SPP, what do you guys think

[deranger]

The SPP is meant to:

* Coordinate our security efforts to better protect U.S. citizens from terrorist threats and transnational crime and promote the safe and efficient movement of legitimate people and goods;

* Expand economic opportunity for all our people by making our businesses more competitive in the global marketplace, cutting red tape, and providing consumers with safe, less expensive, and innovative products; and

* Enhance our common efforts to combat infectious diseases, develop responses to man-made or natural disasters to enhance our citizens’ quality of life, protect our people and our environment, and improve consumer safety.

"red Tape" like environmental protection, labour rights, proper funding for education and health care, democratic reform, access to information.

You know, red tape. Not to mention all the safe products we can have. Like gasoline additives that our trade laws are supposed to protect us against.

And we've all seen how incredibly binding the US has been to hemispheric trade/security agreements like NAFTA. Their committment to upholding the tenants of the agreements they sign is legendary.

[AD]

Some notes copied from the Ottawa Citizen today

U.S. President George W. Bush is scheduled to land in Ottawa at 1:10 p.m. Monday. Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean will greet him at Ottawa International Airport. Mr. Bush will arrive in Montebello about one hour later for a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Canada-U.S. relations.

Mexican President Felipe Calderón arrives in Montebello at 3:20 p.m. and will immediately meet with Mr. Bush. Mr. Harper will host an official dinner that evening.

Mr. Bush will leave Montebello by 3:15 p.m. Tuesday after the three leaders hold a joint news conference.

Protesters initially expected a 25-kilometre security perimeter around the village, with checkpoints turning away vehicles with more than five passengers. A communal camp is in place on an organic farm near Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix, 20 kilometres north of Montebello.

No such perimeter plans are in place, said RCMP Cpl. Sylvain L'Heureux. A second, temporary reinforced fence is being installed near the permanent barrier surrounding Château Montebello.

This fencing is itself the main RCMP bulwark guarding the dignitaries, while the Sûreté du Québec plans to enforce a 2.1-kilometre zone around the hotel.

[AD]

Canadians who are following the issue are aware that the Canadian Government has made it illegal to protest the upcoming summit; and that the 25 KM security barrier will be manned by a joint RCMP and US ARMY force. Such activity concerns me. Having US Army conducting operations on Canadian soil in order to protect corporate interests. Is that so wrong?

See my post above about there not being a 25km barrier. Also, I'm reasonably sure the US Army (if they are there at all) will be protecting George Bush. Any protection of corporate leaders will come as a bonus.

[LXQ42]

The Council of Canadians has been told it will not be allowed to rent a municipal community centre for a public forum it had planned to coincide with the next Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 20 and 21.

The Municipality of Papineauville, which is about six kilometres from Montebello, has informed the Council of Canadians that the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the U.S. Army will not allow the municipality to rent the Centre Communautaire de Papineauville for a public forum on Sunday August 19, on the eve of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership Leaders Summit.

“It is deplorable that we are being prevented from bringing together a panel of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canadians,†said Brent Patterson, director of organizing with the Council of Canadians. “Meanwhile, six kilometres away, corporate leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada will have unimpeded access to our political leaders.â€

What happened to our basic rights of protest, let alone our right to public debate? For government agencies (AND the US Army) to step in and deny Canadians the right to a public debate on this summit is reprehensable and un-democratic. We all have the right to sit and discuss things that will affect us and our future. Taking that away is looking to a future of Orwellian proportions. Freedom my ass.

[AD]

there is the whole rest of the country to protest in. you just aren't able to protest in the 4 or 5 square kilometres where the leaders are. they're not controlling what you can say, they're saying 'you can't do that here for two days.' i'm not trying to be a smartass, i just don't see the issue.

it's kind of sad, but it seems like reality to me.

[d_rawk]

i realise it's the third summit of a larger program, but mattm's original post talked of the montebello event only.

But I know that you don't honestly think the protests are about one summit alone. They are clearly protesting the larger course of action, and mattm also inquired about the movement in the general sense. In fact, I'd say that the weight of his query tended more towards the general than it did the specific.

canadian border guards want to be armed for their own safety. i personally don't have a problem with that.

Why not step up the RCMP presence at borders instead? Many border guards have been calling for this, and very publicly disdaining the idea of needing to be trained with and expected to use firearms.

Drug policies like the US - I don't see how a one day summit will affect this. (haven't read the links though)

But equalization of laws and currency essentially demand this. One summit won't, you are right. One pack for a pack a day smoker won't cause cancer, either. That rationale has lead me to a happy decade+ of "hey, it's just a pack of smokes". Physicians seem less impressed by the logic.

how would this one-day international summit affect our health care system?

Under NAFTA alone, once a market is opened up for private or foreign competition, it can never be closed without payment of insurmountable damages to those potential competitors. This is one reason why Alberta and Quebec's flirtations with private payment have been so dangerous to the system at large. Integration schemes bring this even closer to home (pun, sort of) particularly when you have different models operating under the same currency with ostensibly equal access privileges. Now, that may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your position of single-payer health services, and that's fine, but it's lunacy to think that there would be no direct effect from deep integration.

No, one summit won't affect that (actually, it could, but it would be a future summit, not this one) but I think you're being too cute by half to pretend that one isolated summit stands alone, and is all any of the interested parties are engaged with.

[d_rawk]

you just aren't able to protest in the 4 or 5 square kilometres where the leaders are.

Six kilometers, apparently, and the point of the right to protest is the right to be seen and heard by (those who are)/(what is being) protested.

[LXQ42]

I know there is an entire county to protest in, but our human rights give us the freedom to peaceably protest/debate where-ever and whenever we choose. This public forum in papineauville wasn't even within the 6 kms, but 20 or so, and not even in the faces of the leaders.

[AD]

you just aren't able to protest in the 4 or 5 square kilometres where the leaders are.

Six kilometers, apparently, and the point of the right to protest is the right to be seen and heard by (those who are)/(what is being) protested.

i don't know where it says that you have to be visible to what or who you're protesting. if you extrapolate that, does it mean that protesters have a right to be in the same room?

6 kilometres, sorry. that's a bit 'cute'

as for the other stuff, well you clearly study this stuff more than me. but i still think what i think.

Why not step up the RCMP presence at borders instead? Many border guards have been calling for this, and very publicly disdaining the idea of needing to be trained with and expected to use firearms.

You are right about having armed RCMP presence at airport 'border crossings,' but i didn't find anything in my very quick search that suggested the rest of your statement was accurate.

border guards - an August 2006 CBC report says "About 5,000 Canada Border Services Agency officers have been demanding to be armed like their American counterparts to help them deal with cross-border criminal activity." article here

A June 2007 CTV report says "Ron Moran, the [Customs Excise] Union's president, said his members are in favour of carrying sidearms." although the training hasn't gone so well yet. apparently the RCMP is tweaking the training to the unique job the border guards do. article here

They are clearly protesting the larger course of action, and mattm also inquired about the movement in the general sense. In fact, I'd say that the weight of his query tended more towards the general than it did the specific.

that's semantics and we obviously interpret his post differently. sure the protests aren't just about this one summit, but i'm pretty sure the people in montebello and downtown this weekend are indeed protesting the montebello event.

like i said, you have researched this more than i. i don't understand your point about drug policy changes. can you expand on that? the analogy between currency / packs of smokes doesn't makes sense in my head. yet.

and as for health care, well, it's a sticky wicket . i don't know what to say about that.

[d_rawk]

i don't know where it says that you have to be visible to what or who you're protesting. if you extrapolate that, does it mean that protesters have a right to be in the same room?

No, I don't think it extrapolates to that. There is a clear legal distinction between public and private spaces.

but i still think what i think.

Of course, and I don't think you are necessarily wrong. Everyone comes out better after butting heads (sometimes with something of a headache, mind), so long as all the participants have a good reason to be butting those heads in the first place. We both do ... why shouldn't you think what you think? You're a clever guy.

as for the other stuff, well you clearly study this stuff more than me.

Probably not. I've been on an extended holiday from all that smacks of the political .. I figure it is probably good for both my brain and my stomach to focus attention elsewhere and learn new things.

Those are interesting articles you linked to regarding the RCMP/border guard situation. I'll have to look into that more, and maybe revise my position on this. My instinct tells me that the original protests from the guards are probably worth heeding, but if they are changing their tune en masse, as what you posted suggests, that needs to be taken into account. They are there, on the front lines, and I clearly am not. The RCMP makes sense to me, but if the guards have gone from reluctance to embrace re: firearms, that is what counts. I humbly retract my statements until I can verify that they are accurate in the present climate.

i don't understand your point about drug policy changes. can you expand on that? the analogy between currency / packs of smokes doesn't makes sense in my head. yet.

What I mean is that one summit can't be evaluated in isolation from the others, if more have happened and more are presumed. I think it is clearly the case that this one summit doesn't stand alone, and opposition (or support, for that matter) to the policies and directions being discussed aren't limited, in either case, to the single event. The analogy - weak at worst (though truthfully, I don't think so), provocative at best - was to make the connection between one rather benign event being part of a larger damaging totality. ie., 'this summit has no impact on x' = TRUE if taken on its own, divorced from the broader trend, but 'this summit has no impact on x' = FALSE if evaluated within the context of those trends, and broader scale of which it is but one part.

[AD]

i don't know where it says that you have to be visible to what or who you're protesting. if you extrapolate that, does it mean that protesters have a right to be in the same room?

No, I don't think it extrapolates to that. There is a clear legal distinction between public and private spaces.

Sooo the fence should be see-through? I don't get it. It seems like it is illegal to go past the police barricades, effectively making everything inside the barricade private space. I don't think you're suggesting that the meetings take place in a public square or something. It would be irresponsible to not provide security for 2 foreign leaders and our own PM. Although maybe you are just commenting on it as a sad if inevitable circumstance.

Thanks for expanding your thoughts on health care. I will digest in more detail once I return from the free music on Bank Street!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

fwiw, I'm inclined to see the need for protesters to be up close having not to do with their being seen by the participants in this forum (if they don't know that there are people who disagree with them, that's probably a determined, blinkered choice), but by the international media. People have a need to be seen, if they can't be heard.

[paisley]

from The Toronto Star

WATER EXPORTS

Secret talks underway, Dion claims

But the U.S. ambassador, senior officials in Ottawa deny charge that bulk water exports on the agenda

OTTAWA–Canada is in secret talks with the United States that could lead to the bulk export of water south of the border, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion charges.

"The pressure coming from our American friends to remove Canadian water to help their problems with the shortage of fresh water is very strong," Dion told a news conference yesterday.

"There is a strong lobby for that. We should be strong to resist that."

Dion rejected the denials of senior government officials and insisted yesterday that he has inside knowledge that "negotiations" are underway.

The Liberal leader suggested that Canadian water exports will be on the table when Harper hosts U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon for a North American leaders' summit in Montebello, Que., next week.

But that suggestion was immediately dismissed by David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador in Canada.

"From my vantage point, I have never heard or seen of such a proposal and I do not believe there is one. I don't think that's accurate," he said in an interview yesterday.

And Harper aide Sandra Buckler yesterday repeated her denials from the day before, saying the government "has no intention of entering into negotiations on bulk water exports.

"It's not on the agenda. Period," Buckler said in an email.

But asked about those denials, Dion all but accused the Prime Minister's office of lying.

"I don't believe the government. I believe there are secret negotiations. We want to an end to these negotiations," he said.

"We have information that these discussions are going on," he said, refusing to make public his sources.

Dion cited it as one example of how meetings between Harper and Bush next week – done under the Security and Prosperity Partnership process launched by former prime minister Paul Martin in 2005 – are undermining Canadian sovereignty. And Dion accused the Prime Minister of being too cozy with the White House.

"Americans for us are friends and allies but not a model," Dion said.

"Since Mr. Harper became Prime Minister and his government took power, the distinction between a model and a friend has been lost.

"It seems that increasingly the partnership is catering to the Bush administration's interests and Canadian interests are being ignored."

But Wilkins painted the meeting as business-as-usual between the leaders to deal with issues such as security and trade.

"This is a continuation of a meeting they've had before," he said.

"What it is not dealing with – and people tend to manufacture in their own mind – is a North American union, a North American currency, or a proposal for a highway."

Dion released his own priority list for the summit, starting with a demand to make the process more "transparent and accountable."

He urged Harper to press the Americans to transfer Canadian terror suspect Omar Khadr from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. to be tried in a "legitimate court" with access to legal process and Canadian consular officials.

If that doesn't happen, Liberals want Khadr brought home to Canada and tried here, he said.

Dion also wants Harper to demand tougher action in the U.S. to stem the tide of illegal guns flowing into Canada.

"It's estimated that more than half of gun crimes committed in Canada's major cities are with guns smuggled into our country," he said.

[paisley]

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

TheStar.com - comment - Corporate governance

Re: We need a dialogue, not protests

Column, Aug. 13

In her column about the upcoming Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Que., Carol Goar claims that the Council of Canadians is stretching the truth when we say that "corporations are drafting government policy behind closed doors." We say this because access to the SPP – a broad plan to integrate economic and security policies across the continent – is off-limits to everyone except a group of 30 CEOs calling itself the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC).

A year ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked these CEOs "to help us identify and pursue initiatives that will create a more competitive North America." Fair enough, but statements from members of this elite club prove that its mandate is much larger. Ron Covais, a Lockheed Martin executive on the competitiveness council, has been reported as saying, "The guidance from the (SPP) ministers was, `Tell us what we need to do and we'll make it happen.'"

This implies the SPP will be driven, to an unacceptable extent, by the corporate sector. Given our leaders' unwillingness to include the public in the discussion, can you really blame us for protesting?

Stuart Trew, Council of Canadians,

Ottawa

------------------------------------------------

In her column about the upcoming Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) meeting in Quebec, Carol Goar says, "But there is no evidence in the reams of documents available on the Internet that the negotiators are up to anything insidious."

How can there be any evidence of anything when these discussions are taking place under a heavily guarded blanket of secrecy with little more than the odd mention in our media? That these talks are being carried out undercover, without the mandate of Canada's Parliament, should in itself be cause for concern.

According to this column, Tom d'Aquino, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, says the talks are so boring that it's hard to get Canadians to pay attention. Excuse me?

I can assure d'Aquino that harmonized health and safety standards, accelerated energy development, biometric screening and joint law enforcement are major sovereignty issues with far-reaching consequences to which most Canadians will readily pay vigilant attention (witness the example of joint law enforcement in the case of Maher Arar), if only our major media outlets first pay attention and cast the bright light of public scrutiny upon the SPP.

Moira Connelly, Cavan, Ont.

------------------------------------------------

If Carol Goar is right and the truth about the Montebello summit "lies somewhere between the apocalyptic and the mundane," perhaps she or someone can answer these questions:

Why will the discussion and treaty signing, which involves the leaders of Canada, the United States and Mexico, take place behind closed doors? Why have 30 corporate CEOs from these three countries been invited to attend, while opposition members of Parliament, representatives of organized labour and social movements, and the general public been excluded?

Why has the content of the proposed agreement – which is likely to include harmonized (i.e., lower than Canada's) health and safety standards, energy development, border and security measures, privatization of public services and joint military initiatives – been kept strictly away from public scrutiny?

Why has there been no debate in any legislature on the actual content and possible impact of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership?

Why is the process, as Goar aptly puts it, so "troublingly opaque"? Thank goodness for the planned mass protests, which are attracting some media attention to this infernal exercise.

Barry Weisleder, Toronto

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'm afraid for our fresh water. I can't trust anything Poilievre has to say (doesn't help that he's our local guy here, and seems to spend 80% of his time doing setting up cute photo-ops for the local papers).

Tories deny Dion's claim of bulk-water export talks

CanWest News Service

Published: Sunday, August 19, 2007

OTTAWA -- Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is spending too much time listening to "the loony Left," a Conservative MP charged on Saturday.

Pierre Poilievre was reacting to Dion's assertion on Friday there are "secret negotiations" between the Canadian and U.S. governments to export water in bulk to the U.S. -- a claim vehemently denied by the governing Conservatives.

Dion called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to publicly state that Canada will "never" agree to negotiations on the bulk export of water to the U.S.

Dion said he didn't believe the government and insisted there are secret negotiations.

Poilievre strenuously denied Dion's claim.

"Stephane Dion has filled his brain with conspiracy theories cooked up by the loony Left," he said. "If he has any evidence whatsoever that the government of Canada is negotiating a bulk-water agreement, I urge him to immediately produce that evidence."

To back up his claims, Dion referred to a report by the Council of Canadians in which it claims to disclose "damning evidence of how North American integration is being carried out by stealth."

Poilievre dismissed the group and its report.

"So far, the only evidence he's put forward are the rantings of the fringe Left, who have been opposed to free trade ever since the mid-'80s.

"Every single warning of doom and gloom that (the Council of Canadians) threatened has failed to come to pass, since the (North American Free Trade Agreement) was signed."

Poilievre also denied that bulk-water exports are on the negotiating table at next week's North American Leaders Summit in Montebello, Que., involving Harper, U.S. President George W.Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

"Our government has made it clear we're not going to permit bulk-water exports. It's not on the table, there's nothing to discuss," Poilievre said.

© CanWest News Service 2007

Funny that there's absolutely no way for Poilievre to confirm that either, given the total secrecy of these meetings.

[AD]

Funny that there's absolutely no way for Dion to confirm that either, given the total secrecy of these meetings.

[paisley]

can't really see harper getting away with much all minority government-ed and all

still feelin a kinda creepy crawly-ness though, didn't realize until I read that article that all of north america voted red last time round (wtf mexico? I expect stupido from la gringos... everyone wants to trade up nickels for pennys?)

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Funny that there's absolutely no way for Dion to confirm that either' date=' given the total secrecy of these meetings.[/quote']

I'm not arguing that, either - the problem is that each politician is hamstrung by this same secrecy.

It ain't anything like democracy, in other words; there's doesn't seem to be anything to prevent us being sold out.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

everyone wants to trade up nickels for pennys?

On a total tangent, this is pretty rich in metaphor -

Soaring metals prices mean making money costs U.S. a mint

By DIBYA SARKAR

Thursday, August 16, 2007 Page B8

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. penny is not what it appears to be, and some in Congress would like to see it change further, if not disappear entirely.

Because of a surge in the price of copper, the U.S. Mint decided 25 years ago to manufacture the coins almost entirely with zinc, save for the coating on which Abraham Lincoln's profile is engraved.

Now, the fate of the penny is up in the air once again. With the price of zinc soaring amid a worldwide commodities boom, it costs the government almost 2 cents to make each 1-cent coin - a pretty penny considering roughly eight billion new ones are placed into circulation annually.

While it is unlikely the penny will be pulled from circulation, there are some lawmakers who would like to ditch zinc as a raw material and instead use steel or some other less expensive metal.

[bouche]

Downtown at Byward Market in Ottawa has cops and security EVERYWHERE. Freaky.

[nibbler]

Cops Everywhere? Apparently some are clutching to the illusion that there is still room for choice in the matter.

Arrested protester predicts police 'aggression' at Bush-Harper-Calderon summit

Last Updated: Monday, August 13, 2007 | 4:15 PM ET

CBC News

One of two men charged at a weekend protest in Ottawa says he expects much more "police aggression" at the North American Leaders Summit next week in Montebello, Que.

"I think this is just a taste of the police aggression that people who go to Montebello might be facing," Dan Sawyer, who helped organize the protest, told CBC News on Monday.

Sawyer, 32, and Matthew Morgan-Brown, 31, were arrested and charged with assaulting police after a demonstration by an estimated 50 to 80 people outside the Fairmont Château Laurier hotel on Saturday.

The protest was against the 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership pact, which will be discussed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the summit in Quebec on Aug. 20 and 21.

The agreement was signed between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico in 2005 to boost co-operation on security, trade and public-health issues, but opponents of the pact fear it will erode Canadian sovereignty in areas such as natural resources, security and military issues.

Protesters 'confrontational and aggressive': police

The Ottawa police said in a news release that the arrests took place because several of the protesters were "confrontational and aggressive."

Ottawa Police Const. Alain Boucher said Sawyer was arrested after an officer tried to stop some graffiti from happening and Sawyer allegedly intervened, ending up in an altercation with the officer. Boucher said he did not know the circumstances of Morgan-Brown's arrest.

But Sawyer said police approached him and about seven others after the protest ended.

"At the time of my arrest, all I was doing was walking home," he said Monday, adding that he has not been told the time or other details of his alleged assault on a police officer.

Sidewalk chalk crackdown was 'overkill': Sawyer

Sawyer said the arrests are not the only action police took Saturday at the protest outside the hotel, which was chosen because it is part of the same chain as the Fairmont Château Montebello where the summit will take place.

"What I saw was police charging the crowd, tackling people, grabbing other individuals, pulling them off to the side, threatening to make arrests, threatening with pepper spray," said Sawyer, who added that police seemed to be responding to protesters who wrote on the sidewalk with chalk.

"Which to me seems definite overkill by the police.… It's just chalk."

Police trying to crack down on organizers: Sawyer

Sawyer accused the police of making the arrests to try to quell dissent by cracking down on protest organizers, arguing that the conditions of his bail were proof.

Both men were released Sunday after agreeing to abide by a list of conditions, which include engaging in good behaviour, keeping the peace and not going within 500 metres of several sites that include the Fairmont Château Laurier and the U.S. Embassy. In Morgan-Brown's case, they ban him from associating with Sawyer.

Sawyer said he plans to appeal conditions that:

Ban him from the area bounded by Rideau Street, Sussex Drive, the Rideau River and the Ottawa River, an area where he says none of the demonstration took place.

Prohibit him from participating in or attending any demonstration against the SPP.

"I think that points directly to the reason for the arrests, in that they're trying to get organizers … out of play," said Sawyer, who said the conditions violate his Charter rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

"I really hope that doesn't dissuade people because SPP needs to be opposed."

Police shoved protesters: footage

CBC footage from Saturday showed protesters chanting "So-so-so-solidarité!" as one man was handcuffed and put in a police car.

Fellow protester Shannon Willmott identified the man as Sawyer.

Afterward, the footage shows a male officer approaching some of the other protesters, shoving two of them, then chasing and arresting a protester who shoved back. That man was Morgan-Brown, Willmott said.

As the men were questioned inside a police station, other protesters such as Denis Rancourt stood outside demanding answers about why the men were arrested.

"I think it's a procedure for discouraging organizers [of protests], for intimidating," he told CBC's French-language service Radio-Canada. "I think they're techniques of a police state."

Police have already said they will have a large presence at protests at the summit in Montebello to maintain peace and order.

gates and guns and the removal of rocks from the gardens... now that's paranoid!