Committee Of MPs To Study Secret 'Three Amigos' Scheme

Good stuff, and not a moment too late. What channel(s) will this be televised on?

Canada will never be a secure and sovereign nation as long as Canada’s Governments along with Canada’s Corporate Elites sign un-level playing field contracts and trade agreements that undermine and subordinate Canadians and Canada.

---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.

Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.

Good to see this appear in mainstream press, but when the reporter states
this...."Since then, critics say the
agreement has been hijacked by big corporations meeting in secret with
government officials with the joint intent of fast-tracking the deeper
integration
of the Canadian, U.S. and Mexican economies."

This is pretty funny in a sick kind of way.....I mean...'since then' when did
critics
say the agreement was hijacked....the agreement was always designed and
planned by corporate elite....where is he getting this info? The sad part of
this
report makes it sound like the agreement was a good thing, but has now
been
changed, when it was never a good thing!!!!!Never!

Perhaps this is a way of reporting without really reporting? Perhaps a little
spin to try to make the NDP look like conspiracy wingnuts for being the only
party in Parliament to bring up the issue? With all of the data available on this
issue you would think the article would be a bit clearer; but again I am
pleased to see anything in mainstream press that might cause some
Canadians to look further.

---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere

"Since then, critics say the agreement has been hijacked by big corporations "

In a Capitalist State, I believe "hijacked" is the wrong term. Perhaps "encouraged" or "endorsed" are the proper terms. Perhaps bribed and blind eye would also be proper descriptions of the involved governments. The purpose of the plan is to make money. Lots of money and not by mere citizens.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

It's been awhile since I looked into this, but its always a good idea to stay away from the ideological panning of ideas. I believe the 'hijacked' idea comes from the 'fact' that originally the panel came up with over three hundred recommendations, so the idea that 'it was never good' is a bit out of line. SOME was actually good-depending of course on your point of view. However, what then happened is the 'corporate elite' then whittled it down to maybe a dozen or two recommendations that they were pushing for, and since they own the mainstream media its been these policies that have been focussed.

Marcarc, interesting comments; could you elaborate on your meaning here
please? Not sure if you are simply attempting to split hairs on my comments
for the sake of create debate or if you really believe what you are saying.

You said; “It's been awhile since I looked into this, but its always a good idea
to stay away from the ideological panning of ideas.”

Why? What kind of criticism would be more appropriate for this situation, in
your opinion? What ideological panning of ideas are we being warned to stay
away from? Is it ideological to not want to be part of a corporate elite
dictatorship? Is this the lens you are recommending we not view the present
threat? Why would this be recommended?

You said; “ I believe the 'hijacked' idea comes from the 'fact' that originally the
panel came up with over three hundred recommendations, so the idea that 'it
was never good' is a bit out of line.”

That may be what you believe, however what I believe is that it was never
good for the people and it was not created by the three amigos. In the
context of my comment, it would certainly not be ‘out of line’.

The plan was never good for the people, that is my point. The SPP is
part of the plan to create Fortress America, the plan for the North American
Century, (and all the other names they use for the same enslavement
program) which includes the dream or nightmare (depending again on where
you stand) to control space, and control the earth from space. I don’t want to
be part of a war machine, nor do I wish to be ruled by the corporate elite.
Actually I don’t want to be ruled, I want real democracy where the people
rule.

You said; “SOME was actually good-depending of course on your point of
view.” Perhaps, but certainly not from my point of view.

You said; “However, what then happened is the 'corporate elite' then whittled
it down to maybe a dozen or two recommendations that they were pushing
for, and since they own the mainstream media its been these policies that
have been focussed.”

Are you suggesting that the three amigos created this plan, and the corporate
elite adjusted ‘their’ plan? If you are making that your statement, I would
have to disagree with you on that, due to the overwhelming evidence which
shows that the CFR, the CCCE etc etc have been planning and designing this
since the first Free Trade, which is long before Martin was a player. If this was
a government initiative then why was it never discussed in Parliament,
debated in the last election and why the need for secret meetings?

So in my opinion this was never good; and it was not designed or planned by
the three amigos as they suggest, it was planned by the corporate elite for
the three to rubber stamp!

I suppose if I was writing on a website promoting the elite ruling class then
the statement 'it was never good' would be out of line, but since we are and I
am talking about what is good for the people, the environment, the planet as
a whole, then my first statement stands.

I certainly appreciate your point of view, and I appreciate the fact that the
article is in mainstream press. What I would like to see is a reporter explain
the history of this project for a North American Century and include the
authors of the documents, the players, the unelected who are making
decisions on our behalf. That is my main concern and the main criticism of
the article. The omission or misleading statement that suggests that the SPP
was ever good for the people, if it was good in any way for our freedom, our
environment, our social programs, our homeless people, our poverty stricken
etc. etc. I would very much like to see evidence of that. This reminds me of
the garbage we heard with regard to Free Trade, oh sure, it was good alright,
but not for the people!

I look forward to your explanation and clarification Marcarc. This is a very
important issue and any information you can provide regarding the goodness
of it, would be appreciated. I am not interested in simply debating the
interpretation of a word here or there or to prove debating ability, that is so
unimportant at this time in our history. I make no apologies for my stand for
a free Canada, but if there is something that I missed with regard to this
issue, I am always willing to explore it.

---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere

If the mere idea of ANY association with the US government is being opposed then obvioulsy NO association will be seen as beneficial. And of course we don't need to split hairs to recognize economic reality, the 'elite' in Canada is growing, and so free and open trade is seen as beneficial by many. Perhaps not you and me, but many. Sabian cymbals is a company that has operated for many years out of a small village in New Brunswick, no doubt they, and their employees want to keep access to their american markets.

That's why its better to talk specifics, if only because the majority of the population doens't respond well to blanket obscure statements. While I certainly don't agree, there is a large group of canadians that would endorse doing trade without parliament as many, even here, consider parliament to be nothing but a joke, something that's often the case.

For a quick outline of the SPP you can go to wikipedia. Note this: "Representatives from the three governments regularly consult on their agenda and discuss recommendations from non-governmental organizations and the private sector, including through such documents as the one published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)"Creating a North American Community" whose views represent the private sector. Such views remain non-binding for governments."


Note that says 'non binding'. Note also that they also consult with OTHER NGO's, many of whom have far different recommendations on trade. People can go back to past debates about this, but again I can mention environmental regulations that are MUCH stronger in the US than Canada. However, just the mention of making stronger environmental laws has many people jumping down your throat because thats what many, such as the Sierra Club, have been saying to the canadian government for years, which means 'americanization of regulations'.

So for the environment there are significant benefits to adopting 'some' american standards, but each one depends on the specific standard being discussed, and of course we don't necessarily have to be discussing federal standards. SOME states have even tougher environmental standards.

Want an example of that once again simply go to New Brunswick which is a perfect test case because LNG terminals are being proposed for both NB and Maine. I've mentioned this in the past but in a nutshell, the Mayor of St.John was told the Irvings wouldn't build a terminal without significant tax concessions. The city and province then rewrote fifty years of tax law to freeze property taxes at half a million for the life of the plant. In Maine, referenda was held in every town to see if they wanted such a structure, most didn't. Finally, a poor town right next to NB voted yes, mainly because, unlike Irving, significant concessions were made, such as jobs and wages (at Irvings plant there are no deals and Irving can hire however many they want). Property taxes in Maine will net close to 10 million a year.

That's a little off topic, so lets go back to actual regulations. In Maine, it is still ongoing as the US government requires lengthy legal applications. People and groups can present legal cases, ironically, canadians have more recourse to oppose the Maine LNG terminal than they had to oppose their own, where they essentially had NONE.

Safety studies, etc., were all done by the Irving company which then passed it on to the government who approved it without a peep, one of the easiest environmental impact assessments in recent memory, although in New Brunswick they are lucky to have had one at all. Bennett Environmental set up a soil incinerator plant with no EIA AT ALL.

In the US, it is still ongoing, currently the next phase has the coast guard doing a study on the proposal, in canada, the federal government played NO part in the EIA of the terminal. So when you talk about 'standards' that benefit people you can talk ideology all you want, the plain fact is we have a concrete case where as far as people and the environment are concerned, the US is leagues ahead on standards.

Getting that canadian standard in line with the US would be a POSITIVE thing, I've just proven it. That's what I mean about talking ideology.

However, that is FAR from saying "YAY SPP". As you note, even when a good thing is done politically it should be analyzed as to HOW it has been done. In this case, there is no doubt that parliament is 'out of the loop' and for canadians this is the MAI all over again and needs to be opposed in the same way-with attention to the policies. However, to the extent that changes in legislation are necessary, that is where parliament IS involved, as they will be voting on them.

The problem, of course, is that while the Sierra Club and others may point at New Brunswick (they don't though for some reason) and say that adopting US regulations for the environment is a standard that should be accepted, it can probably be assumed that's not one of the recommendations that WILL be looked at.

So under the SPP SOME policies may be 'recommended' to government, hell, a group from this website can find any obscure US or mexican regulation that is beneficial and 'lobby' for it to be accepted under the SPP. However, as the article notes, it is ONLY the dozen or so recommendations of the CCCE that are being carefully looked at because of the reasons given above. If people want to start posting the 300 or so recommendations then we can go through them one by one and find out which are desirable...at least by people here.

To be more specific you can go to their webpage and note:

"The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed."

"It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency."



There are plenty of reasons to distrust and oppose any regulations from this 'discussion', just as there is a reason to oppose any of the recommendations of the CCCE. Personally, being a New Brunswicker, I would LOVE the US environmental and democratic regulations be applied in New Brunswick instead of the 'traditional' canadian way of a tiny group of terrified councillors giving in to whatever the Irvings want. Call it the SPP or call it Mickey Mouse's funtime fantabular, I couldn't care less.

However, THAT doesn't get much media play, so once again I am not saying not to oppose anything within the SPP, just be specific on which policies are being opposed and why. If the NDP makes a proposal to force federal studies on environmental projects to the SPP and it is listened to in Ottawa because of the minority government does that make it 'bad'? Of course not.

And of course this is clearly and openly a "White House Initiative" and one that is unlikely to change even if a democrat enters the White House. Here it is perfectly obvious who is 'calling the shots'. But once again, IF the White House were to say that under NAFTA and the SPP then New Brunswick MUST hold local referenda on energy projects and hell, if they said that since the gas is going to the states they'd have to commit to an AMERICAN federal EIA I'd be even more happy, since not only is it stricter than the canadian one, there IS no 'canadian' one. So again, THAT is even MORE 'americanization'. Is it better than the canadian version...your *&(damm right it is.

But of course THAT is not going to happen, the US is quite happy to make sure its trading partners do not have even the democratic tools it has at the state and local level. The US federal government hates democracy as much as any dictator does and goes out of its way to prove it.

Hope that clears up what I meant.

When I read about people who question why it is that big business and people like 'Three Amigos' , do what they do, I just laugh.

People like the 'Three Amigos' , get into position all because of those fools who do the grunt work, you know the worker bees on the ground. Good old party politics works that way...use the people at the bottom of the food chain to put those at the top in positions of control and power.

'Three Amigos' as you like to call them are no fool, the poor people on the ground are the fools, year after year, election after election, the worker bees come out of ther hive to bring the honey to the Queen and King Bees, or the 'Three Amigos' .

These 'Three Amigos' are as all other Amigos who you have put in power are...they are the business community, who you now speak out against.

Keep up the good work, they love .



---
Good government is not a party government

Your sense of humour and what makes you laugh aside plus because I want to believe you are a man capable of more than only criticism, Wayne Coady, I urge you to lay out a course of action that will attract those you deem to be “worker bees” to whatever just cause you have in mind.
There is a school of thought that believes we draw to us what we are fascinated with. That being the case Wayne what is it you are fascinated with?
Is your fascination about a better way of organising a political structure or is it merely complaining about the existing one?





---
"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities."
—Sir Josiah Stamp

This link is certainly worth reading, better to be aware than in shock!<br />
This is from the Conference Board of Canada<br />
<a href="http://www.canadians.org/water/documents/NA_Future_2025.pdf">http://www.canadians.org/water/documents/NA_Future_2025.pdf</a><p>---<br>"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere

Thanks for your comments Marcarc. If the American’s have a system that
protects the environment there is nothing wrong with us adopting our own
system based on something that works. There is no point in reinventing,
when we can adopt and revise other systems to suit Canadian systems. If any
country has a system which works we should examine it and customize it for
Canada, however that does not mean that we put our environment or other
systems, under jurisdiction of another country. This is where I feel Canada is
being eroded. The SPP isn’t as much a trade deal (except that it provides ease
of movement for corporations), but rather it is the handing over of control of
our nation, our resources, our military, our security, etc to be part of another
country’s control, and that country isn’t even in control; but again corporate
elites are controlling the entire system.

What irks me most about this SPP and the plan for a North Amerikan Union is
that these unelected bureaucrats and corporate elite are making plans while
our elected officials are doing nothing. They are allowing these unelected
people to make the rules for themselves to operate by. Where is the vision for
Canada? Why are our elected officials not rejecting the corporate plan AND
why aren’t they designing a plan and then telling the corporations how to
operate in our country? New Brunswick is the perfect prototype for what we
can expect under corporate rule. You have given perfect examples of a
situation where Irving owns the province and the elections are merely a
formality. When the corporation does the study on environmental impact, how
can anyone expect the people to be a priority?

There is nothing wrong with corporation having input, but that is not the
same as allowing them to create the system and destroy what is left of our
nation.

It seems to me that the system needs a complete overhaul. We can have
healthy trade without negatively impacting the people and the environment.
The fact that the corporations profit may be less should not be the defining
factor. We need to stop simply saying we don’t want the SPP and the NAU, but
rather we need to be clear on what we do want and make that the election
issue.

---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere

<a href="http://nesara.insights2.org/NAFTA1.html">http://nesara.insights2.org/NAFTA1.html</a> <br />
<br />
(Mel Clark is a former Canadian government senior trade negotiator.)<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities."<br />
—Sir Josiah Stamp

Canada has always had 'corporate rule'. I'm not sure if that was a rhetorical question, I'm assuming you know why elected officials aren't rocking the boat. However, the link above is to a CSIS study, and there are all kinds of those, as well as the Council Board of Canada. Just because a 'study' comes out and recommendations offered doesn't mean "this is what is going to happen".

THAT depends on all kinds of things. Of course this is quite a pickle, however, its interesting to note how Harpers environmental plan will go over when they have a minority. The liberals won't support it, even though they were no better, the Bloc MAY support it since Quebec was essentially 'bought off' in the budget, however, Quebec has its own greenhouse plan so that would look bad for them. The NDP certainly won't.

And of course this plan is a corporate 'gift' from Harper. But corporate rule is no surprise, the tories are no different from the liberals, what IS different is the structure of government. So once again, people are free to pan corporate rule, just make sure you join 'fairvote.ca' where there is actually an opportunity to change the structure of corporate rule. Especially if you are in Ontario, because PR will never arise at the federal level until it shows up in a province or two.

You can also join David Suzuki's group, because the environment is the current place to challenge corporate rule. Those are the two areas where people can actually have an impact. Harper has actually implemented some policies that go far beyond what the liberals did, and thats' not just from the 'goodness of his heart'. That's the beauty of a minority government.

Those were good comments about the 'ideas', so when I start telling New Brunswickers that adopting Vermont and the US's style of environmental regulations, I don't expect any trouble from you:)

Diogenes :My reply would be this, rebuild the whole electoral process. When the political parties rules and their constitutions are more binding than those rules that protect the voter taxpayer, we are in big trouble.

Lets look at Elizabeth May and Justin Trudeau, both were activists, both appear to have the best interest of Canada in mind and they may very well be serious. Once these two come under the control of the Green Party and Liberal Parties rules and the parties constitution , they lose their innocents. These rules and party constitutions are a handicap to Canada.

There are many good people in Ottawa, but those good honest people are rendered useless all because of the party system…we would be wise to construct a governing system , that empowered all elected officials , not just the winning party.

Where there is a will, there shall be a way, and right now there is a lack of will, mainly because the parties have to much control and it works for them. Isn’t it time “government” work for all?

How do we get the discussion on the table, when political parties do not want to face the fact "they " have been the problem?

---
Good government is not a party government