leaders to flick on live images of the action from the comfort of their meetings.

Now, the implication of the Sun story is that the designation of a separate protest site is itself a Canadian idea. In fact, it's far from a new concept - and one of the SPP's participants has made more use of the policy than anybody in recent times:

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

If there's any difference at all between Harper's means of suppressing dissent and that usually imposed by Bush, it's the existence of the video link which (in theory) makes it slightly more possible for participants to pick up on the messages of protesters.

But for the reasons I'd discussed in my earlier post, there's no reason at all to think that's a meaningful distinction. And sadly, the media's willingness to portray the effective caging of protest as something to be trivialized rather than pointed out makes it far too likely that the voices with reason for concern about the SPP will be heard even less.

Update: A must-see from Alison.

On bad-faith negotiations

Following up on this post, let's take a look at what the Cons have done to try to shut out any outside message while paying lip service to lessons from past protests:

The leaders of Canada, Mexico and United States have a novel option for dealing with protesters: flip the channel.

Canadian officials who briefed reporters Thursday initially said that protesters would be allowed close to the hotel conference site in Montebello, Que., and would be visible to the leaders attending the North American summit next week.

But when pressed, they acknowledged that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Presidents George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon would actually only be seeing those outside the security fences by video link.

Mr. Harper's director of communications, Sandra Buckler, later said she understood the video-link decision was “in compliance with the court's decision that protesters have a right to be ‘seen and heard'.”

It's worth noting to begin with that even the Cons' choice of standards is based on a lie. According to CanLII, there isn't a single reported Canadian case that has used the phrase "right to be seen and heard". And Can-West's coverage suggests that the actual requirement being referred to is something entirely different than the Cons are claiming:

Officials did not respond to a request to cite a specific ruling. But a four-year inquiry by Saskatchewan judge Ted Hughes into the RCMP’s pepper spraying, strip searches and other bad treatment of protesters at the 1997 APEC summit in Vancouver concluded RCMP (sic) must provide generous opportunity for protestors “to see and be seen.”

It should be obvious just how big the gap is between the actual standard suggested by Hughes J. and the one apparently being applied by the Cons. Instead of allowing for the two-way communication implied by allowing protesters to "see" as well as "being seen", the Cons are making sure that any information goes one way at most.

And even assuming a one-way flow of information were appropriate, the means chosen by the Cons promises to be ineffective to the point of being insulting. After all, there's virtually no reason to think that attendees will actually pay attention to the protests given the choice to simply change the channel - as the very need for protests is based on the complete refusal of those in charge of the SPP process to let anybody but the most like-minded participants in on the discussion.

I'm not optimistic that the Cons' actions will be appropriately recognized as both dishonest and patronizing by Canada's media. But it appears that Montebello's organizers have offered yet more reasons for concern that the entire SPP process is being carried out in bad faith. And in the long run, that's the message which needs to find its way into public knowledge.

Now that says it all

Your transparent government at work:

Senior government officials — who reporters were not permitted to quote — insisted that there is nothing secretive about the SPP process.

I'll deal with the substantive part of the article later on - and indeed the gall of the anonymous senior officials is the least of the problems with the SPP process as a whole. But I've seen few better encapsulations than this of Deceivin' Stephen's obsession with secrecy - and complete inability to recognize how that runs contrary to his own hollow reassurances of accountability.

Extreme views

Shorter Neil Reynolds:
If only people would stop disagreeing with my side, it would be possible to have a full and free debate about deep integration.

Boom times

Political Bytes notes that it isn't just public meeting spaces that will be shut down for the SPP meeting this August, as the RCMP is floating a plan to cut off the Ottawa River through "temporary safety booms":

On Saturday, the Gazette also identified RCMP plans to install temporary safety booms on the Ottawa River between Montebello, Que., and Lefaivre, Ont., between August 18th and 21st, in time for the North American Leaders' Summit.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is hosting his counterparts, U.S. President George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon of Mexico. The leaders, we're told, will discuss the progress of the Security Prosperity Partnership as well as other hemispheric and global issues.

And the RCMP is determined that nothing interrupts the flow of those conversations.

Based on the notice in the Canada Gazette, public comments may be made on the plan until early August. And it may be worth a note to point out that the SPP doesn't justify the kind of actions which are being taken to sequester the meeting from the rest of the country.

But sadly, it seems entirely likely that there's no more interest in paying attention to the public's concerns now than to dissent around the time of the meeting.

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.

On hidden viewpoints

While John Ibbitson's pro-SPP hack job yesterday was prominently featured on aggregator sites, Linda McQuaig's column on the SPP today seems to have been largely buried. Which is a shame, since McQuaig tells much of the story which has been all too often neglected, with a particular focus on the secrecy of the SPP process to date:

It's a great irony that, while the United States has probably never been less popular among Canadians than in the era of George W. Bush, plans to integrate Canada more deeply into the U.S. have been proceeding at a brisk clip.

The threat of Canada being absorbed into the U.S. has traditionally provoked strong reactions here, as the pitched electoral battles over the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the 1980s and '90s attest.

But the issue seems to have largely disappeared in recent years, leaving the impression that the push for deeper integration has stopped or that Canadians no longer care about it. Neither is true.

Rather, what's happened is that those pushing for deeper Canada-U.S. integration – principally members of the corporate elite on both sides of the border – have become more sophisticated in their strategy. Rather than loudly trumpeting their agenda, they've made their push largely invisible.

Their latest vehicle is the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Since it was officially launched by the leaders of the U.S., Canada and Mexico in March 2005, it's operated largely under the radar, even though it deals with some of the most important issues a nation faces – national security and energy, as well as trade.

Given the centrality of these issues, one would have thought that any changes – especially changes that would make Canada more like the U.S. – should involve wide consultation with the Canadian people.

But exactly the opposite is happening. The public has been completely shut out of the SPP process...

Regulatory harmonization is just one small area that the SPP is working on. I'll deal with the more contentious issues – security and energy – in a later column, all in the interest of setting the stage for next month, when Bush arrives in Montebello, Que., for what he, Stephen Harper and Mexican president Felipe Calderon are no doubt hoping will be an opportunity to quietly discuss the SPP and weigh the advice of their business council.

No public consultations have been planned for Montebello. Indeed, security measures will ensure the leaders hear as little as possible from the people.

While the leaders will be doing their best to avoid hearing from anybody but business interests, it's voices like McQuaig's who can help to make sure that serious issues surrounding the SPP aren't ignored in coverage of the upcoming convention. And hopefully the combination of this spring's Parliamentary hearings and coverage surrounding the convention can force the SPP and its backers to face the type of public scrutiny that they've scrupulously avoided so far.

It's all about perspective

Shorter John Ibbitson, trying to defend the Security and Prosperity Partnership:
The greater goal of the parties involved in the SPP is "big-bang harmonization of regulatory regimes, or the creation of a common external tariff". But Maude Barlow is a lunatic conspiracy theorist for saying the same thing disapprovingly.

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.

On the record

Judging from yesterday's news headlines, I'd figured it must have been a fairly quiet day in the House of Commons. But surprisingly, the are a few seemingly significant news items which managed to go unreported - so let's take a few minutes to see what escaped public notice:

- The NDP's motion to have the amended C-30 brought back before the House of Commons was voted on and passed. While that's well and good, I have to wonder why neither the media nor the opposition parties seem to be putting much focus on what should be an important source of pressure on the Cons to move C-30 forward.

- It's a plus to see that at least one Lib MP - in this case Bonnie Brown - is questioning where the Security and Prosperity Partnership figures to lead Canada. That said, it might be a nice touch to at least recognize the Libs' primary role in inflicting the SPP on the country.

- To his relative credit, Mario Silva has indeed put forward a new anti-scab bill to replace the one the Libs undermined earlier this year. But can anybody explain why the bill missed its chance to receive second reading yesterday for lack of a needed report?

Freedom of speech ends where we disagree: Committee Edition

The NDP's hard-fought effort to win hearings on the Security and Prosperity Partnership may only be a first step in attracting public attention to the issue of deep integration. But it's managed to cause yet another Con to blow a fuse - this time the committee chair Leon Benoit, who attempted to shut down the hearing to prevent a witness from testifying about the consequences of guaranteeing energy supplies to the U.S.:

Amid heated charges of a coverup, Tory MPs yesterday abruptly shut down parliamentary hearings on a controversial plan to further integrate Canada and the 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...

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.

The remaining members voted to continue, with the Liberal vice-chair presiding.

Mr. Benoit's actions are virtually unprecedented, observers say; at press time, procedure experts still hadn't figured out whether he had the right to adjourn the meeting unilaterally.

It's mildly surprising that Benoit was himself taken aback by testimony which shouldn't have come as much surprise given the NDP's legitimate concerns about the effects of ceding Canadian sovereignty. But that aside, Benoit's action seems only to be yet another symptom of the Cons' general belief in a right to shut down any discussion which doesn't suit their political purposes.

Fortunately, the effect of Benoit's snit will likely be to win more attention for Laxer's testimony than might otherwise have been received. And if the opposition parties continue to ensure that information is available despite the Cons' desire to suppress it, it shouldn't be long before the wave of truth washes Harper and company out of any position to dictate who says what.

A limited partnership

Thanks to Peter Julian and the NDP, Canadians are in the midst of receiving a much better idea what's involved in the Security and Prosperity Partnership. But the CP reports that one of the few publicly-released details of the current discussions seems to confirm many of the worst suspicions about the process:

There's an outcry on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border over an abrupt move by American officials to drop plans to pre-clear travellers and reduce costly congestion at land crossings.

Many are viewing it as a major black mark on bilateral relations since a co-operative measure publicly championed by the White House has been unceremoniously dumped by the Homeland Security Department...

The main sticking point was Homeland's unwillingness to accept Canada's legal problem with having U.S. authorities take fingerprints of people who approach the border but decide not to cross.

Canadian law doesn't permit fingerprinting unless someone volunteers or has been charged with a crime.

Canada's assurances that it would co-operate in investigating any suspicious person who approaches the border weren't enough, said one Capitol Hill source.

"The Attorney General's office really just wants to grab as much biometric information as it can," said the source.

Canada won't consider any proposal that doesn't comply with Canadian law, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said Thursday in Ottawa.

But he's hopeful the U.S. will come back to the table.

Of course, it's for the best that Canada is publicly refusing to play along. But Day's supposed reassurance seems likely only to highlight the serious risks involved in continued discussions, rather than offering any indication that Canada will be able to maintain its sovereignty as the SPP process goes forward.

After all, it's hard to see how any government negotiating with the Bush administration could have expected anything other than a demand that Canada serve as an intelligence-gathering agency for the U.S. It's all too likely that the Harper government will eventually follow the same pattern it applied on softwood lumber, seeking to impose the U.S.' demands on Canada (by changing Canadian law to allow the demanded fingerprint collection) for the sake of getting a deal done rather than defending Canada's interests. And indeed the Cons' track record will likely provide a reason for the U.S. to think it can get away with making a firm demand of its every whim, no matter what Canadian law may say.

Needless to say, that's the kind of partnership that Canada is far better off avoiding. And hopefully the public airing of both the U.S.' current demands and the Canadian side of the story will make sure that the SPP process doesn't go any further in its current form.

Con/Lib Inc.

So much for all the talk about the Libs supposedly moving to the left to offer an alternative to the Cons, as those parties' respective members of the International Trade Committee couldn't agree more in wanting to divert federal resources toward more free-trade agreements and U.S. integration:

A Commons committee is urging the federal government to invest a lot more money and effort into securing bilateral trade and investment deals around the world.

The international trade committee calls for a 50 per cent increase in federal spending on trade and investment promotion, including more trips abroad by Canadian officials and MPs.

However, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs on the committee warn some of the 22 recommendations in the report tabled late last week pose an economic, social or political threat...

The NDP dissenting report is especially critical of recommendations urging greater integration of the Canadian economy into the U.S. dominated North American economy...

“Generally, the report is based on the assumption that fast-tracking deregulation and blind faith in bilateral free trade will create sustainable and positive prosperity and employment,” the NDP says in its dissenting report...

“This report, based on an ideology that was popular in the 1980s and 1990s and according to which market openness has no harmful secondary effects and no need for safeguards, is now completely outmoded and unsuited to Quebec’s economic reality,” the Bloc report stated.

Of course, both the Libs and Cons are fighting each other for the backing of corporate Canada (which presumably has much to do with the "natural governing party" status that each wants to claim). Which means that it's not entirely surprising that neither wants to go on record pointing out the real concerns about yet another round of deregulation and integration.

But then, the Libs' calls for effective government are bound to ring hollow one it's pointed out that they're eager to restrain government action as long as it's matched by a similar commitment in another country. And one would think that the official opposition would at least be willing to point out some issues with the Security and Prosperity Partnership to at least shape where future talks end up going, rather than simply choosing not to deal with it (or worse yet providing what sounds like unconditional supprt).

As usual, it's worth clarifying that expanding trade is indeed a worthy effort, and the recommendation to increase and improve Canada's presence abroad should be followed. But there's no reason why such an effort has to be accompanied by agreements to tie down Canada's governments. And ultimately, Canadians who want effective governments at both the provincial and federal levels should be just as concerned about the Libs' willingness to limit our scope of action through agreement as they are about the Cons' plan to dismantle the state from within.