Ralph Nader Warns Canada on a Single Unified North American Regulatory Regime

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Has Harper turned into Canada's Obama?

I have been telling many people about the plans for the NAU being pushed forward and now it seems that even Nader is warning Canada about the implications of such a union.

The fact that so few people even know of the behind-the scenes agenda only adds to my convictions that people will NOT vote for this if given the facts and the opportunity to voice their opinions.

Today from the Activist Post and a letter from Nader warning the Canadians of such a union:

www.activistpost.com...

It was surprising that bilateral relations with the U.S. did not play a more prominent role during the recent Canadian election considering that both countries are pursuing a trade and security agreement. In fact, the issue did not really surface until the dying days of the campaign



After winning a much coveted majority government, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are moving ahead quickly with perimeter security and regulatory harmonization negotiations.


Many of us knew Harper's true agenda but sadly, many more did not as there was hardly any mention during the elections.


In the final week of the Canadian election campaign, consumer advocate and four-time candidate for President of the United States, Ralph Nader warned about Canada-U.S. deep integration. In an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he raised concerns over the lack of transparency regarding talks between the two countries on a trade and border security deal.


This becomes more evident when so many people on both sides of the border are surprised at learning of the NAU plans.


Nader cautioned that a, “North American Security Perimeter Agreement will wrap many Canadian concerns — your Arctic, water, energy, anti-monopoly and foreign investment reviews — in a bi-national security blanket.”

He added, “The corporatist lobbies and what President Eisenhower warned Americans about in his farewell address 50 years ago — ‘the military-industrial complex’ — will favour this lucrative and anti-democratic initiative.”

Nader also explained in his letter to Harper, that, “Canada’s prudent bank regulation prevented a Wall Street style collapse of your economy.” North American deep integration is a corporate-led agenda designed to foster privatization and deregulation.


So Nader is actually warning Canada against this move. It's not hard to see the US being the only winner here. What does America have to offer Canada that we don't already have? Nothing IMO.

What is very telling is that Nader is warning of exactly the same things that many are thinking. The resources, Financial System and Corporate Agendas. Again, has Harper turned into Canada's Obama?

Nader's Letter to Harper:

dissidentvoice.org...


On Canada-US “Deep Integration” by Ralph Nader / April 30th, 2011 April 27, 2011 Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. Prime Minister of Canada 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2 Dear Prime Minister: The on-going negotiations, under excessive secrecy, regarding “deep integration” between the U.S. and Canada — countries of vastly unequal bargaining power — have received too little attention during this election period.

The serious issues and consequences of any forthcoming agreement to Canadians deserve immediate public discussion among the candidates prior to the May 2 election. Inasmuch as you are both the protagonist and the chief negotiator with the Obama administration, it is your responsibility to inform the Canadian citizenry about the general frameworks, directions and any subordinations of sovereignty that are on the table.

Additionally, you can certainly disclose what is off the table and the general timetable for concluding the deliberations and announcing the proposed agreement. Voters in a democratic society are rightfully irritated to find that a subject of such gravity excluded from public debate before Election Day.

Canadians do not want a fiat accompli shorn of any public knowledge and participation. Such a process reveals a deep concentration of power in the executive that tears away the pretense of the deliberative parliamentary democracy that Canada holds out to the world.

The designs of “deep integration” are reflected in your interest in purchasing F-35 fighter jets (already estimated at $29 billion by a Parliamentary office) that has no Canadian defence rationale but serves to help bail out the Pentagon’s procurement mess with Lockheed-Martin’s delayed, troubled and way over budget aircraft. The early tangle of “deep integration” within the framework of a proposed North American Security Perimeter Agreement will wrap many Canadian concerns — your Arctic, water, energy, anti-monopoly and foreign investment reviews — in a bi-national security blanket to the disadvantage of both the Canadian and American people.

The corporatist lobbies and what President Eisenhower warned Americans about in his farewell address 50 years ago — “the military-industrial complex” — will favour this lucrative and anti-democratic initiative. Such a Perimeter Agreement would place Canada under further pressure to forego its leading peacekeeping role — now at its lowest ebb — in favour of joining what is becoming open-ended, unconstitutional and unlawful military adventures by the U.S. government overseas. Involvement in the Afghanistan war could be only the beginning of this dismaying Canadian turnaround.

As an economist, you must know what the post-war Canadian Consensus has meant to the well-being of all Canadians –such that your country has often led the world in overall standards of living. You know that this understanding in the past received support from Liberals, Conservatives and the New Democrats. “Deep integration” will further the contrary corporatist uber alles philosophy that marks what has become known as the Washington Consensus.In a contest under deep integration, you don’t have to wonder which will prevail, especially given your own strong predilections in favour of an ideology of corporate globalization, militarism, privatization and de-regulation so identified with the Washington Consensus.

Since you are known to be proud of your views and what Harper’s Canada would look like, how can you not share forthrightly the scenarios you are conjoining between Ottawa and Washington so that the Canadian voters can register their response? Our corporate-hi-jacked government in Washington is not known for its sensitivity to the notion of Canadian independence. But having co-authored the book Canada Firsts in 1993, I learned that many Canadians treasure their sovereignty and associate it with making possible many advances long in your land that are still not prevalent in our country.

Canada’s prudent bank regulation prevented a Wall Street style collapse of your economy. Please recognize your peoples’ right to know now about what is going on in these deliberations over “deep integration.” Sincerely yours, Ralph Nader Washington, DC






edit on 18-5-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I am worried about another potentially destructive thing they will come up with.

With the new union, the suspension of our American only Constitution and a chance for those in power to draft a new one. Scary, huh?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Another case of too little too late. I like nader, too bad I'm. One of a miniscule bunch. Its gonna happen now, bye bye canada, usa, freedom.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Man I love Ralph Nader, one of the true for the people "politicians". His track record speaks for itself.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kharron
reply to post by jude11
 


I am worried about another potentially destructive thing they will come up with.

With the new union, the suspension of our American only Constitution and a chance for those in power to draft a new one. Scary, huh?



Well, I think Obama and Bush have already done that. But yeah, I understand the implications.

With the recent wikileaks cable revealing that the US does not like the restrictions of the Canadian laws with regards to privacy, I am more concerned over Canada being turned into another Martial Law state.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
Man I love Ralph Nader, one of the true for the people "politicians". His track record speaks for itself.


Yeah, he is definitely a True People Power kinda guy. And what impresses me is it's clear to see that belief when he supports not only Americans but Canadians as well.

He ran 4 times with no success? Go figure.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobaganoosh
Another case of too little too late. I like nader, too bad I'm. One of a miniscule bunch. Its gonna happen now, bye bye canada, usa, freedom.


It ain't over til the Fat Lady Sings!

It's going to be interesting when Canadians wake up and realize what's happening.

I get a feeling that a lot of Americans don't care about it tho. Some with "WE OWN CANADA! RAH, RAH.

Some with not realizing the further damage to the Constitution.

But Canadians are going to be PO'd. They are a very prideful people when it comes to Nationality and customs etc. When this is threatened, I don't think it's going to be pretty.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I think US and Canadian politics suffer from the same major problem - lack of a decent choice. I figured Harper would win - but a majority I didn't expect. I think that is thanks to Ignatieff being an even worse choice. Traditional Liberal voters either went to NDP or Conservative and the amount that went Conservative was enough for a majority.

Now that Harper has much more control I think it will be even more important for all Canadians to dig deep and get all the info possible on issues like Nader's letter addressed. I've heard too many people saying a majority is good for Canada - 'now things will get done'. Sure things will get done faster - that doesn't mean good things though. I truly think that it is in all Canadian's best interest to keep Harper under the microscope for the next 4 years.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by fenceSitter
I think US and Canadian politics suffer from the same major problem - lack of a decent choice. I figured Harper would win - but a majority I didn't expect. I think that is thanks to Ignatieff being an even worse choice. Traditional Liberal voters either went to NDP or Conservative and the amount that went Conservative was enough for a majority.

Now that Harper has much more control I think it will be even more important for all Canadians to dig deep and get all the info possible on issues like Nader's letter addressed. I've heard too many people saying a majority is good for Canada - 'now things will get done'. Sure things will get done faster - that doesn't mean good things though. I truly think that it is in all Canadian's best interest to keep Harper under the microscope for the next 4 years.


Actually, I think it's best that we keep Harper away from repeating and following in Obama's footsteps.

A majority is never a good thing. When I heard this I thought of Baby Bush's 2nd term and the vote rigging scandal for some reason.

Harper's Canada? Give me a break.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The NAU is all about getting our fair share of the resources in the Arctic. We're a minnow country militarily sandwiched between two powerhouses, aligning with the US makes more sense for us strategically then staying on our own. I don't like it and I don't agree with it, but I can see why Harper is doing it. Of course we'll be worse off and we won't get our fair share of our own resources, but then again we never have anyway so why would this time be any different?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buddha1098
The NAU is all about getting our fair share of the resources in the Arctic.


We already have our fair share so I don't understand this point. In fact, our share is so fair that the US wants it.


Of course we'll be worse off and we won't get our fair share of our own resources.


This seems to be the opposite of what you stated. I don't understand how we can get our fair share but NOT get our fair share?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


We have our fair share for now. Until Russia and or the US decide they want it. Russia is already said they would go to war for the arctic resources according to Wikileaks. What do you think our chances would be in a war with Russia? Well we have our Nato allies to help us right? Aligning ourselves strategically with the US ensures that the US alone gets access to our resources as opposed to just using our Nato alliance which means Europe gets access too.

Harper's gambit is to align himself with the US to get more of our resources for ourselves. But much like what we do with the Tar Sands, we will give most of it away to foreign oil companies so still won't get our fair share. Hope that clears up the apparent contradiction... it makes perfect sense in my head.. =)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I've been trying to warn friends and family for years... few of them listen, most of them dismiss it like it will never happen and think I'm 'paranoid'. Their ignorance pushes us further into integration and the dissolution of our sovereignty. I love Nader, I'm glad to see he sent a letter to that jack-a$$. Harper probably just snickered...



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


You bring up good points, but in my opinion, Canada would be able to remain a strong ally to the US without compromising its sovereignty.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buddha1098
reply to post by jude11
 


We have our fair share for now. Until Russia and or the US decide they want it. Russia is already said they would go to war for the arctic resources according to Wikileaks. What do you think our chances would be in a war with Russia? Well we have our Nato allies to help us right? Aligning ourselves strategically with the US ensures that the US alone gets access to our resources as opposed to just using our Nato alliance which means Europe gets access too.

Harper's gambit is to align himself with the US to get more of our resources for ourselves. But much like what we do with the Tar Sands, we will give most of it away to foreign oil companies so still won't get our fair share. Hope that clears up the apparent contradiction... it makes perfect sense in my head.. =)


Sorry, can't agree with this one.

Basically it's a vote for the lesser evil as far as I'm concerned.

Russia won't go to war with Canada because they know that the UN and even US will come to Canada's aid. With or without the Union. The US won't have Russia's military coming in over Alaska.

This is a weak sell by Harper and Obama IMO. Not even a weak sell since there was a vote when...?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Oh I think we can too, I'm just trying to find Harper's motivation to sign away our sovereignty beyond him being a heartless corporate shill.

That is the only thing I can come up with from his perspective that makes any logical sense.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Oh absolutely it's the lesser of two evils. I'm an optimist so I don't think Harper wakes up every morning thinking "How can I screw over the Canadian People." I'm just trying to put myself in Harper's shoes and find his logic for signing away our sovereignty. This is all I could come up with.

Of course it's just my opinion... I'm likely wrong. =)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
This act can only fuel radicals, or make radicals, here in Canada (yes, we have right wing radicals who are itching for an excuse to take arms). I predict a resistance front that will target US interests or US migrants, a result of this union, the sheer scale of new land is ripe to exploit for an expanding population.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
if they implemented something like this without the approval of both sides citizens...expect all hell to break loose



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by here4awhile
 


You would hope so, but we've been on the 'harmonization' train for years now, you can trace its beginnings to NAFTA. After that there was the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which generated a lot of opposition an protest, so they stopped talking about it so much, but it's still happening slowly and covertly, bit by bit. I'd like to think there would be a popular uprising, but they're doing it incrementally and people are too apathetic for the most part to be engaged or informed. Canadians just voted (61.4% of them)
, and that's about as much politics as most of them will think about. ...sigh...





top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum