“Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jelly bean?”
Stephen Harper’s patronizing rhetoric in response to accusations that discussions at the so-called ‘Three Amigos Summit’ have undermined national sovereignty and has left many Canadians displeased, said Council of Canadians Chair Maude Barlow in an Aug. 22 interview with CTV.
The summit meeting on the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) took place Aug. 20 and 21 in Montebello, Quebec. The SPP is an agreement bound together by the glue of executive fiat, co-signed into existence without parliamentary approval by former Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2005. Its declared goal is the enhancement of political and economic ties between Canada, the United States, and Mexico.
The attendees of this year’s meeting included the heads of state as well as an assembly of 30 CEOs and corporate chairmen from the North American Competitiveness Council, reported the Victoria Times-Colonist on Aug. 21. It was held behind the cloak of an immense 25-kilometre security perimeter lined with checkpoints and roadblocks.
Concerns began to mount in earnest after documents obtained through a freedom of information request by Judicial Watch, a non-profit law firm in Washington D.C., revealed the controversial agenda of last year’s meeting in Banff, Alberta.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May told CTV Newsnet Aug. 19 that she saw some of the talking points and discussion papers for think-tanks in advance of this summit, and was deeply concerned.
The stated goals and recommendations detailed in last year’s meeting include a common immigration policy, a fully integrated energy infrastructure, a carbon tax, an external North American advisory commission and, perhaps most revealing, an external security perimeter with open borders for commerce.
These findings do little to quell fears that we are being led in a framework similar to that of the European Union.
But the most galling of all statements, explicitly described as “evolution by stealth” in the notes for the presentations, explained it would be easier to bring people on board if the infrastructure was put into place first.
In its report of May 2005, “Building a North American Community”, the Council on Foreign Relations, a highly influential think-tank based in New York City, stated, “the Task Force has framed its recommendations into shorter-term measures that should be pursued now, and long-term steps to be implemented by 2010.” So what do Canadians get when they ask for a seat at the discussion table?
An iron fist full of jelly beans.
To add insult to injury, the Council of Canadians was told by the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, and the U.S. Army that it couldn’t hold a public forum in the municipality hosting the summit.
Brent Patterson, the organizing director, was outraged. In a July 11 press release he declared, “it is deplorable that we are being prevented from bringing together a of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canadians. Meanwhile, six kilometres away, corporate leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada will have unimpeded access to our political leaders.” The Canadian government continued to strong-arm the concerned public by refusing to accept a petition with 10,000 signatures from the Council of Canadians. Antipathy later reached its climax when the Sûreté du Québec was forced to it to planting undercover officers in a peaceful protest after a clip posted on YouTube exposed them as provocateurs bent on instigating a physical confrontation, a charge the Sûreté du Québec denies.
NDP MPs Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster) and Libby Davies (Vancouver East) have called on the federal government to hold an immediate public inquiry into the allegations.
Are these the actions of a democratically elected government or the diktat of a well-concealed oligarchy?
Why is the public prevented from participating in vital discussions that will impact the very fabric of our nation?
It is time to demand answers.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].