Sign up to receive SPP updates:
RSS feed.  |
ABOUT THE SPP | BACKGROUNDERS | MEDIA | VIDEO/AUDIO |
SPP resources SPP Summit - New Orleans SPP Summit - Montebello Teach-in |
March 18, 2008 In an effort to demonstrate that the best defence is a good offence, a new Fraser Institute report by Alex Moens and Michael Cust, argues that the Canadian government must “expand and speed up the SPP goals,” and make a priority of “rebranding the SPP talks… as well as explaining the specific objective of the talks to the public” at the next summit in New Orleans this April or risk the trilateral partnership losing much of its momentum. But on the question of whether the SPP should be opened up for debate or involve more than just corporate input from the North American Competitiveness Council, the right-wing think tank offers an unequivocal “no.” “The SPP is far from dead” The SPP was “meant to lead to specific agreements on a sector-by-sector basis and mainly affect changes in the administrative or executive branches of government,” write Moens and Cust. It has thus far “modestly advanced Canada’s national interest by removing or reducing non-tariff barriers to trade,” has benefited “from the advice of business groups,” and “consists of technical talks conducted by expert officials.” The Fraser Institute report actually provides a very useful history of the SPP, including the business group lobbying that led to its inception in 2005, and a summary of how the working group system has functioned since then. It also discredits the John Ibbitson theory that the SPP died in Montebello. “[T]he SPP is far from dead,” write Moens and Cust in a section on the political challenges to the partnership, based on an interview he had with an unnamed source. “It has a low profile currently, but talks among officials on both security and competitiveness are proceeding. “It’s critics may have tarnished the ‘SPP brand,’ but the precise areas of its work – to follow where NAFTA left off and to do so by incorporating post-9/11 security criteria as well as public safety and quality of life issues (pandemic illnesses and food safety) are key Canadian interests. Moreover, the technocratic, low-level method rather than lofty treaty-making route is easy to belittle but much more difficult to replace.” CEOs need more power Instead of a much-needed broad Canadian debate on the overall objectives of the SPP, which is refocusing almost every aspect of Canadian policymaking – security, foreign and international trade policy, health and safety, the environment, etc – into a North American framework, Moens recommends, “that groups such as labor [sic] and environmental lobbies work with both government and business to develop best practices, rather adding even more players to the crowded SPP talks.” Then, a few paragraphs later, Moens and Cust echo statements from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and Canadian Chamber of Commerce that, “it is valuable to explore how business can potentially take a more proactive role” (emphasis his). The Fraser Institute report recommends:
These recommendations, put into government practice, would intensify the privatization of public policy envisioned in the SPP and further alienate the peoples of North America from their governments, weakening democracy across the continent. The corporate stranglehold on public policy And yet the process is already well underway. Moens and Cust’s report follows on the heels of a similar paper by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, released just before the 2008 Conservative budget, which In a March 4 speech in St. John, New Brunswick, Chamber President Perrin Beatty boasted that, “In just six days, six of our recommendations were met in the 2008 Budget announced on February 26.” For instance, said Beatty, “In response to our recommendations that the NEXUS program be more aggressively promoted to increase participation, and that a formal review process be created, the Government has pledged $14 million over the next two years to expand NEXUS by adding dedicated infrastructure, with the goal of increasing the number of users from 160,000 to 350,000, and better targeting frequent travellers.” Next up were enhanced drivers’ licences: The Chamber recommended that the necessary funds and resources be devoted to ensure that the development of Enhanced Drivers’ Licences is undertaken and accepted at all border crossings. We also lobbied for the implementation of secure vicinity RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technology at all major border crossings, and encouraged travelers to obtain documentation that uses this technology. The Government has responded by dedicating $6 million over the next two years to support implementation of these technologies. In fine, Conservative form, neither of these policies were described as SPP priorities in the budget but merely as ways to address border security issues. In the Fraser Institute press release plugging the new SPP report today, Moens says that there is “nothing in the SPP that calls for political integration.” But it seems an apt description of an arrangement that forces the harmonization of security, public safety, environmental, health and safety policies with a much more powerful U.S. government, without any democratic mandate.
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
Workers
Water
Energy
Security & civil liberties
Military
Safety & regulations
Transportation corridors
