Canada Day Action Against Deep Integration Agreement

Do you know if there is a groundswell that might happen against deep integration. I have not see anything and was hoping something would build up. I sent the Vive email against Deep Integration to I believe Paul Martin also an email to a federal NDP member as well. What about the Constitution and the Courts. Would deep integration be illegal through the Courts eyes. Where are the lawyers?

There should be a groundswell but like you I have not seen evidence of this. It is surprising that this (that has also be called NAFTA 2) has not been jumped on by the press in a significant way as yet. I hope (like you)that is just around the corner.

One of the aspects of this that is helping to hide this and give it a lower profile is that reportedly most of the proposed changes are "regulatory", not legislative, meaning Parliament won't necessarily get a chance to debate them. But noone has come forward to specificially state the "x" number are regulatory and "y" number are legistlative. I know I would like to know the answer to that and so would, and so should the citizens of Canada be informed of this.

Individually some of these 300 plus specific, concrete milestones (as Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan has called them) that are in the works may not generate much attention but combined the volume of changes should be generating more interest. If 300, or 400, or more, changes are in the works what are the chances that Canada will regret some of these, or many of these, changes down the road if they quickly pushed through without public knowledge and debate?

The Canadian Press article by Bruce Cheadle stated the proposals range from the mundane to the highly controversial: finding common specifications for dangerous goods containers, for example and developing common biometric travel documents and via requirements.

In that article it says there is a commitment to pursuing a North American steel industry strategy, continental compatibility in automobile standards and removing requirements for "rule of origin" on $30 billion of trade goods.

It will also cover standardized food-safety regulations, pesticide -residue rules and veterinary drugs are in the mix, as is a flu pandemic plan. There is also to be more sharing of information among law enforcement agencies.

As an example of just one problem that could come out of this is many communities are presently debating the use of pesticides and some communities are banning some uses. Could it be that after all that debate in communities across Canada and all those decisions that this new integrational commitment would override those debates and those decisions, protect the pesticide industry and make it illegal for communities to ban the use of some pesticides?

So take your pic of the above. It is very obvious (or it should be anyway) that many of these need to be looked at very closely.

Could it be that only a small number of people can see the potential problems with this move to deeper integration? NDP MP Peter Julian hit the nail on the head when he said (as quoted in the Canadian Press):

" Allowing corporate North America to define our interests as a nation implies, in the end, complete regulatory harmonization with the U.S. and the subordination of our economic, social, cultural and environmental policies to U.S. policies."

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan called Peter Julian's comments ill-informed, alarmist rhetoric, but I would call her comment a weak and irresponsible response to a serious charges about a very serious matter.

As a Liberal her comment disappoints me considerably and as a Canadian it infuriates greatly. Such a short sound bite as that was not appropriate. In my view often weak responses such as that are a whimpish effort to escape the need to give a more elaborate response. If she thinks Peter Julian was ill-informed she should have stated why she believe that he is. To so quickly refer to Peter Julian's comments as alarmist rhetoric does not give her response any credibility if she does not take a little time to say in some detail why it is so. My view is that she may not even know the full depth of what is involved here. If she thinks she does that may be because she has listened closely to the sales pitch when she was sold this very complex package by Tom d'Aquino president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives or other business leaders or associates.

Therefore, I will send this note via email to NDP MP Peter Julian and also to my Liberal MP Paddy Torsney and Deputy Prime Minister Anne Mclellan to solicit their action and their response.

I would encourage others to do the same.

Canadabob

Many of us have raised serious questions about the legality of NAFTA itself. Now we come to the stage, where "deep integration" is now called a "regulatory" process, to disguise the fact that these so called trade agreements are in reality international treaties designed to remove democratic decision making powers from communities at all levels.

This started with the US-Canada FTA, where Article 103: Extent of Obligations stated : "The Parties to the Agreement shall ensure that all necessary measures are taken in order to give effect to its provisions, including their observance, exceept as otherwise provided in this Agreement, by state, provincial and local governments"

NAFTA went even farther with Chapter 11 ensuring the profitability of corporations, under heavy penalties, against all other public interests.

Thse are not "trade agreement" in any sane thinking persons mind. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

Exactly - and SEC. 104. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF ENTRY INTO FORCE AND INITIAL REGULATIONS says in part: a) Implementing Actions.--After the date of the enactment of this Act--(1) the President may proclaim such actions; and(2) other appropriate officers of the United States Government may issue such regulations; as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of this Act, or amendment made by this Act, that takes effect on the date the Agreement enters into force is appropriately implemented on such date, but no such proclamation or regulation may have an effective date earlier than the date of entry into force.

ALSO - "In the case of any implementing action that takes effect after the entry into force of the NAFTA, initial regulations shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be issued within one year after that effective date." and "These provisions are intended to ensure full implementation of obligations under the NAFTA upon its entry into force and the issuance of all Federal regulations as early as the administrative process permits. The Committee expects at least interim regulations will be issued no later than the date the NAFTA enters into force implementing a uniform interpretation of the rules of origin."

Notice the words "as may be necessary". Who decides this and under what and who's authority can they decide this?

Notice also the words "as early as the administrative process permits". Those words open the way to quick enforcement before people find out what has occurred!

The bottom line is that without appropriate transparency and debate we Canadians can wake up any morning to new and unexpected "regulations" and a very different Canada.

Who is running this country anyway? Many have asked that question in the past and many more will ask this same question in the future but all Canadians need to be concerned about what the answer to that question is today and the media should be reporting on that tomorrow.

CUPW took NAFTA to court several months ago claiming it was illegal,I have not heard anything about this since.As for the people waking up.Forget it.The public could not care less and does not care.That is why the politicians are pushing this so hard.They know they can do it.They must be having some laughing fits,the public complains about all the government wrong doing yet does nothing.Talk about stupid.Too bad,but the country is lost.Start rejusting to a new way of life.

Yes that is correct. All I can find on this at the moment is the following which serves as an example of the kind of problem that deeper integreation with the US could bring forward. So why is this not getting more attention?

On January 24, 2005, CUPW and the Council of Canadians will get their first day in court to challenge the constitutionality of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rules that allow foreign corporations to sue governments.

CUPW and the Council launched the court challenge in 2001 in response to United Parcel Service’s (UPS’s) lawsuit against Canada. UPS is suing Canada for $160 million US under NAFTA. It alleges that Canada’s publicly funded postal network gives Canada Post an unfair advantage when delivering courier services that are in competition with private courier services. A NAFTA tribunal will decide whether UPS has a case or not. The people who are affected by the tribunal’s decision - the public and postal workers - do not have a right to participate fully in the tribunal process.

“We are going to court to object to an international trade agreement that undermines our democratic right to have a say in what kind of post office and what kind of public services we want in this country,” said CUPW National President Deborah Bourque.

Bourque said that UPS’s lawsuit suggests that simply having a public postal system is unfair competition.

“By this logic, every public service from health care to education to the CBC could face similar lawsuits,” said Bourque. We don’t intend to let foreign corporations destroy our public services without a fight, both inside and outside the court room.”

If UPS wins its case, the federal government will probably ask Canada Post to stop providing courier service. This move would prevent UPS from suing for millions in ongoing damages.

The government and UPS could also negotiate a settlement before a legal decision comes down. A settlement would probably give UPS access to Canada Post’s network at cut rates, allowing the courier company to increase its share of lucrative markets, but at Canada Post’s expense.

In short, a settlement or win could undermine public postal services and jobs.

Accoring to the Council of Canadians a decision from the Federal Court about the UPS law suit is due any day now. They were told that it would be rendered within six months of the case being heard (Jan 24). If the six months holds true that we should know within the next 2 or 3 weeks. If the decision is not rendered in the next few weeks we will have to wonder why the delay? Could it be that the press coverage that decision will get might bring about a greater focus on the "new" broader and deeper economic and security integration? We'll see soon.

I would think that the result would be positive if a Constitutional challenge.

Also why not the Supreme Court of Canada, unless you have to go through Federal Court first.

It was only on March 23 (about 14 or 15 weeks ago) that Paul Martin said to George Bush and Vicente Fox of Mexcio when in Texas "Our relationships are very, very strong," he said, "and in a wide range of areas, and the fact that the three of us are meeting here today, and that we have put out what is really quite an ambitious program that is going to be measurable, I think is an indication of that."

Note the words "put out what is really quite an ambitious program". If Paul could admit then that the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," which is designed to establish a common continental security perimeter against outside threats while facilitating the legal flow of people and trade across shared borders and increasing cooperation on energy, the environment and bioterrorism, was really quite an ambitious program, then who gave him permission to be so "ambitious" and treat it so lightly at the same time by not addressing the fine detials with the citizens of Canada?

Note that UPS can not sue the US Mail in their own home country, but they can in Canada and Mexico, under NAFTA rules. The same applies to Canadian and Mexican companies, who have the right to sue the USA. This shows how sick this whole system is, and also proves that if UPS can sue Canada Post, then any foreign healthcare provider that may be permitted into Canada, will be able to sue our tax funded medicare system and do away with it. The GATS will go even further, where foreign companies will be able to demand water, sewer, education, etc. privatizations and the overturning of municipal bylaws that may cut into their profits. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.