!!! Picket And Action To Oppose The SPP !!!
NO SECURITY WITHOUT JUSTICE!
NO PROSPERITY WITHOUT DIGNITY!
!!! PICKET AND ACTION TO OPPOSE THE SPP !!!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
12:30pm
Saturday, August 11th, 2007
Rally at Confederation Square War Memorial
Elgin @ Wellington
Ottawa, ON
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
In preparation for actions and events confronting the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Summit in Montebello, Quebec later in August, groups across Turtle Island are organizing a national week of action to target the SPP and it’s corporate backers, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC).
As part of this week of action, the PGA Bloc Ottawa invites all groups and individuals opposed to the Security and Prosperity Partnership to join us on Saturday, August 11th, in directly confronting one of the local members of the NACC.
The NACC was launched as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) in June 2006. It is the only formal advisory board to the SPP and is made up of 30 corporate leaders from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico with ten advisors from each of the SPP signatory states. A September 13, 2006 story in Maclean’s magazine describes the NACC as a “cherrypicked group of executives who were whisked to Cancun 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.”
The Canadian membership of the NACC was appointed by Stephen Harper in June 2006. The members are:
Dominic D’Alessandro (Manulife Financial)
Paul Desmarais, Jr. (Power Corporation of Canada)
David Ganong (Ganong Bros. Limited)
Richard George (Suncor Energy Inc.)
Hunter Harrison (CN)
Linda Hasenfratz (Linamar Corporation)
Michael Sabia (Bell Canada Enterprises)
Jim Shepherd (Canfor Corporation)
Annette Verschuren (The Home Depot)
and Rick Waugh (Scotiabank)
The SPP is essentially NAFTA-plus-Homeland Security, firmly rooted within a colonial and capitalist framework. There is no doubt that the SPP will bring greater insecurity and misery: murderous wars and occupations abroad; border militarization; increased detentions and deportations; attacks on indigenous peoples, the poor, migrants, and working people; ecological destruction; and mega-projects in the service of corporate greed.
For more information on the NACC and the corporate profiteers involved, visit http://noii-van.resist.ca/?p=438
For more information about the picket and action in Ottawa, contact pgabloc@gmail.com or visit pga.roadnetwork.org
Lions and tigers and the “capitalist framework”, oh my!
Economic freedom, energy security, emergency preparedness, secure borders… These colonial concepts would naturally upset all self-respecting commies, “anti-globalization” protesters and other assholes.
Economic freedom by giving up our ability to set independent national economic and trade policy?
Energy security? We have lots of energy, we have so much we export it. We have fossil fuel coming out the ying-yang, we have water, we have wind, we make nuclear reactors for petes sake – what is this security you speak of?
Emergency preparedness? Give me a real world example.
Secure borders? Shouldn’t we be responsible for securing our own borders? What does our secure border have to do with either Mexico or the United States?
How come there has been no parliamentary debate on the SPP? Why is it happening behind closed doors? Why has there been no public information or debate? Why has only big business been consulted on the matter? Why did the US army have anything at all to say about whether a town could/could not rent out a building for a public meeting? Why would even the Canadian government deny them that right?
Those questions are just a few of the ones that need asking?
– and add to those questions, just why do we need the level of deep integration with any foreign powers that this process envisions?
More impressive soundbites devoid of any substance whatsoever.
1. EU countries are already benefiting from “giving up ability to set independent national economic and trade policy” (free trade zone)
2. “We have lots of energy, we have so much we export it. ” Right. We also import lots of energy. The system is integrated from north to south rather than from East to West. Tell Toronto with its brownerouts how much energy we have.
3. “Give me a real world example.” Epidemics like SARS or Foot and Mouth or a nuclear accident – any of these would require cooperation across the continent. It is necessary to put the systems in place before emergencies happen… I am telling this to you as an expert.
4. All civilized countries cooperate on securing their borders – check out the EU. It only makes sense that we would cooperate closer on our contenent.
We just aren’t going to agree if you consider the above items to be objectionable because they are “firmly rooted within a colonial and capitalist framework”.
1- because free trade with our friends south of the border has work so very very well hasn’t it?
2 – the result of a bad agreement, there will be more if this proceeds.
3 – and cross border cooperation is so non-existent now isn’t it? Tell me how SPP would help with Mad Cow? Or softwood lumber?
4 – BMD
You’re right, we’re not gonna agree, but maybe someday you’ll wish more of us had.
Stageleft,
Your way of thinking is … fascinating. Perhaps you would like to substantiate your claims? Not that you can.
Look, the US is a vital partner for Canada. It’s beyond belief that someone would want to argue against it. Canada enjoys a healthy trade surplus ($53 billion US in 2001). Two-way daily trade of the United States. between these North American neighbors surpasses $1 billion, representing the largest bilateral trading relationship on the planet. Practically ALL our jobs either directly or indirectly depend on trade with the US of A.
NAFTA has worked tremendously well by further increasing trade and ensuring prosperity – check out the trends yourself. Arguments about wood etc… are but a blip in the overall scheme of things.
Energy supply network is the result of the existing infrastructure. Nothing to do with “agreements” – good or bad. Would you rather spend billions on modifying it and damage the environment in the process? Note that you would add significantly to greenhouse gas emissions by transporting electricity over longer distances.
I am not involved in the current cross-border arrangements relating to agricultural emergencies, but I have no doubt whatsoever that they must be upgraded as the world around us has changed so much. With regards to nuclear emergencies – absolutely; improvements in cooperation are a must.
As luck would have it, the vast majority of Canadians have common sense to agree with me. A poll released in late 2006 by the Woodrow Wilson Institute verified that the US-Canada partnership is on the up-swing – getting even warmer and more productive.
The poll found that an increasing number of Canadians – 58% — viewed the U.S. as their closest friend and ally – that’s up 5 percentage points from last year.
85% of Canadians view the US as a friend – up from 73% who responded that way last year. Similarly, 90% of Americans called Canada a friend – that’s up 8 percentage points.
You are an extremist. This in itself does not make you wrong, but only someone from the past would talk about cooperation with the US in the light of “colonial and capitalist framework”. I am sure you have your reasons.
[...] And for those rooting for the glorious and wonderful age that will no doubt begin the day MexAmeriCana comes into being, what would that all mean for us? [...]