A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
"[The media] seem to be nothing in themselves, and often say that they merely report what goes on. In truth, they do nothing on their own; they act in the manner of a compassionate passerby who sees an accident in the street and rushes to see if someone else can be of any assistance. But the media greatly affect how we regard government."Harvey Mansfield Jr.
There is a lot of discussion today about the absence of independent media, and the way that the majority of journalists treat the news.
It has become a game where they set the rules.
And while the right claims that the media is against them, the exact opposite is true, as corporate media now controls the message, and corporations stand to gain the most from neoconservative/right-wing policies.
I prefer to read columnists who are neither right nor left, but honest. And I avoid those who have lowered themselves to the standard of partisan hacks.
Barry Cooper, a member of the Calgary School that helped bring Stephen Harper to power, co-wrote a book; Hidden Agendas: How Journalists Influence the News. In it, he correctly reveals how the media now manipulate the story, but his suggestion that it is always with a left-wing tilt, is wrong.
Case in point, though there are many examples, is the John Turner "bum pat".
In their book The Newsmongers: How the Media Distort the Political News, Mary Anne Comber and Robert S. Mayne discuss an incident during the 1984 federal election campaign.
After greeting Liberal president Iona Campagnolo: John Turner threw one arm around her shoulder, then slapped her backside and exclaimed, "Come on, Iona, let's circulate!" Iona's welcoming smile froze. She stepped behind Turner and whacked his backside. The pursuing reporters had their cameras rolling. The rest is history. The infamous "bum patting issue" was born.
The way in which this story "broke" is interesting in itself. According to the Globe and Mail account, the film footage of John Turner patting Iona Campagnolo's bottom was first shown on the CTV news, July 20th, after a few days hesitation on the part of the network. The Globe and Mail claimed that, during the period between the event and the showing of the footage, pressure by reporters was mounting on CTV editorial staff to air the film clips. Finally, they gave in and aired the film. Could it be that CTV editors were asking themselves: "Is this fair coverage? Is this the kind of event we should draw to the public's attention?" We will never know. The footage was shown, and the extensive coverage that followed turned this one-minute event into the most-discussed issue of the 1984 federal election campaign.
The day after CTV aired the footage, the Globe and Mail printed two front-page articles on Turner and bum patting. In the days that followed, most Canadian newspapers carried editorials, cartoons and photos on Turner's gaffe. Bum patting was a bonanza! Everyone had an opinion on the matter, and the media establishment appeared to delight in just saying the phrase over and over again. (1)
John Turner didn't help matters, by refusing to apologize, and instead continuing the practice of not only patting the bums of women but men alike. Something he claimed he always did.
So it wasn't really a sexist issue, so much as an inappropriate one.
This might have been a perfect time to bring women's issues to the forefront, and as important as being seen as sexual objects was, there were other things that could have been discussed. Things like equal pay, a child care plan, discrimination. Maybe the fact that the president of the party was a woman, might have meant something.
The point of most interest about bum patting (besides all the wonderful opportunities it gave Canadians to make a wide variety of dreadful puns) is that it was an issue placed on the political agenda by the media. It wasn't that the party leaders had different policies on bum patting that needed to be publicly discussed or debated (although the imagination takes flight with the possibilities for slogans, placards, and Rhinoceros Party pamphlets.) No, the point is that the media placed bum patting on the agenda and then, by dint of constant attention, kept it there ... Turner's campaign aircraft was renamed "Derri Air" by reporters. (1)
We want our politicians to discuss issues of importance, but when we allow the trivial to dominate the agenda, we cannot expect intelligent political debate. Policy gets put on the back burner, when every one's looking for the "zinger" or the embarrassing image that can crush a hopeful. Like a prime minister mining old tapes of a political opponent during a time when the country wanted answers on the state of our economy.
These images are "fair game", but how much is too much, especially when they overwhelm the important issues that our politicians should be addressing? And all too often those are the things that decide elections.
If we want to save our democracy, this is a good place to start. We won't get better from our media, unless we start demanding better. We are the ones who must set the agenda.
In 1863, Sir John A. Macdonald threw up during a campaign speech and his opponent tried to paint him as a drunk, suggesting that he was suffering from a hangover.
If that had been today, there would have been days of commentary, and the image of the puking Tory leader, played over and over. It would have been analyzed by experts, including a medical team who would reveal the contents of his stomach , and "Joe the boozer", who would provide an "expert" opinion on the stages of the "morning after".
Instead, MacDonald retorted: "I get sick ... not because of drink [but because] I am forced to listen to the ranting of my honourable opponent." – case closed.
Sources:
1. The Newsmongers: How the Media Distort the Political News, By Mary Anne Comber and Robert S. Mayne, John Deyell Printing, 1986, ISBN: 0-7710-2239-5, Pg. 44-45
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada During the 1988 election debates, the topic of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) arose, prompting a heated exchange between Liberal leader John Turner and Brian Mulroney.
Clearly shaken, Mulroney defended his patriotism and roots, but his body language and color suggested that he knew that what he was doing was wrong. And Turner fought back.
“We built a country east and west and north. We built it on an infrastructure that deliberately resisted the continental pressure of the United States. For 120 years we’ve done it. With one signature of a pen, you’ve reversed that, thrown us into the north-south influence of the United States and will reduce us, I am sure, to a colony of the United States, because when the economic levers go the political independence is sure to follow.” (1)
But it was too late. Too many powerful people had contributed to Mulroney's success on the promise of a free trade agreement, including the National Citizens Coalitionand their corporate sponsors, who spent an estimated 19 million dollars (2). Mulroney was given a second term and the Americans were given a golden key to our future.
Turner appreciated that FTA was not about achieving “Free Trade” with the U.S. that had pretty much already been accomplished. Turner, appreciated that FTA was really about transferring the control of Canadian institutions and resources into the United States political-military-industrial complex. (3)
And since then successive governments have been powerless to stop it.
Stephen Harper and a Peaceful Revolution
NAFTA has been devastating for Canadians and our country's sovereignty. It has stagnated the middle class, created a veritable crater between rich and poor, and has drastically reduced our standard of living.
Then along came Stephen Harper to finish us off. He would lead a revolution to overturn the results of the War of 1812, black out key elements of our Constitution and make any notion of Confederation null and void.
"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be." - Stephen Harper (4)
The definition of sovereignty from Bouvier's Law dictionary:
The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people.
Canada has relinquished all of her sovereignty. Every last bit. We are an American colony in everything but name. And it took Stephen Harper less than five years to claim victory for the United States, in this bloodless revolution.
FBI Was Given Jurisdiction in Canada:
Battle: The American FBI has been given the right to enter Canada to arrest or interrogate Canadians. However, we didn't learn of any of this from our own government or media. We had to find it out from the FBI themselves.
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day acknowledged Thursday that U.S. agents conduct investigations in Canada but said all are done according to Canadian law.
Day was responding to a report regarding an internal FBI audit that shows U.S. agents are carrying out investigations without the approval of the Canadian government.It says the FBI has given agents in its Buffalo field office clearance to conduct "routine investigations" up to 50 miles into Canadian territory.When asked about the report during question period, Day said Canadian security forces work with Canada's allies, including the U.S, and have agreements in terms of information sharing."We have teams that are designated going back and forth across the border and sometimes it is farther than 50 miles or 50 kilometres," Day said. (5)
Casualties: Canadian civil liberties
Victory: Stephen Harper and the USA
Canadian Standards:
Our product standards were some of the toughest in the world. If a company wanted to sell here, they did it on our terms. Our safety came first.
Battle: In 2007, Stephen Harper met with then U.S. President George Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Montibello, Quebec; to discuss the product standards of the three nations, and how to limit them. And since Bush had reduced government regulations to the point where they could fit on the head of pin, this meant that Canada was forced to pretty much dismantle our own safety standards, to meet those of the U.S. President. Canadians protested prompting Harper to ask: “Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jelly bean?” What they adopted in it's place was something called "risk management."
"At the heart of both systems is a reliance on industry reporting and monitoring, rather than independent government testing, and an emphasis on cleaning up the mess (to the environment or human lives) caused by bad products after the fact. They call this “risk management,” an about-face from the “precautionary principle” of better safe than sorry." (6)
Casualties: 28 Canadian dead from H1N1, dubbed the Nafta Flu, and 20 from Listeriosis, when meat processing plants were allowed to inspect themselves.
Victory: Stephen Harper and the USA
Our Nuclear Energy:
In 2007 the Harper government entered into a controversial nuclear partnership with the United States and then resources minister, Gary Lunn boasted: "It is great news for Canada to be part of this partnership, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) without public debate or a vote in the house of Commons."
Boasting that it was done "without public debate or a vote in the house of Commons" is worth repeating.
The partnership, first pitched early in 2006 by U.S. President George W. Bush, proposes expanding and promoting nuclear energy worldwide by developing a new and unproven breed of "fast reactors" that can burn nuclear waste ....
But the plan is highly controversial because it proposes re-using nuclear waste, a practice effectively banned in Canada and the United States since the 1970s for security reasons. Moreover, the original GNEP concept proposed that all used nuclear fuel be repatriated to the original uranium-exporting country for disposal. As the world's largest uranium exporter, Canada could be taking on a huge responsibility to deal with nuclear waste from around the world. (7)
Casualties: Our safety
Victory: Stephen Harper and the USA
Domestic Security:
In February of 2008, a secret agreement was signed with the United States in Texas, that allows them to send in their troops in the event of Canadian unrest, under the guise of National security.
Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal Neither the Canadian Government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas. The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.* (8)
And what was worse, was that the Canadian media painted it as a left/right issue, rather than what it really was. A direct attack on our sovereignty:
The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S. The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.“It’s kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites,” said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians. (8)
Casualties: All Canadian citizen's civil rights.
Victory: Stephen Harper and the USA
Civil Sovereignty:
Peter Van Loan engineered a deal with American Homeland Security that also gives their police forces jurisdiction in Canada. It was supposed to be only for the Olympics, but they have now made it permanent:
Canada and U.S. authorities are talking about extending cross-border security measures that were implemented for the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver and were to end with the closing of the Winter Games. The RCMP and the U.S. Coast Guard have jointly patrolled the waters off Vancouver since the beginning of the month, boarding nearly 200 vessels and interviewing about 500 people in their efforts to maintain security, RCMP Sergeant Duncan Pound of the border integrity program said in an interview. (9)
I wonder how many of the goons at the G-20 were actually American.
Casualties: Canadian civil liberties
Victory: Stephen Harper and the USA
Our Natural Resources:
When fellow MP Gerry Ritz launched his one man comedy tour during the Listeriosis outbreak, our then health minister, Tony Clement, was nowhere to be found. Turns out he was in the United States protecting the 'proportionality' clause in the NAFTA agreement. This clause is good for the U.S. but could be devastating to Canada. According to the Parkland Institute:
This obscure-sounding clause essentially states that, when it comes to energy, no Canadian government can take any action which would reduce the proportion of our total energy supply which we make available to the United States from the average proportion over the last 36 months.
In other words, if over the last 36 months we have exported just under 50 per cent of our available oil (including domestic production and imports) to the United States—and we have—then no government in Canada can do anything which would result in us making less than two thirds of our total oil supply available to the US....this clause seriously jeopardizes our own energy security in this country, and severely hampers our government’s ability to set our own energy policies. ...
For example, if a natural disaster were to hit eastern Canada tomorrow, our government could not say that we will cut oil or gas exports to the US by 10 per cent in order to increase the oil and gas available for disaster relief in Canada. (10)
Military Sovereignty:
Battle: Rob Merrifield helped to draft a report for the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, entitled: From Correct to Inspired: A Blueprint for Canada U.S. Engagement that calls for annexation of Canada, with regard to the economy and our energy resources, but more importantly calls for military integration, called the "North American defense" strategy:
In a world of economic upheaval and continued insecurity, Canadians need to recognize the critical role of the United States and work with its leaders in an effective partnership that is focused not only on bilateral issues but also on global ones. To that end, US leaders need to be confident that Canada will be a reliable and effective partner in defence of its own interests ... The world’s problems, and the US role in addressing them, will prove easier to manage if the United States can count on the support of allies. As the US ambassadors confirmed, Canada can best advance its own agenda by being one of those allies. Revamping the military was a critical first step. (11)
Stephen Harper couldn't cancel the contracts for those fighter jets, even if he wanted to. The Americans won't allow it and they are calling the shots now. Gone is the notion of former prime minister Louis St. Laurent, who "believed that most Canadians wanted their country to contribute to world peace and better understanding among nations." We now have to go where the Americans tell us to go, and buy what the Americans tell us to buy.
Casualties: Canadian military sovereignty
Victory: Stephen Harper and the USA
What Do We Have left?
After surrendering everything that defines a sovereign nation, what do we have left? What now defines us? The fact that we are now an American colony is indisputable.
Harper's trade agreement when he took his 2 1/2 month vacation from democracy, has completely tied our hands at all levels of government: "In addition to ceaseless pageantry, Harper deliberately prorogued parliament a second time to enact a bill, more powerful than NAFTA to undercut our sovereignty, the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). This far reaching bill will provide sub-national access to municipal services, and undermine the public sector even further, losing thousands of good, Canadian jobs to international outsourcing." (12)
Columnist Andrew Marshall once said: "It’s a sad state of affairs when one loses their freedoms and rights, not through a valiant fight to keep them, but through secret agreements, quiet discussions, deceitful laws and worst of all, mass apathy on the part of the public. It’s time to speak up, speak loud, and take our countries back while we still have what remains of them, and most importantly, while we still have the freedom to speak." (13)
3. Talking trade with John Turner: Canada’s eldest former Prime Minister sits down with Journal Features editors Kerri MacDonald and Michael Woods to discuss the economy, the Liberal Party and the future of Canadian democracy, The Queens Journal, October 28, 2008
4. Stephen Harper speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994
8. Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies: Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal, By Ottawa Citizen, February 22, 2008
The above is Part V of Mel Hurtig's documentary on YouTube; Who Killed Canada.
In part one he gives an introduction to the infrastructure of the extreme right-wing movement; beginning with the hi-jacking of our media, to the many so-called think-tanks, that provide the 'facts' to that hi-jacked media.
In part two he discusses the reduction in federal revenue that weakened spending in important areas. We learned that we are 25th of the 30 OECD countries, in terms of spending on social programs.
Part three deals with our increasing poverty, that coincides with the increase in corporate profits. And though these 'free market' gurus try to convince us that we should throw in our lot with corporate Canada, they have done nothing to advance Canadian interests or protect this country's citizens.
Part four discussed the fact that although neo-cons would like us to believe that we are overtaxed, Canada is actually 21st of 30 nations in terms of the amount of taxes we pay. It also discusses the fact that our history has been rewritten to erase the important role the First Nations played.
Part five deals with NAFTA and what a horrible thing this was and is for Canada. We are basically under the control of the United States. We got very little from the deal, and in fact 11,043 Canadian companies have now become foreign controlled.
The SPP made matters worse, since it has called for even deeper integration with the US. We can no longer refuse to join the Americans in combat, as we did with Iraq, but must now go where they tell us to go; and don't think our soldiers won't be given the most dangerous assignments.
Mr. Hurtig discusses how hard Liberal leader John Turner fought against NAFTA, calling the deal the 'Sale of Canada'. We now see he was right. From the New York Times:
CANADA'S opposition Liberal Party announced last month that its majority in the upper house of Parliament would block the legislation necessary to implement a free-trade agreement that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, had negotiated with the United States.
In a countermove to try to salvage his treaty, Mr. Mulroney is considered virtually certain to call an early election, possibly for October, and the treaty is likely to be the dominant issue in the campaign.
The trade bill would eliminate all tariffs over a 10-year period and lower barriers to investment and other curbs on trade in agriculture, energy and services. Legislation is moving through the United States Congress, which is expected to pass it before it adjourns for the November elections.
One of the loudest critics of the free-trade agreement is John N. Turner, the Liberal Party leader who served as Prime Minister in 1984 when he succeeded Pierre Elliott Trudeau as head of the party and then lost an election to Mr. Mulroney's Conservatives less than three months later. Mr. Turner explained why he is against the agreement in an interview last week with John F. Burns, The New York Times's correspondent in Toronto. Here are excerpts.
Question. You have said that if your party is elected and you once again become Prime Minister, you will ''rip up'' the trade agreement with the United States. Why?
Answer. I've said to the Prime Minister that unless there is a general election there will be no trade bill. In other words, we will not allow it to be finalized and implemented until the Canadian people have had an opportunity to decide. On an issue of this importance and magnitude it's important to be up front with the Americans, saying, ''You understand democracy, this is a fundamental change of direction politically and economically for Canada . . . and we believe the Canadian people ought to have an opportunity to review it.'' Concessions and Controls
Q. What is there about this agreement that you find so threatening to Canada's sovereignty?
A. Well, it's more than a trade agreement, it's the Sale of Canada Act. . . . We have lowered barriers on the Canadian-American border so that 80 percent of the dollar value of the goods moving across that border go free of duty, free of tariff. So what we were really talking about was the remaining 20 percent. And for that remaining 20 percent, Mr. Mulroney gave away the store. Had this been just a question of lowering tariff barriers, trade barriers, we would have little quarrel.
But we conceded our energy, and have become part of a continental energy reservoir with the United States. We have conceded our ability to control investment in Canadian business. We have conceded control over our capital markets. We have weakened our ability to market in an orderly fashion our agriculture.
By allowing ourselves to be caught in a five- to seven-year negotiation for a definition of subsidies, under the thrust of what the agreement calls ''market forces'' or ''harmonization,'' we have put in potential jeopardy our cultural programs and our social programs and our ability to assist our less developed regions.
And the sole purpose of a bilateral, as opposed to a multilateral or international trade negotiation, was to somehow gain secure access to the American market, as opposed to access that could be unilaterally impeded by trade remedy laws and countervailing and anti-dumping actions. To get secure access would mean a specific exemption from those laws, and we did not get it.
Q. By 1986, 77.8 percent of Canada's exports went to the United States, with a total value of $93.8 billion. With this kind of dependence on the American market, does Canada have a viable alternative to the economic integration with the United States that the free-trade agreement seems to foreshadow?
A. I believe we do. And I believe that when we form a government we will continue to attempt to enhance our possibilities in the American market. . . . But the word integration is one that implies to me the gradual surrendering of sovereignty.
Canada has never needed that type of integration. Integration implies coordination of fiscal and monetary policy, and increasing constraints on our ability to take decisions that might affect what the Americans call the ''level playing field.'' Blacks, Whites and Grays
Q. Proponents of the trade agreement tend to stress all the things that Canada and the United States have in common. Among opponents, it is the differences that are emphasized. How do you see these differences?
A. Historically, we were not born of revolution, we didn't have that spectacular beginning. . . . And I think that was reflected in the Declaration of Independence, which speaks of ''life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' In the Canadian Constitution, the phrase is ''peace, order and good government.'' It reflects quite a difference psychologically and historically.
And let's go on. America is a black and white country. And I don't mean racially, but in attitudes. You know the sort of thing: ''My country right or wrong,'' ''You're either with us or against us,'' ''I want to know where you stand.''
We are a grayer country. We are instinctively a consensus people. And we have a less highly centralized government. . . . We have appreciated the virtues of a mixed economy - crown corporations, a national railway, a national airline. Put all these factors into the mix and we are different. . . .
Q. You've said that anti-Americanism won't sell in Canada. But isn't there a danger, when you speak of the ''Sale of Canada Act'' and of Canada's becoming the ''51st state,'' that the Liberal Party will become identified with anti-American attitudes?
A. I would hope that the rhetoric of an election campaign will not be interpreted on our side as being anti-American. There will obviously be a strong pro-Canadian flavor, there may be even what might be interpreted as a Canada-first flavor, but it will not be hostile to the United States. And there may be words said in the course of an election campaign that are open to misinterpretation. I hope not. But the United States is now entering an election campaign, and I imagine that the vocabulary and rhetoric used there will be very tough, too. But that's the democratic system. . . .
Q. If you succeed in killing the agreement, how would you manage the fallout in Washington?
A. If I am successful in persuading Canadians that it's not just a matter of a trade agreement, it's a matter of political and economic and cultural independence, of our uniqueness as a nation, and of our way of life, I feel that that will be accepted by Americans. If there's an election first, and the agreement is rejected, it will have been by the democratic process. In American corporate terms, we're taking this one to the shareholders. Americans understand that.
The Council of Canadians would like us to tear up NAFTA and seek a new deal for the betterment of Canadians. We won't see that under Harper. In fact he is hoping to give them anything we may have left.
Governments and big business have spent the last 15 years telling us that free trade is good for us. But Canadians know better. Despite promises that free trade deals would make Canadian companies more competitive, Canada has consistently lagged behind the United States in both productivity and competitiveness since the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 1989 and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1995. The new jobs created in the free trade era have been largely part-time and poorly paid. Social inequality in our country has grown as a direct result of workers’ inability to earn a decent wage to support their families.
In the aftermath of the softwood lumber decision, even former supporters of free trade are arguing that NAFTA isn’t working for Canada. Some have called for forceful retaliation against the U.S., while others have suggested that we should get out of NAFTA – before it’s too late. The Council of Canadians believes that Canada needs a new trade policy – one that favours democracy, public services and the environment, over the “rights” of corporations to make a profit.
FOUR REASONS WHY NAFTA IS A BAD DEAL FOR CANADA:
NAFTA undermines democracy. Foreign corporations use Chapter 11 to challenge environmental laws, municipal land-use controls, water protection measures, the activities of Canada Post, and even the decisions of judges and juries. While no Canadian citizen or corporation could bring forward these challenges, NAFTA grants corporations of member countries the right to challenge any federal rule or law that they perceive as a barrier to their ability to make a profit. The result is millions of tax dollars being spent to either fight or settle with these corporations.
NAFTA threatens health care and other public services. The exemption for health care under NAFTA, which has largely kept U.S. for-profit health corporations out of Canada, applies only to a fully publicly funded system. Once privatized, the system must give “national treatment” rights to American private hospital chains. The NAFTA exemption only applies to medicare as it stood in 1989, and doesn’t provide protection for a possible expansion of medicare into new areas like homecare and pharmacare.
NAFTA strips Canada of control over our energy resources. Canada now produces about 40 per cent more oil than it consumes, but has to rely heavily on imported oil from offshore. Thanks to NAFTA, Canada now exports 70 percent of the oil and 61 per cent of the natural gas we produce each year to the United States. NAFTA prevents us from selling our energy resources to Canadians at rates lower than we sell them in the U.S. And because of NAFTA’s proportional sharing clause, we can’t ever cut back on the amount of energy we produce and sell to the United States, even in times when our country runs short.
NAFTA could put our water up for sale. Canadian water is defined as a “service” and an “investment” under NAFTA. The agreement’s so-called water exemption is inadequate. After British Columbia banned bulk exports of lake and river water, the California-based Sun Belt Corporation launched a Chapter 11 challenge, seeking $10 billion in damages. The case is still outstanding, and has profound implications for the future of Canada’s water.
Current trade policies serve as a platform for deeper integration with the U.S. Our business and political elites are pushing for deeper ties with the U.S., and would see Canada privatize health care, join common security projects, give up sovereignty over our natural resources and harmonize our food and health policies with lower U.S. standards.
NAFTA is a bad deal for Canada, working families, our environment and our sovereignty. We want a trade policy that protects our democracy, social services, natural resources and way of life.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
