OVER THE EDGE November 21-December 5, 2007

Oninions

said such a thing? Where would they have said it? Why should I care? Well my North American friend, if you guessed by the references to the Department of Homeland Security that the owner of said quote is none other than US Homeland Secur- ity Secretary Michael Chertoff, you’d be right on the money. However, if you answered that he said it to a pack of hungry reporters, you’d be totally wrong. No, this dubious quote is taken from an internal memo Michael Chertoff sent to DHS department heads on September 22, 2005. This memo was ac- cessed by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request. It matters because these working groups ‘led by [the] DHS’ roll up American homeland security policy with ours and is in a state of flux owing to the actions dictated by this single agenda: the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Still you might be scratching your head won- dering why some internal memo for a trilateral trade and bor- der cooperation scheme should merit your attention. The devil is in the details... or lack thereof.

I know here in Over the Edge this year we’ve had several pieces on the SPP written by columnist Jeremy Johnson. He focused mainly on ‘les agents provocateurs’, or the police-in- protesters-clothing trying to start an ugly riot at this year’s SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec. I think we need to go back a

bit and talk about what the SPP is, and Gordon Laxer, head of Alberta's Parkland Institute, was testifying on the energy implications of the SPP. when the Committee Chair (Conservative MP Leon Benoit) demanded that Laxer halt his “ir-

what it might be. To get the big picture we won’t use the dark arts of ‘conspir-

Trivia time here on the Rumbling "Echo! "Who would have

the imperatives of corporate and bureaucratic efficiency. Before I get to what our governments and the NACC plan to do, I should give a little background on the NACC. As I men- tioned, the NACC is made up of 30 top CEOs (ten from each country). Here’s a truncated list and the interest they represent. From Canada: Paul Desmarais, Jr. from-Power Corporation of Canada (gave Paul Martin his first real executive job at Power Corp); Richard George from Suncor Energy Inc. (big player in the Alberta oil sands projects); Hunter Harrison from CN Rail (the CEO who can’t stop CN cars from derailing every other week). From Mexico: César de Anda Molina from Avicar de Occidente (also president of the National Union of Poultry Producers); Jaime Yesaki Cavazos from Consejo Nacional Agropecuario (director of the principal agri-business federa- tion in Mexico and CEO of several poultry companies). From the United States: Rick Wagoner from General Motors; Wil- liam Clay Ford Jr. from Ford; David J. O’Reilly from Chev- ron; Jeffrey R. Immelt from General Electric; H. Lee Scott from Wal-Mart; Robert Stevens from Lockheed Martin (ma- jor defence contractor in the US). So, we’ve got all the big guns pulling for us, eh? Oil companies, Detroit’s Big Three carmakers, defence contractors, patent holders, transportation corporations and Mexican poultry kingpins! What kind of ex-

interference makes sure our interests are not swept aside for

However, just because this task force advises the actors in the SPP process, it does not automatically mean that the rec- ommendations are followed to the letter. But if you look at the weight of the names behind this task force, you get the feeling that their agenda is well regarded by the ‘deciders’, especially if no other voices opposed to this project are includ- ed in the dialogue. An example of the government freezing out these voices is best seen in Canada’s House of Commons International Trade Committee into the SPP in 2007. Gordon Laxer, head of Alberta’s Parkland Institute, was testifying on the energy implications of the SPP, when the Committee Chair (Conservative MP Leon Benoit) demanded that Laxer halt his “irrelevant” testimony. The Committee members overruled Benoit—who then promptly (and illegally) adjourned the meeting and stomped out. This is about more than the Con- servatives’ governing style. There are processes at work here that we as citizens are being deliberately kept in the dark on. Look on the government websites for the SPP. It’s all vague statements of principal with little substantive identification of how these principals translate into cooperation. Bureaucrats and CEOs know exactly what’s going on, but they don’t control what appears on government websites. They can’t speak out or it’s a leak they could be prosecuted for. Furthermore, a project of this scale is compartmentalized to share the workload. Not many people know the whole picture,

and those that do are too high up to jeopardize their position with a loose

acy theorist’ conjecture, but rather we'll relevant” testimony. The Committee members overruled Benoit—who then promptly (and illegally) tongue.

look at who started the SPP, when it got

rolling, who’s involved now, why the

SPP has been undertaken, and how its

actors aim to alter the North American relationship. What you see in the media is not necessarily all you get. But who wants to go read the backgrounders and policy statements the suits mull over in these SPP meetings? There’s a whole story left unreported here. Secrecy surrounding these negotiations and the glib smugness North American leaders sidestep SPP ques- tions with insults the public’s right to straight answers.

First let’s briefly look at who put these wheels in motion. The year was 2005. Ominously the place was Waco, Texas. Looking to address a seized border and security threats lurking around every comer, US President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed to dialogue and cooperation under the aus- pices of the SPP. Bureaucrats in all three countries were thus committed to working groups that linked their departments to those of the other two countries in an effort to find ways to streamline and develop common/compatible practices. In 2006 the annual leaders’ summit took place in Cancun, Mexico. It was here that 30 of North America’s top CEO’s were invited to give input to the SPP process through the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). Conspicuously absent are the views of non-government organizations like consumer groups, labour consortiums, human rights associations and en- vironmental crusaders. The shrewd among you might counter that these groups would do nothing but stall and befuddle the process. Of course they would. But since they’d be represent- ing the interests of your average citizen (you and me), that

adjourned the meeting and stomped out.

pertise will we glean from Mexican chicken farming practi- ces? Holy race to the bottom!

And where is government getting its inspiration? Well, here’s a few of groups who traditionally have an advisory role to the government: the Council on Foreign Relations (Wash- ington think-tank), the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Interna- cionales (the Mexican equivalent) and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (another group of top performing CEOs). There’s nothing wrong with advisory groups... unless what they are advising is self-serving to the point of treason. These groups published a paper called “Building a North American Community.” If you look it up, it basically proposes a com- mon sharing of energy resources, defence capabilities, border information, and tariff regimes among many other things. These groups also formed a task force to advise leaders of this paper’s aims during the SPP process. Interesting Canadian names Chair and contribute to this task force: Allan. Gotlieb (US ambassador from 1981-89), Pierre Marc Johnson (former Parti Quebecois leader’and Premier of Quebec) and Chaired by none other than John Manley (former federal cabinet min- ister [industry, finance, foreign affairs] and former Deputy Prime Minister). The task force’s central recommendation to our leaders is the “establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff, and an outer security perimeter.” Does this sound like the European Union- lite? It does to me.

Protestors at the latest leaders’ sum- mit in Montebello, Quebec were kept more than a kilometre away from the

meetings that CEOs sat in on. Masked police were outed for trying to incite a riot to discredit peaceful protest. Most of that protest wasn’t just for the sake of it. It was a protest about the lack of transparency. See, none of these harmonization ne- gotiations are being vetted by Parliament or Congress. When reporters asked Harper about what these talks were accom- plishing, he responded that there are three sets of standards for jellybeans between Canada, Mexico and the US. He said they’d been working on eliminating the needless overlap... among other things we presume? Asked about whether there were talks about sharing water and a NAFTA superhighway/ energy corridor, Bush smiled and said he was ‘amused’ by the conspiracy theories swirling. Amused? Like ‘HA HA HA Cheney lets me in on all the important stuff’ amused? Hello Mr. President: it’s your fault these theories exist. When gov- ernment shuts out relevant voices; when they take advice from advocates of such conspiratorial policies; when they refuse to debate these policy shifts in public of course citizens start to wonder and guess. We are left with little alternative. The in- formation these leaders do put out there is incomplete at best and misleading at worst.

Quit playing fast and loose with our sovereignty, Sirs. Give the public a bone. Or have they buried all the bones in offshore accounts for all their duplicity?

Cody Willett

What does the NSC do for the community?

My UNBC experience has been wonderful and it has been a great pleasure for me to call Prince George my homie for the past year. I look forward to calling it home for years to come. However I have had two interesting encounters with a new facility in town that have left me feeling uncomfortable and with a dwindling sense of community.

The long awaited opening of the Northern Sports Centre in October was an exciting event for some but left me dismayed. My first visit to the new NSC I was told that I would have to provide a scan of my finger print to access the facility a paranoid feeling over-

came me. I provided the scan as I felt I had very little choice in the matter. My manda- tory student fees provide me “free” access to the NSC however there is a cost, my sense of security. Once inside the strange and unusual world of the NSC I was informed that I could access a day locker for a fee. Each time I vis- ited the NSC I would be required to pay fifty cents to use a locker. I feel that I have pro- vided UNBC with enough money that locker access should not require an additional fee. This experience has left me with no desire to return to the NSC and actually motivated me to purchase a membership at the local YMCA

where the lockers and towels are plentiful and free. I feel that this money is well spent as the YMCA will use my membership fee to help improve the lives of children and families in Prince George through the excellent program- ming they offer.

My second experience with the NSC. was just as shocking. I am involved with a com- munity group that will be holding a fundrais- ing event. In searching for a location to hold our event we approached the NSC to donate some space for a few hours so that we could hold our walk. They were not willing to pro- vide the space at no cost and they were not

willing to provide the space at a reduced cost. I was surprised by the uncharitable and scrooge-like response as the facility had just opened and I was confident that they would welcome the positive publicity. The NSC is being advertised as a facility not only for UNBC students and staff but for all of Price George. I have to ask then, what does the NSC do for the community?

Signed,

Concerned