I know that this post is a doozy, but please bear with me and my soapbox for a few minutes.
On Tuesday Canadians will utilize their little-valued right and responsibility to elect a political party which will lead this country through these dangerous currents, in a time of economic uncertainty, political intrigue to our south, and a newly-emerging Russia to our far north.
I’ve watched the federal party leaders on numerous occasions dictate to us what we’re in need of in a party leader, what we’re in need of in a party, and that we have a vested interest in electing their particular party for one reason or another. I’ve heard a party leader tell Canadians to invest in the markets because of great purchasing potential in the current turmoil. I’ve heard a party leader tell us that he wants to spend our tax money on new programs to help out average Canadians, without giving us an avenue from whence that new cash infusion will come from. I’ve even heard a stalwart party leader admit to having to cut out some programs during his initial two years if he’s brought on as our PM.
The one issue which no one in the press or the candidates themselves is talking about is Sovereignty.
When we take that word, sovereignty, in a Canadian context, we tend to think about Quebec, the Bloc, and all the garbage we had to go through to reaffirm our solidarity as a nation back in 1995. I can still remember all the tension in the air, and the images I had as a young boy of Canadian soldiers with chainsaws literally excising Quebec from the rest of the nation. I’d like to ensure that no one ever has to question the unity of this country ever again, but since that’s not feasible, I digress.
The context in which I use this word, Sovereignty, is in a North American one. For the past years since NAFTA was passed, think tanks and globalization lobbies have been pushing this idea of North American integration; A North American Union, if you will. For those of you whom are old enough to remember what it was like doing business with the United States before NAFTA and CAFTA came into existence, you’ll know that what I’m about to postulate is certainly possible, and quite imposing in scope due to what the ramifications may be for us as average Canadians. For those of you whom may not be quite that matured, please see this page.
NAFTA created a massive hole in our trade agreements with the U.S.A. and as the years have progressed, we can see that in addition to providing the conditions for a lasting peaceful accord, unregulated and arbitrary free trade deals can quickly become unfair, lopsided, skewed, whatever way you want to put it, they can quickly go as bad as egg bread in a humid room.
My concern in this election is what’s called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). This group stems from the New York based U.S. policy think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), members of which being such noteworthy people as Alan Greenspan, Henry Kissinger, George H.W. Bush, Richard Cheney, the list goes on. This U.S. Foreign Policy group has seen fit to impart its’ own brand of globalization upon us here in Canada as well as the United States and Mexico.
It’s called the “North American Union” and Robert A. Pastor has thrown his lot in with the SPP and arrogantly stated on *our* behalf that: “The U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments remain zealous defenders of an outdated conception of sovereignty even though their citizens are ready for a new approach.[…] Evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete.” We need a larger country, composed of everyone in this hemisphere, and it needs to be agreed on in private because we, the unwashed masses, aren’t able to agree on anything… And yet he says we’re ready for this union?
I come from an Immigrant family, and as such, I’m proud to be the first generation born abroad, here in Canada. My family came here because Canada was the place they felt represented what they wanted out of their lives, and for the lives of their children. They came to Canada in 1959, arriving by boat in Halifax, and moved to Toronto shortly afterwards. To put it succinctly, we’d rather be Canadian.
The idea of integration is not a new one, in Europe, the EU was founded upon the framework of the ECC and the adoption of the Euro was brought in after considerable public discourse and several referendums around Europe. This new “super-nation” of the EU was brought about partially through backroom dealings among business leaders and partially through public debate and agreement. However, this agreement did not create a Euro-Army, and did not merge the security forces of any nations with any others under the EU.
In light of this, we can see that the aims of the SPP are quite different: To create a real nation, not just a union of “the Big Three.” The ramifications for this are devastating, as many have noticed security checkpoints in various public places in the United States since September 11, increased security screenings for passengers in airports, CCD cameras in every nook and cranny across the downtown regions of our major cities (which have still yet to prove if they actually can catch criminals). We’ve seen biometric information added to such mundane ID as driver’s licenses, families in the United States being micro chipped, children being implanted with GPS chips, and all sorts of other human rights and civil rights violations in the names of “national” and “security.” More on this topic later.
Any attempts at integration should be decided upon at a grassroots level, because we’ve seen that your average worker (union or non union) can be influenced and exploited by the decisions of the power elite of our nation in such agreements. NAFTA didn’t, and continues not to, function properly because the conditions contained in the agreement were not put to a popular vote, and instead were decided on behind closed doors, without civilian oversight and without the approval of the population, much like the SPP.
The softwood lumber dispute had its roots directly with Integrationist issues. Through NAFTA, the U.S. attempted to impose its belief in total free markets by criticizing our government controls and regulations on trees, notably softwood lumber. In effect, NAFTA’s dispute board is effectively controlled by those whom seek to progress U.S. interests at the cost of our own. We have seen that flat-out, Free Trade is dangerous in its’ current form, and must be opposed if it’s not brought into law from a grassroots beginning.
For Quebecois, this new partnership may prove to be even more adversarial, due to their recent recognition as a nation within a nation. The Bloc Quebecois has a real responsibility in this election to force the hand of a minority government with its pro-sovereignty agenda, even though the separatist agenda has seemingly taken a back seat to Quebec’s prosperity in a greater Canadian framework.
Even Alberta isn’t safe, as the U.S. is the world’s largest petro-chemical guzzler. What would happen if we’re integrated with the U.S. and all of a sudden, they need more oil for their Tahoes, Denalis, and Hummers? Albertan freedom to sell to whomever they wish is trumped for U.S. National Security interests, and free trade politics. Aboriginals, too, won’t have a place in the new framework of a North American Union because their needs and demands as Canada’s First Nations go out the window, where we could possibly adopt an American-style of dealing with aboriginals (ex: I met a man in Oklahoma whose family was from the Ottawa Valley, they were moved forcibly due to systemic bias against the first nations of North America, according to some natives down there, this bias continues to this day).
The acquiescence to a North American integration would spell defeat for the rights and freedoms we think are part of being born here in Canada. Sections seven through fourteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms deal with our freedoms and rights with the coercive apparatus of our government, namely the justice system and the police; All these sections can effectively be thrown out with the NAU/SPP. The security concerns of the U.S. have forced us to use increasingly invasive measures to deal with suspected terrorists and criminals have even been referred to as terrorists where eight years ago, such references would have been deemed unreasonable. A good example of such policies is the “no-fly list” which has been created by the Department of Homeland Security, such lists (and we do have one here) are shown to be arbitrarily put together, with no inclusion criteria set out for public debate, we have effectively given carte-blanche to security forces, and all they have to do to cash in on it is label men like Robert Dziekanski terrorists and they can Tase away, heck, with U.S. law taking hold, our security forces can even send you to Syria or Egypt for torture, or to Bulgaria, Albania or Macedonia to be disappeared if you’re enough of a problem to them.
North America is scared of its’ own shadow, we have effectively told our police and security forces to consider us criminals before seeing a judge, we’ve been coerced into allowing our freedoms of the press, speech, peaceful assembly, and even our freedom of thought to be taken from us, little by little until such time that we can no longer remember a time when we could make tasteless jokes, throw pies in the faces of politicians we don’t care for, smoke in the streets, leave our kids to their own devices, and even decide for ourselves what constitutes terrorism, national security, or the rights to fair treatment and trial for those whom have been accused of various crimes.
It’s time to show our politicians that we will not lie down and allow ourselves to be cowed into a fearful mindset in which bloodsuckers thrive, feed their families, and enjoy socially acceptable addictions and vices while the rest of us need only be concerned with working until we’re no longer needed by the power elite.
The major questions for me, in this election, are as follows:
Why are Harper and the Tories trying to destroy Canadian sovereignty?
Why hasn’t the SPP come out publicly to enlighten us on their “better way”?
What will happen to us, as Canadians, in this new partnership?
Whom is behind all of this, at its’ very centre?
How will this be introduced to the mainstream media, when and if it’s brought up?
Why should we trust Harper, whom has shown himself to be insensitive, antipathetic, and unwilling to change, with the ability to bring this new NAU/SPP to bear upon us, when he can’t even change government enough to regulate food processing facilities, or change his own greed and gambling addiction by encouraging the rest of us to gamble on the stock market?
We had our fill of Brian Mulroney (whom I’m sure is a great guy if it weren’t for NAFTA and the GST) back in the 80’s, are we Canadians such gluttons for punishment that we want another four years of the new face of the Tories?
I’m clearly not a Tory advocate, but nor am I an advocate for any other party. If my facts are not correct, or misleading, please email me and I’ll do my best to correct my own errors. I don’t particularily care whom you vote for; your vote is your right and it’s not my place to question your motivations, only your reasoning if you’re a Tory voter. Make your voice count, stand up and drop in your ballot. Vote for whom best represents your interests, needs, and passion. Let’s show this ranch-hand that we, as Canadians, mean business: WE’D RATHER BE CANADIAN!
Recent Comments