For whatever reason, a 2,000-strong demonstration had to be dispersed by a barrage of teargas, rubber bullets and swinging batons just outside the luxury resort where the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit was being held in Montebello, Quebec on August 20, 2007.
CBC aired a 10-minute feature on the summit the same day. Curiously, the demonstration was not mentioned, but the clip did show Linda Hasenfratz (CEO of Linamar, one of the major corporations involved in the talks) commenting on how this innocuous conference was merely aimed at increasing economic growth throughout the continent.
The CBC did, however, immediately throw itself on the demonstration story when it turned out that the police were implicated in hot controversy. But even with all that attention, nobody attempted to address what the demonstrators were actually trying to say.
The activists were there at Le Chateau Montebello to present a petition urging the SPP participants to go home. The group was as diverse as the reasons why the SPP partnership is dangerous.
One of the main problems of the SPP is that it is not subject to democratic consent. The summit happened behind closed doors, beyond the public domain. The SPP is being presented as a vague “dialogue based on shared values.” But it can escape public scrutiny and will never be debated in the House of Commons, as it is not an official treaty. Nor is it an official law. The only non-government agencies with a formal role in the SPP are mega-corporations in the North American Competitiveness Council, which brings together 30 business representatives (corporate giants like Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Lockheed-Martin) from around North America.
While the SPP rhetoric boldly makes such statements as “in order to remain ahead of the curve and continue to reap the rewards of trade and commerce, our nations must act in concert to build on our complementary agenda,” it’s clear that the “rewards” in question are directed towards the members of NACC and other corporations, not citizens in general.
Continent-wide regulations like the ones involved in the SPP are acceptable if they set high standards, but the key question here is: who is making the decisions, and on what basis? Although previous economic integration agreements, such as NAFTA, brought about significant prosperity for corporations, they displaced many workers while doing little to reduce poverty rates.
By forming policy to comply with Canada’s largest corporations—many of whom benefit greatly from military and security contracts—the government has forced a foreign policy of war manufacturing on its people, despite the wishes of the majority of Canadians. Committing to uniform regulations stipulated by the SPP might threaten Canada’s sovereignty, as pressure to pass unprecedented (largely U.S. biased) policies in areas such as military and immigration ultimately furthers U.S. domination over Canada, Mexico and other countries.
The SPP also threatens Canada with the bulk transfer of water southbound. The demand for water in the U.S. is huge. Though the Canadian government said it has no intention of allowing the bulk export of water, which legal protections would prevent anyway, the federal government has jurisdiction only over waterways that are shared across the border with the United States. There is no binding legislation preventing provinces from allowing the export of the vast reserves of water they control.
The definition of “barriers of trade,” which are illegal under NAFTA, will also be expanded to encompass an increasing amount of regulations, including those regarding food safety. For example, Canada is now considering raising the amount of pesticide residues it allows on fruits and vegetables in order to harmonize with U.S. standards.
Drug approvals, auto standards, and other consumer product standards are also under review through the SPP, a procedure that could affect many aspects of everyday life of Canadians.
Plans for a common security perimeter involve the integration of police training and law enforcement. Military and training exercises will also be standardized in an effort to redesign the armed forces in preparation for combat overseas. Cooperation in global wars and occupations are a fundamental part of the “forward defence” strategy of the security perimeter.
It is not an exaggeration to claim that a colonial and capitalist framework is at the root of the SPP. In practice, the SPP is criminalizing migration, privatizing government, militarizing borders, giving control of trade regulations to major corporations, and stealing indigenous land and resources. All in the name of war, occupation, profit, and national security.
