# Canadians Completely Unaware of Looming North American Union



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> In just over a month’s time, on August 20, the most powerful president in the world will be arriving in Montebello, Quebec for a two-day conference. President George W. Bush will be meeting with Stephen Harper and their Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderon. So far, the silence from the Canadian and American media has been deafening.
> 
> Talk to 90% of people on the street and they won’t know about this upcoming conference, and if by a slim chance they do, they won’t know the purpose of the meeting or why the leaders of Canada, United States and Mexico are meeting in the dog days of summer under what amounts to a veil of secrecy.
> 
> ...



Canadians Completely Unaware of Looming North American Union


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

My understanding of the SPP is that it sets up a framework and is also a forum for Canada, the US and Mexico to discuss common concerns regarding economics, security and health issues. For example, making sure everyone is on the same page if a flu pandemic ever occurs in order to contain it in all three countries as quickly as possible. 

This August's meeting isn't about ratifying the SPP as there is nothing to ratify since it isn't a treaty. I think the point of this meeting is to draw attention to it so that they can increase participation by business leaders and professionals.

That it would establish some kind of "North American Government" by 2010 that would supplant our own is nonsense.


----------



## beachboy_ce (Jun 25, 2007)

First off, the US is already guaranteed not only 60% of our natural gas, but also 35% of our water, under NAFTA. So they are definitely not going after that...they already have it.

Secondly, technologically and economically speaking, a North American Union wouldn't be so bad. With our strong dollar, a single currency (at least between the US and Canada.....Mexico is not currently in a position to consolidate their currency) would make everything so much easier.

In terms of technology, opening up Canada to the major US telecom companies would be a huge benefit to the consumer. Rogers, Bell and Telus would be no more, and we wouldn't be held hostage to ridiculous monthly rates. The CRTC would have to find a way to lighten up, while still perserving our unique Canadian heritage. However, there is nothing better than spending a Sunday watching NFL on ESPN, while TiVo-ing all your other important programs. Hell, we might even see the iPhone! Yet, I still enjoy the Rick Mercer Report, while sipping my double-double from the closest Tim Hortons.

zoziw, I fully agree. A NAU would most definitely strengthen our borders, and would help all tree nations comunicate in times of distress. Security-wise, a NAU is a very smart, safe idea. National agencies would draw information from a single database, and integration of law enforcement and military personel would be greatly improved.

Also, under any "NAU," health would be controlled at the provincial or state level. Remember, a North American Union does not mean we are joining the United States, Canada is and will always be soveign territory.

In any event, this will never happen by 2010, and I'm confident most of us won't even see this in our lifetime. Mexico would need to cooperate, and, while the governments of both Canada and the United States may be in favor of such a plan, we are still a democracy and many citizens' views would have to change in order for such a durastic proposal to be implemented.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

The boogeymen are coming, the boogeymen are coming!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm with beachboy on this one.

It is a done deal anyway after NAFTA and a good thing for North America.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> I'm with beachboy on this one.
> 
> It is a done deal anyway after NAFTA and a good thing for North America.


that is until your AB healthcare becomes an HMO

"Dear Mr. Sinclair,
As per your claim for your recent hospital stay, we have determined that you had a pre-existing condition and have denied your claim."

"Dear Mr. Sinclair,
We have been informed by your health carrier that your claim to cover your recent hospital stay has been denied.
We have attached a detailed bill and demand payment in full of $269,352 within 30 days."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Apparently you can't read:

"Also, under any "NAU," health would be controlled at the provincial or state level. Remember, a North American Union does not mean we are joining the United States, Canada is and will always be soveign territory."

Especially the part about health care remaining the responsibility of the province. Making mountains out of mole hills again are we?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Apparently you can't read:
> 
> "Also, under any "NAU," health would be controlled at the provincial or state level. Remember, a North American Union does not mean we are joining the United States, Canada is and will always be soveign territory."
> 
> Especially the part about health care remaining the responsibility of the province. Making mountains out of mole hills again are we?


"After careful examinations and many hearings, this government had decided that the private sector can more effectively deliver health care to the residents of our great province. As such we will be introducing a bill phasing out provincial health care to be replaced by private insurers. The residents of Alberta will be better served as they can now choose the level of care they require and that best suits them.

This is a great day for Albertans and we also announce at this time a one time health care rebate of $100 per person."
- [insert AB premier]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I see. When confronted with the truth, we now make up what suits us? Neat.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

We must welcome our new Texican overlords.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

You know what all this could mean? Mexico might raise it's standard of living, then *GASP* no more cheap Mexican products!

A North American Union would be a good thing.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I think we should start brainstorming a clever name for our new united currency, it'll be tough to beat the "Euro".


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> I think we should start brainstorming a clever name for our new united currency, it'll be tough to beat the "Euro".


The _Tacodollar_.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

beachboy_ce said:


> Secondly, technologically and economically speaking, a North American Union wouldn't be so bad. With our strong dollar, a single currency (at least between the US and Canada.....Mexico is not currently in a position to consolidate their currency) would make everything so much easier.


How's that single currency working out for Puerto Rico?
And how's the Greenback doing internationally? How much debt does the U.S. have? They are living on borrowed time



beachboy_ce said:


> In terms of technology, opening up Canada to the major US telecom companies would be a huge benefit to the consumer. Rogers, Bell and Telus would be no more, and we wouldn't be held hostage to ridiculous monthly rates. The CRTC would have to find a way to lighten up, while still perserving our unique Canadian heritage. However, there is nothing better than spending a Sunday watching NFL on ESPN, while TiVo-ing all your other important programs. Hell, we might even see the iPhone! Yet, I still enjoy the Rick Mercer Report, while sipping my double-double from the closest Tim Hortons.


Have you ever had a US _land line_? It's can be quite an adventure trying to figure it all out.... and more expensive than you think.
We already have NFL and ESPN, so I'm not sure how you perceive this will change.



beachboy_ce said:


> zoziw, I fully agree. A NAU would most definitely strengthen our borders, and would help all tree nations comunicate in times of distress. Security-wise, a NAU is a very smart, safe idea. National agencies would draw information from a single database, and integration of law enforcement and military personel would be greatly improved.


Uhmmm. I'm not sure that makes me feel safe knowing that the U.S. is "protecting" us.... More like we become a bigger target. 
How is that border between the U.S. and Mexico? Porous, no?
The U.S. is even worse in terms of privacy with citizens' data... no thanks.


And what does the architect of this have to say?


> he great irony is that Americans now seem more fearful of Canada and Mexico, despite the fact that their economies, population, and military power are a small fraction of that of the U.S. Despite this asymmetry in power and wealth, there are many in the United States that apparently feel that Canada and Mexico will take us over. And they see a North American community as a path towards that.
> 
> That's absurd. T*he Canadians and Mexicans have much more to fear from the U.S. than the U.S. has to fear from them.* And yet, they are bolder in conceptualizing a new relationship.


http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=795


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> I found this minor coincidence humorous.


Makes you wonder if it's a talking point or he really believes that....


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

perhaps they are going to legalize "it" and want to get a direct connection to some top quality smoke; unlike the 2% thc crap our gov't sells. You'd get more from grass clippings...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I think closer regulatory, economic, military and immigration ties would be good for all three countries. This does not mean we have to compromise our sovereignty.

I think the European model would be going to far. I think we need to find something in between where we are now and where they are.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

*Bulk Water Exports?*



> In April 2007, the Council of Canadians obtained a leaked document produced by a Washington think tank, revealing that business and government leaders in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are actively discussing bulk water exports. They met in Calgary on April 27, 2007 to discuss the issue in a closed-door meeting as part of a larger discussion on North American integration.
> 
> Titled the “North American Future 2025 Project,” the initiative calls for a series of “closed-door meetings” on North American integration dealing with a number of highly contentious issues including bulk water exports, a joint security perimeter and a continental resource pact.
> 
> ...


http://tribes.tribe.net/nonorthamericanunion/thread/9a17008d-311f-444b-a26c-6828735a1cc4


*Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway*



> Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway
> by Jerome R. Corsi (more by this author)
> Posted 06/12/2006 ET
> Updated 06/12/2006 ET
> ...


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15497


----------



## beachboy_ce (Jun 25, 2007)

About NASCO



> "NAFTA Superhighway" - As of late, there has been much media attention given to the "new, proposed NAFTA Superhighway". NASCO and the cities, counties, states and provinces along our existing Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor) have been referring to I-35 as the 'NAFTA Superhighway' for many years, as I-35 already carries a substantial amount of international trade with Mexico, the United States and Canada. *There are no plans to build a new NAFTA Superhighway* - it exists today as I-35.


ArtistSeries, 

I agree with you, PR's situation hasn't worked out well at all. Thats why I say that a Can-Am type union would be an even better idea. Mexico needs to see many changes before they are in a position to join Canada and the US. A Can-Am union would also more likely be accepted, as the Mexican border problem would be solved.

The Greenback isn't doing well internationally. However, joining the Loonie with the Greenback would help stabilize it. As for debt, that will never change. The US will never be debt-free and there isn't much you can do about trillions of dollars. Creating a new currency will alleviate *some* (we're talking like less than 1%) of their debt, specifically money that is tied up in China. 

Yes I've had a US land line, I lived in Phoenix, AZ for a few years. It may have been expensive, I wouldn't know. I was pretty young at the time. But it doesn't matter, more choice and corporate competition is better for the consumer, and prices would drop. We don't actually have the true ESPN, HBO, TNT etc. I'm sure you know, the CTRC regulates network exclusivity, and native, major US networks are not in Canada. However, some of their programing may be.

We won't become a bigger target, terrorist are thinking in numbers, and theres no way they would choose Edmonton over Atlanta. As long as we're still Canada, I don't think we'd be a bigger target. 

Again, I don't think Mexico is in the position to join any type of union. Just one more reason why this won't be happening anytime soon. 

The US government wouldn't be holding our data and information, the NAU would be. We all know the US government is corrupt and I don't think anyone, even the American people, trust their government with sensitive data.

And so what? The Americans fear us. That can only work in our advantage in negotiating any NAU treaty.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> "After careful examinations and many hearings, this government had decided that the private sector can more effectively deliver health care to the residents of our great province. As such we will be introducing a bill phasing out provincial health care to be replaced by private insurers. The residents of Alberta will be better served as they can now choose the level of care they require and that best suits them.
> 
> This is a great day for Albertans and we also announce at this time a one time health care rebate of $100 per person."
> - [insert AB premier]


There is too much opposition from rural MLAs in the Conservative cabinet and caucus for this to happen. Ralph Klein tried for years and couldn't get his own people on board. Now with Stelmach, a rural MLA with a heavily weighted rural cabinet, as premier, I can't see such a thing happening.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> How's that single currency working out for Puerto Rico?
> And how's the Greenback doing internationally? How much debt does the U.S. have? They are living on borrowed time


It was primarily Canadian business interests that floated the idea of a single currency and, as we can see from the dollar being where it is at, not all businesses in Canada would be supportive of a single currency.

At the present time, there are no formal discussions on creating a common currency. Some think tanks have produced reports arguing in favour of this, but neither the Canadian nor American governments have made statements endorsing or rejecting these reports.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

beachboy_ce said:


> First off, the US is already guaranteed not only 60% of our natural gas, but also 35% of our water, under NAFTA. So they are definitely not going after that...they already have it.


I thought that water was an issue still in need of an interpretation under NAFTA.

My understanding is that under NAFTA, once we start trading a commodity across the border we are not allowed to stop doing so. The question that needs to be answered is whether water would be classified as a commodity or as a vital resource under NAFTA.

If it is a commodity, then if we start trading bulk water across the border we would not be allowed to stop. If it is a vital resource (such as air) then we would be able to stop at anytime.

In either case, this would be bulk water exports and not bottle water which is already moved across the border.

I think for Canada it would be prudent to seek a clarification of which definition bulk water exports fell under before starting such shipments.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

zoziw said:


> I thought that water was an issue still in need of an interpretation under NAFTA.
> 
> My understanding is that under NAFTA, once we start trading a commodity across the border we are not allowed to stop doing so. The question that needs to be answered is whether water would be classified as a commodity or as a vital resource under NAFTA.
> 
> ...


you mean like the "clarification" we received re: softwood lumber dispute after how many rulings by NAFTA;



> 1/08/2005
> Canada has won yet another ruling on the softwood lumber fight. A NAFTA panel has ruled that the American lumber import duties are unjustified and the United States should return the $5-billion it has collected.
> 
> How are the Americans reacting? It's summed up here, on the front page of today's National Post:
> ...


check out original for links within story

Andrew Spicer's Weblog - Maybe We Should Embarrass the Hell Out of Them


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

And then, Dr. G and I will quietly begin the revolution to free Newfoundland and Labrador from the imperialist capitalist dogs! 
Free NL!


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

I get the part about a highway from Laredo north (aka existing I-35) , but why is it going to Duluth ( or Manitoba for that matter) as it is stated in the clippings. No reason for this imaginary highway to go any further than Chicago.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ErnstNL said:


> And then, Dr. G and I will quietly begin the revolution to free Newfoundland and Labrador from the imperialist capitalist dogs!
> Free NL!


We get to keep the Hydro dams, right?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

YouTube - Lou Dobbs - NAFTA Superhighway 2/19/08

the urban myth looking awfully ...ahem...concrete.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

Just a thought...

Europe ---> European union
North America ---> North American union
Asia (There is talk) --> Asian union
Africa --- > African union

Then what? the only logical stance is to make the entire world a union. i.e World Union and therefor 1 government.

Sounds like some dirty work going on here.

Bilderburg bilderburg!


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

You know those canals on Mars?
Well... Makes you wonder why there isn't any water on Mars.

Dave


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

dolawren said:


> You know those canals on Mars?
> Well... Makes you wonder why there isn't any water on Mars.
> 
> Dave


There was water there once.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Damn, for a second there I thought good ol' Spec was back onboard.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> We get to keep the Hydro dams, right?


Newfoundland is an island. It makes sense that Labrador wouldn't be ours if we went independent. Labrador has it's own rights to independence if we broke away.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

gwillikers said:


> Damn, for a second there I thought good ol' Spec was back onboard.


MacDoc is a good substitute for Spec. 

It's a highway.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

My NL includes Labrador!!!!!!! When they start to come from PQ to take over Churchill Falls, the NL Militia will defend our borders. "Death before Dishonor" and "Live Free or Die" will be our battlecry. Actully, I think that it will all be settled peacefully, since PQ is making too much money to have the dam destroyed by the Militia. We shall see. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think Goose Bay wants to secede from Labrador, Dr. G.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, it is Happy Valley that wants to leave Labrador, not Goose Bay. "E pluribus unum. Annuit Cœptis. Novus Ordo Seclorum." It all applies to us here in NL. By 2009, we hope to be a have province, and to be able to send money to ON as a transfer. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Did it happen?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, it is Happy Valley that wants to leave Labrador, not Goose Bay. "E pluribus unum. Annuit Cœptis. Novus Ordo Seclorum." It all applies to us here in NL. By 2009, we hope to be a have province, and to be able to send money to ON as a transfer. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.





Macfury said:


> Did it happen?


Yes, we became a have province just as ON became a have not province. So, we have been sending more into the transfer payment pool than we receive from this pool, which is only fair, since we were down for so long and received help from the other provinces.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A dozen years later and the anticipated unholy union has not occurred. Perhaps it still "looms."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> A dozen years later and the anticipated unholy union has not occurred. Perhaps it still "looms."


I think the pending disintegration of the EU may have somewhat blunted the need. The Harpoon being turfed might have helped as well. Also I don't think Trump is interested in pursuing this as it would shatter his build the wall base.

I do wonder how susceptible the Turdeau would be to the American lies needed to entice Canada into that boondoggle?


----------

