# Deep Integration: Nafta on Steriods



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

In response to something that what posted the other day, here's why I continue to be deeply interested in what is happening in the US. Manifest Destiny is not a dead idea in the USA. Many down there really believe Canada and Mexico belong to them and treat us as if we were colonies. Loudmouth jerkwad US Ambassador Paul Celluci comes to mind.

With the help of quislings* here and in Mexico, the Task Force On The Future Of North America had a meeting in Toronto to map out just how deep Canada's and Mexico's integration with the US superpower will be. The task force is co-chaired by former deputy PM John Manley, former Finance Minister of Mexico Pedro C. Aspe, and former Governor of Massachusetts William F. Weld. Also involved as vice-chair is the arch-conservative CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and enthusiastic cheerleader for the original Free Trade agreement, Thomas D'Aquino. Also involved is Michael Wilson, Mulroney's Minister of Finance. That the FTA and NAFTA haven't worked for Canada seems to be lost on Manley, D'Aquino and Wilson. Their solution is just to snuggle up closer.

Beyond deeper economic integration, some of their brainstorming involves ideas that would require Canada and Mexico ceding much of their national sovereignty as well, such as integrated customs and border control, greater military integration, a North American passport and increasing monetary policy consultation with the goal of a "North American currency" (read US greenback).

From Vive le Canada


> A recently leaked but barely-covered (of the so-called national papers, only the Toronto Star ran it) confidential summary of the TFFNA’s first meeting lays out the short and long term “integration” goals for North America. Honest people would call these suggestions what they are: a roadmap for full and formal control of the neighbours and their resources by the United States. To call it “integration” is misleading. It conjures up images of a European-style continental integration with several bigger partners and wiggle-room for smaller powers. North America, however, consists of a superpower and two much weaker neighbours. If there is a comparison to Europe, it’s when Germany and Austria “integrated” in 1938.* What is being sought is "_Anschluss_ American-style”, and it needs to be exposed for what it is, so that it can be stopped.
> 
> In short, Deep Integration is a process aimed at securing and strengthening the economic center of the US Empire, locking-in past gains and cracking-open new opportunities for corporate penetration into areas previously protected for the public good.


Council of Canadians web page on the subject

Of Independence and Faustian Bargains: Going Down the Deep Integration Road With Uncle Sam - Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives PDF document.

___

* from Vidkun Quisling (1887-1945), a Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. He established his name as a synonym for "traitor", someone who collaborates with the invaders of his country. I think this word is fitting for these characters.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Bump*

So nobody's into this subject, eh?

I thought this would be a winner, ex-Liberal cabinet minister, ex-Conservative cabinet minister and other members of Canadian big business, conspire with Americans and Mexicans to give away our sovereignty and sell out our country behind closed doors.

Maybe we'll have to wait for MacNutt to come back and make a few inflammatory comments.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

GA, you're not alone. I feel totally saturated with American culture, current events, etc. I can't fathom further integration with America at present. I'm considering moving to Scandinavia. But man, those dudes got them some tough immigration laws!


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

The U.S. has been trying and trying for decades.

I just hope it forges Canada together that much stronger.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Our national reflex is to resist integration.*

What we have to watch out for, and what these bastards are up to, is integration by stealth.

Canadians will reflexively resist anything they perceive as ceding national sovereignty to the US. However, especially in the current neo-con economic climate, most Canadians will neither think about nor resist the economic 'harmonization' and 'streamlining' of boarder issues that is going on.

What is really needed here is a few reporters with some guts to run stories in the TV news media regarding the long-term impact of these negotiations on Canadian sovereignty.

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Yeah, it's interesting and telling that only one newspaper choose to report on the Toronto meeting, of the Task Force on the Future of North America. Do they think we will be bored by the story, that a sellout is afoot, or are the Globe and Mail and Canwest somehow complicit in this?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I just heard on the radio this morning that John Manley's group of quislings, The Task Force On The Future of North America, have put out a strong proposal suggesting that Canada, the US and Mexico, should integrate into a single trading space, protected by jointly staffed borders under the control of a single agency. 

Nice idea, American border guards controlling who comes and goes from our country. Let's see who's idea of how a border should be run will triumph in this joint agency? Let me guess. Who's idea of who should be allowed to immigrate to Canada will triumph? Hmmm. Who's idea of what is a sensible drug policy will prevail? You guessed it. Like the idea of legally armed American border guards running around in our country with police powers? Sounds great, eh? This is all in advance of the upcoming meeting at Bush's ranch between Dubya and his two corporals, Martin and Vincente Fox of Mexico.

I heard the sell-out Manley speak with forked tongue about how we Canadians have absolutely nothing to worry about regarding our sovereignty. What a crock! When getting into bed with an elephant, how do you avoid being crushed? I know, sez Manley, just get cozy and snuggle right up to him.

Yup, the lies of the 1980s free trade debate are being spun once again. They hope we've forgotten them. Don't worry, be happy! Deep integration, or should I say penetration, by the USA won't hurt at all. Just bend right over folks, with a smile on your face. And they'll still respect us in the morning.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Odd that most of your sellout "Quislings" are actually from the Federal Liberal Party, eh?  

Funny about that. Especially given the fact that the very same Federal Liberal Party under Chretien and Martin have carefully decimated our own home grown defensive and coastal rescue services over the past decade. In fact...they've almost wiped them out.

Which has left us TOTALLY dependant upon the Americans to defend or patrol our own Canadian coastline. Or to mount any really effective rescue services on that same long coastline.

And the Chretien/Martin Liberals have, over the past decade, actively strengthened and reinforced the continent-wide NAFTA agreements that tie us even deeper into the US economy. Despite the fact that Jean Chretien promised on a stack of bibles to dump this stuff once we had elected him! 

Gosh...you DON'T suppose that the Chretien/Martin Liberals have been setting us up for a major fall on soverignity all during the past decade or so? Do you?

I mean...what in the WORLD could make them DO this??!??

A giant monetary payoff into the personal accounts of the Federal Liberals who were in power during this time period...perhaps in offshore caribbean accounts???....confused:  

That would be totally out of character for them. Wouldn't it?

C'mon..._WOULDN'T IT???_


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I just heard on the radio this morning that John Manley's group of quislings, The Task Force On The Future of North America, have put out a strong proposal suggesting that Canada, the US and Mexico, should integrate into a single trading space, protected by jointly staffed borders under the control of a single agency.


I agree with integrating our border. If you think Canada or the US has control of who crosses it, you are nuts. The only way to control who gets into Canada or the US is to filter people entering North America at our airports and seaports. I think both joint border agents should have the right of refusal. Let's integrate our border the way Europe has done. Have any European countries lost sovereignty by doing this? Not that I know of.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm with Vandave on this. It's inevitable, in fact.

Right now, we Canadians are only one big local terrorist event away from a totally integrated North American defensive posture on high alert. And...since the Federal Liberals under Chretien/Martin have left us totally UNABLE to deal with this looming reality....then we will have no choice but to accept US troops on our soil and US planes in our airspace and US ships off of our coastlines. Just to prevent the next one after that from ever happening.

The United States of North America is neither a pipe dream nor a horror story. It's just a matter of time.

Trust me on this.


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

MacNutt Quote: And the Chretien/Martin Liberals have, over the past decade, actively strengthened and reinforced the continent-wide NAFTA agreements that tie us even deeper into the US economy. Despite the fact that Jean Chretien promised on a stack of bibles to dump this stuff once we had elected him!" endquote

And the original NAFTA agreement, during the Brian Mulroney Conservative administration, was a good policy, HOW? A new AutoPact was it?

Exclusivity of energy, oil, water resources by the US? The trade policies of software lumber, grain and, now to some extent, the cattle business reeks of an isolationist, protectionist, and paranoid society. And we should be glad of this? We should join the party, become one and the same with the Americans according to John Manley? BS

Whether Liberal or Conservative, these are political entities empowered by WE the people. Get off your ass and write, scream on the phone, email your representatives and let them know your opinion. Tell them why you like or dislike the policies they develop. Get involved. 

Canadians are SO apathetic. We get what we vote for. Starting at the constituency level. Makes me mad.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I just heard on the radio this morning that John Manley's group of quislings, The Task Force On The Future of North America, have put out a strong proposal suggesting that Canada, the US and Mexico, should integrate into a single trading space, protected by jointly staffed borders under the control of a single agency.
> 
> Nice idea, American border guards controlling who comes and goes from our country. .


In Paper, this is what's coming, but practically, this IS happening. For instance, you buy a shipment of furniture and you throw it in a container in Scandinavia( yes, that' s right), and before loading it to the boat, it has to be cleared by a Americans officials over there, who may not only open it, but delay it or refuse it to come to Canada. Of course there is logic to all these, they don't want a container full of whatever on it's way to Canada (hence USA), so they are doing this with EU clearance on every container bound to Canada.

This is happening, so i wouldn't be surprised if eventually goes on paper.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

I am one helluva proud Canadian with family roots dating back to British landfall, and imagining the fact that my generation will be in power to see the day that this country hands its sovereignty to America makes me sick. We cannot allow this to happen, far to many men have fought and died in the name of Canada and its people to give it away on a silver platter. Though, I don't think there is much to worry about - just hafta wait until Manley and his lil' friends leave the stage. The Canadian youth have a stronger sense of national pride than any generation in a long time, and I think that once they (we) are in power, Canada will be taken to new heights


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

trump said:


> just hafta wait until Manley and his lil' friends leave the stage.


But he's already being "fronted" as the next "leader" of the Federal Liberals. Hence his media exposure on this Task Force recommendation.

Good Luck to your Canadian Youth as they try to take a fast track getting their ideas and voices heard. Demographically, the "Old Boys Club" still rules.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

demographically, the Old Boys Club will be using adult diapers in not so many years. Besides, even if America ends up occupying Canada, all young Canadians have played enough video games to know how to operate an AK-47. We'd make Iraq look like a bar-fight  (joke)

I can't see Manly being PM, I met him on the steps of parliament a couple of years ago (group of young teens, perfect photo op) - the guy has horrible dandruff and just doesn't seem like the visionary type


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

el 'Nutt said:


> It's inevitable, in fact.


Inevitable, eh? Yup, folks just bend over and take it with a smile on your face, cause there's nothing you can do. It'll be lovely, we'll all become another US colony, like Puerto Rico. But hey, we hear that Americans are good tippers. 

With all due respect Mr. MacNutt, *F*** THAT!!*

One proposal I missed from the radio report I listened to, was that law enforcement would also be integrated. Oh, yeah, we're all for that, eh? CIA and Homeland Security spooks running around our country legally, doing whatever they please. What a vision.

Another one that I missed was an integrated energy zone. The US giant is guaranteed any and all energy it wants from Canadians. Hey America, you want fries with that?

John Manley and his supporters are simply traitors. I'm pretty certain that if he ever had aspirations of becoming PM, he's killed them by backing this crap.

Me, I'll probably be in diapers myself by the time the current 20 somethings are in charge, but I promise to fling my used diaper at any US governor.

One of the big lies that guys like Manley are trying to use, that is straight from the Free Trade propaganda of the 80s, is the one that it'll be just like the European Union. Oh joy! But, there's one huge problem with the analogy. The European Union consists of a large number of partners with more or less similar amounts of power. The large pool of countries protects the smaller members. In this deep integration scenario we have 3 partners, 2 of which are dwarfed by the American giant. We've seen how well NAFTA works, - oh yeah there's rules, just don't try and enforce any of them on the US. But Canada knuckles under to all of the American NAFTA challenges. The FTA and NAFTA were stage one, this is stage two. Stage three ... outright colonialism.

My family tree goes back to 1620 and the first group of settlers to set foot in New France. Damned if I'll just sit around while a quisling like Manley gives this country away.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

very, very well put GratuitousApplesauce

imo, there needs to be a group to promote this view


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Thanks, trump.

There is a group that has been all over this issue for some time, called the Council of Canadians. There's a lot of info on their site about Manley and his fellow traitors are cooking up and how to get involved with stopping it.

Yup, annexationists, collaborators, quislings, traitors. They're telling us that for our own good we have to give Canada away. Disgusting.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The "Three Amigos", George W. Bush and his two errand boys, Paul Martin and Vincente Fox of Mexico, met in Waco, Texas, today, where Martin and Fox adopted the required prostrate position in front of the great US ruler. Later they were to go on to more private audiences at Dubya's ranch.

They signed a nebulous document called the _Security and Prosperity Partnership_ that called for various bits of harmonization between the three countries in matters of security and trade. (Translation: harmonizing to exactly what the US asks for.) What it says exactly is hard to determine, since it is full of unclear weasel words and vague generalities. 

This agreement was obviously crafted by the Task Force On The Future Of North America, specifically based on a document authored by Tom D'Aquino, President of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, mentioned earlier on this thread. That D'Aquino's organization, fully supports the annexationist agenda and is dominated by American branch plant CEOs isn't usually mentioned.

What this agreement is, is a signal to the US government, that we are ready to do their bidding and get on the train that ends with the United States of North America. They want our fossil fuels, they want our water and they want to increase their control over Canada, in every way.

Why any Canadian in their right mind would think that the country that has never honoured NAFTA agreements and has become a law unto itself internationally, would suddenly start compromising and harmonizing ever-so-compliantly with its two neighbours, is beyond me. Are Canadians just suffering from a national case of Spousal Abuse Syndrome. We keep going back because they promise us they won't beat us up this time?

What we are seeing with this agreement today is the last shred of our sovereignty being dangled over the trash bin. If these guys get what they want, you can say hello to Puerto Rico North and the United States of North America.

Write your MP and the Prime Minister ( [email protected] ) and tell them you oppose "deep integration" with the USA. Join the Council of Canadians, while there is still an independant Canada to preserve.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*"Citizens" of NAFTA?*

If anyone believes that our current government doesn't want to plunge headlong into deep integration with the US, please read this piece from Canada.com by Jennifer Welsh. The article is entitled "Are we ready to be citizens of NAFTA?" Strangely, or maybe not so strangely, it is not mentioned in the article that she is an advisor to the Prime Minister on foreign policy. In this essay she is trying to warm us up to the idea of North American citizenship, based on something akin to the European Union.

The problem with this whole approach, is that in the EU, the country's involved have been willing to give up sovereignty rights *as equals* to the greater EU. Can anyone ever envision the USA, giving up any sovereignty rights to a greater North American group? Can anyone see, the USA giving up control over their monetary policy, their currency, their border and security decisions to a greater North American government? Not bloody likely.

So, just as in NAFTA, where the US ignores whatever it doesn't like, under some deep integration scenario, the rules will be drafted and designed by the USA, to keep them in control, and the smaller parties will be left with no recourse. You would have to be deluded to think otherwise and all the promises that these deep integration advocates are making about an even playing field and such are just nonsense. The playing field will be the USA's playing field.


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

Lord, give us a "great Leader" just one more time to lead us out of the wilderness. One who has the juice and jingles to "Just Say No" to the U.S.

The next "Greatest Canadian"?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

A great leader would be nice, but barring that, I think we'll have to do it ourselves. If enough Canadians loudly say "No way, eh!" they won't dare go near this. Let the buggers know.


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

I hear you, GA> Many voices in the wilderness singing together. Rather like that Canadian Cancer Ad where a lone person swinging a sling ala David and Goliath is subsequently joined by many others teaming up together.

Set aside the apathy and let your MP and PM know.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The vitriolic and arrogant former US ambassador, Paul Cellucci, giving a speech to the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute in October, briefed the assembled on what was happening on the under-reported Deep Integration - North American Union front that Cellucci likes to refer to as Nafta-plus.

Mostly the usual condescending blather from him, but he makes a rather surprising admission, stating that in a decade or so our countries (the US, Canada and Mexico) will become “a union in everything but name”.

Windows Media Player video file of the speech on CPAC - look for minute 23 or so.

Usually the Deep Integrationists like to keep that kind of talk quiet for fear of stirring Canadian nationalism, but they needn’t have worried in this case because it never made the news. 

Why wasn’t this major news when he gave the speech? Why is it I have to find it nestled in the bowels in some blog? Here’s a former US ambassador to Canada and highly placed Republican friend of the White House, openly telling Canadians that we are inevitably headed for a unification of our countries. Do the people who decide what gets into the news think that it was just idle speculation?

The whole issue has been basically ignored by the media, for reasons that I can’t comprehend. And if a story is under-reported most people assume that nothing is happening. Both Liberals under Chretien and Martin, with John Manley as their front man and now Harper’s Conservative governments have been very active in pushing this agenda,.

Of course the language used by the deep integrationists of “union” between the countries is meant to evoke images of the European Union, a peaceful and democratic partnership of equals. As we know already from our softwood experience with the US over NAFTA, the US will not feel bound to honour any agreements that it doesn’t happen to like. Our North American Union could only ever be complete domination by the US on their terms. The is the agenda of Cellucci and the Canadian quislings who are pushing this. 

Stunning that something like North American Union, that has so many implications for our country is being worked on outside of the public eye and without any input from Parliament. Did any of us vote for Deep Integration or the creation of a North American Union? Agendas have been proposed, committees are busy working, commissions and studies are underway under signed agreements from Presidents and Prime Ministers yet the media just yawns. The public hasn’t been invited to participate in the discussions, - unless you consider the Canadian Council of Cheif Executives headed by Tom D’Acquino and representing 150 or the largest Canadian corporations as the public. CCCE and the leaders of a few other corporations are the only non-government group that is part of this process. If we can even get any information about what is going on the rest of us are only free to natter on the sidelines. Most of our MPs know precisely zip about this process.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

It wasn't major news because Canada is still a democracy, one that won't allow "deep integration" or the union of the several countries involved.

Just as there are many intelligent Americans, there are a slew of idiots, and that goes on both sides of the border. Normally, our idiots neither promote joining the United States nor believe that their idiots who say it's possible have any legitimacy.

I've seen Paul Cellucci speak during an international relations dinner, while he was ambassador to Canada. His job is mostly to be harmless and make the U.S. seem harmless and he faked that well enough, even while promoting their disastrous foreign policies. The dinner was good, at least (good and free).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"we are inevitably headed for a unification of our countries." 

"Do the people who decide what gets into the news think that it was just idle speculation?"

The clip didn't play for me but, going by, "a union in everything but name" you may be reading too much into it. Trade, regulations, standards, military cross-functionality, etc. would be my guess, but I don't know the context. 

Some commentators speculate a common currency as part of our near future, but that's a no-go in my mind, considering our economic differences.

I'm not sure why this concept gets people so riled up. If we just started with our worst fears on things, we'd have trouble contemplating useful change. 

Integrating codes and standards for things like cars, professional trades and even time zones (yes, I went there) can be quite useful (heck, maybe we should even do that within Canada!).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think a union between the two countries should be defined as between a man and a woman...uh...with the U.S. as the man and Canada as the...uh..woman..and Mexico as that guy who does yardwork cheap and only comes in to the house when the U.S. is working late.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Why wasn’t this major news when he gave the speech?


Because the media is doing what it's payed to do: keep us distracted and unaware of the corporate princes governing our lives.



> Most of our MPs know precisely zip about this process.


I think that's the idea. You give people a democratically-elected illusion of government, and then add in a lot of freely available sex and violence-based entertainment, and you have a population that's relatively amenable to control, and completely distracted. This allows corporations to continue to rape and pillage uncontested. I.e. 'business as usual.'

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think a union between the two countries should be defined as between a man and a woman...uh...with the U.S. as the man and Canada as the...uh..woman..and Mexico as that guy who does yardwork cheap and only comes in to the house when the U.S. is working late.



Dude... look at a map. Canada is bigger than the US and we are on top. By your logic is this was a prison the US would be our biatch.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Dude... look at a map. Canada is bigger than the US and we are on top. By your logic is this was a prison the US would be our biatch.


Besides, the U.S.'s member (Florida) looks a little flaccid.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Because the media is doing what it's payed to do: keep us distracted and unaware of the corporate princes governing our lives.
> ....................
> This allows corporations to continue to rape and pillage uncontested. I.e. 'business as usual.'


About as insightful and relevant as this:
“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations,”


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

HowEver said:


> It wasn't major news because Canada is still a democracy, one that won't allow "deep integration" or the union of the several countries involved.


I don't dispute that but I think that those pushing a North American Union are very aware that Canadians are not in favour. This is surely the reason why much of this is being done in a stealthy way, private meetings, by invitation only, no press allowed. I wonder exactly how many of these changes can be brought in by the government of the day without asking parliament. That seems to be the preferred method of moving towards a North American Union.


> (from a very enlightening article in Maclean's - Sept. 2006)
> 
> Ron Covais is in a hurry. The president of the Americas for defence giant Lockheed Martin, and a former Pentagon adviser to Dick Cheney, he's one of a cherry-picked group of executives who were whisked to Cancún in March by the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and asked to come up with a plan for taking North American integration beyond NAFTA. Covais figures they've got less than two years of political will to make it happen. That's when the Bush administration exits, and "The clock will stop if the Harper minority government falls or a new government is elected."
> ....
> ...


Once the groundwork is in place and we are even more intimately intertwined than currently, for instance, maybe we have a common border agency (issuing US border service training to Canada Customs), it then becomes easier to convince the public that the legislative changes are needed. The argument is used now. Because of NAFTA, we are told that we need to integrate ever closer. Many believe this.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> The clip didn't play for me but, going by, "a union in everything but name" you may be reading too much into it. Trade, regulations, standards, military cross-functionality, etc. would be my guess, but I don't know the context.


Here's a more full transcription to give some context.


> “Now I don’t believe that we will ever have a, in name anyways, a common union like the Europeans have, I don’t believe we’ll have a common currency here in North America, but I believe that, incrementally, we will continue to integrate our economies because I believe it is in each of our national interests to do so. And along the way, I think we’ll do a couple of things and I think that, well more than a couple of things, but.. I think we’ll.. 10 years from now, or maybe 15 years from now we’re gonna look back and we’re gonna have a union in everything but name.”


I couldn't get it to play within the browser either. I had to open the URL directly with Windows Media Player. Funny usually CPAC videos worked better for me in the past. Maybe I need to upgrade Flip4Mac.


Beej said:


> Some commentators speculate a common currency as part of our near future, but that's a no-go in my mind, considering our economic differences.


I agree, because it would be a difficult sell in Canada and an impossible sell in the US. That said we already do have a common currency - the US dollar, and if we are more deeply integrated, its importance will become greater, possibly to the point that the Canadian dollar and the Peso become rather irrelevant. Many hundreds of thousands of individuals and businesses have US dollar accounts now and depend on them to do business. I do about 5 percent of my own business directly in US cash and probably another 20 to 30 percent taking US credit cards, but I'm only tiny spuds dealing with some American tourists.


Beej said:


> I'm not sure why this concept gets people so riled up. If we just started with our worst fears on things, we'd have trouble contemplating useful change.


That might be different if we had a clear idea of what was being discussed and hammered out by our governments was publicly available for all to see. I would love to find out that I've been over-reacting and that there was no threat to Canadian sovereignty here. But statements keep slipping out that seem to indicate otherwise. The secrecy indicates to me that the North American Unionists don't want us to know what they are working towards.


Beej said:


> Integrating codes and standards for things like cars, professional trades and even time zones (yes, I went there) can be quite useful (heck, maybe we should even do that within Canada!).


Integration of codes and standards sounds fairly innocuous and no doubt some of these things are a good idea. I'd like to know what these things are, if proposals are being made. Generally I think this likely means getting our standards in line with US standards. I don't see the US adopting the metric system to harmonize anything anytime soon.

It has been shown that other proposals are being made that go well beyond these things. One of the proposals that has got some coverage is a common border agency. Will the US split the difference and start for instance, allowing flights to Cuba? Nope. Should people like Maher Arar be a little concerned that entry to Canada might now be in the hands of a customs agency under US control? Yup.

One of the real plums that the US has their eye on with this initiative is Canada's energy surplus and abundant water. Are we going to enter into a deal where we are bound to allow this access no matter what?

Deep Integration does not mean that Canada, Mexico and the US all move to accommodate each other. It means Canada and Mexico learn to do things the way the US wants it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I don't agree that your fears are particularly pertinent in the same way that I don't believe many other fears are (downfall of "society" with the various social changes etc.). Your points on what a full union (peak fear issues) would look like seem accurate and the best example is through currency. There is no such option as a North American currency. 

Aside: But the full union (ie. true merging) will not happen anytime soon. Long term (100+ years) I'd like to see 1 world nation and city-states/regions, but that's another matter, ominous images of backroom meetings notwithstanding. Most policy discussions are not done in front of microphones and cameras because, well, watch Question Period.

Back to currency: It is the US dollar or separate currencies (the U.S. will not give up their currency) and our interests are best served by a separate currency, in my opinion. I don't consider the act of using anothers' currency as some horrible slight against our sovereignty, just as a bad idea. 

Within the same framework of bad idea vs good idea instead of ideological fear, shared border services can be a good idea. Implemented poorly, they can be a bad idea. That doesn't mean such things should be off the table from the start. Or that, unlike most policy discussions, they need to be publicly published. Much is and most is already ignored (not some grand conspiracy, it's often just darned boring -- even to policy wonks like myself).

Without the rhetoric most of the Deep Integration stuff is quite discussable. With the rhetoric, it takes on religious tones.

Every time a Canadian small business deals in U.S. currency, a beaver loses its wings.  Sorry, but I think some humour could help here.

[Edit: Thanks for the context. It also confirms my suspicions.]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> Long term (100+ years) I'd like to see 1 world nation and city-states/regions, but that's another matter..


Thank goodness people still hate each other...that futurist utopia sounds like a nightmare to me.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

And then the philosopher kings will rule the world! 

Surprising that a philosopher thought that up.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> I don't agree that your fears are particularly pertinent in the same way that I don't believe many other fears are (downfall of "society" with the various social changes etc.). Your points on what a full union (peak fear issues) would look like seem accurate and the best example is through currency.


Your complacence seems unwarranted to me, but of course you are quite welcome to it.

No doubt many of the discussions are wonky or boring as you say, but I think for issues of this importance there is a responsibility for the public to be kept informed. To just trust that all of these people, who I already distrust, are deciding things to benefit all Canadians, but do not need to report any of that publicly is simply folly in my opinion. But to each his own.

Below is a partial list of the people who met at Banff, September 2006 at a meeting called the "North American Forum", from a guest list and agenda subtitled: "Internal document, not for public release". The document was leaked on to the internet as the conference happened. No media invitations were given and no statements were released. The participants were many of the movers and shakers within the Deep Integration movement including many high-profile public officials in the US, Canada and Mexico.

Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, Government of Canada
Sec. Donald R. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, US Department of Defense
Hon. John P. Manley
Hon. Gordon O’Connor, Minister of Defense, Government of Canada
Dr. James Schlesinger, Former Sec. Of Energy & Defense
Mr. R. James Woolsey, Former CIA director
Hon. George Shultz
Hon. Peter Lougheed	
Hon. Anne McLellan, Senior Counsel, Bennett Jones
Hon. Perrin Beatty, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
Mr. Bill Elliott Associate, Deputy Minister, Public Safety
General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff
Rear Adm Roger Girouard, Commander Joint Task Force Pacific, Cdn Forces
Mr. Ward Elcock, Deputy Minister of National Defence
Mr. Thomas d’Aquino, Canadian Council of Chief Executives
Dr. Wendy Dobson, The Institute for International Business and the CD Howe Institute (a strong proponent of a North American currency)
Mr. Richard L. George, Suncor Energy Inc.
Ms. Sharon Murphy, Chevron Canada
Vinicio Suro, PEMEX - the Mexican national oil conglomerate
Mr. Ron T. Covais, President, The Americas, Lockheed Martin Corporation
Dr. Robert A. Pastor, Director, Center for North American Studies, American 
University, Washington, DC - author of "Toward a North American Union" and has been involved in this agenda since the 1970s
Arturo Sarukhan, Coordinator of Int’l Affairs, Campaign of Felipe Calderon
Juan Camilo Mouriño, General Coordinator of President Elect’s transition team
Mr. Thomas Huffaker, U.S. Consul General in Calgary
Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF Senior Military Assist. to Sec. Rumsfeld
Mr. John Dickson, Deputy Chief of Mission, US Embassy in Ottawa
Dr. Roger Gibbins, Canada West Foundation

The extant of the media coverage? A few mentions after the leaked info was published on the internet in September and an article in the Banff Crag and Canyon. From the Crag and Canyon article:


> The office of Stockwell Day said that it does not comment on the private meeting and would not say if the public safety minister
> attended the forum.


Was this the accountability and openness that Canada's New Government (TM) was supposed to have?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Trilateral Commission must hear of this.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Oh, I found a media report on the conference - after the fact.


> A North American security meeting was *secretly held in Banff last week*, attracting high-profile officials from the United States, Mexico and Canada.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

In wondering why the media doesn't cover this issue (and others) a partial answer was provided to me by a CBC radio documentary I heard yesterday. It was program on the rise of PR and spin into the political realm and the interviewer spoke with a fellow (forgot his name) who was the architect of Reagan's unprecedented media strategy. They controlled all access to the media far more than it had ever been done and actively put out the messages they wanted on a daily basis.

He said that what surprised him about the media, once they put their new plan into place was how docile they were. He likened them to a line of crows sitting on a telephone wire. One could throw out a bit of corn each day and they would all clamour to get at it and then when it was done go back up on the wire and wait for the next feeding. He said there were very few instances of reporters actually trying to dig beyond the official story that was fed to them.

I think this explains a whole lot about why the North American Union story is not seen much in the media. The various governments of the day have decided it will be so.


----------

