Monday, June 15, 2009

Stockwell Day Creates Police State to Push SPP

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) has been called NAFTA on steroids, and has many Canadians concerned that we are sacrificing our sovereignty to pander to American interests, especially in terms of war and military contracts.

When a summit was held in Quebec in August of 2007, as expected there several protests, which were peaceful until Stockwell Day planted three police officers into the mix to stir things up.

He really wanted to bring in the riot squad, to show George Bush that he wasn't he only tyrannical coward. Typical of Stockwell Day to poke a stick and run, but it backfired when protesters recognized the plants (who still had their police boots on), and though Day denied it for three days, eventually had to admit that it was an attempt to try to justify the use of force to make the protesters leave.

Of course he also stated that the officers were not acting in a violent manner, but video cameras proved otherwise.

Not the first time cameras caught Stocky using violence to stop peaceful protest. When he was making a speech in Manitoba as Alliance leader in 2000, he resented the aboriginal community from speaking out against his platform, which did not address their needs. When through Day left with the media, while one of security guards stayed behind and physically attacked the spokesperson for the protesters, all caught on camera.

A little Mussolini wannabe.

A bit of background on SPP with experts from:
Future of North America: Vancouver 2010, Coronation of the North American “Community
by Andrew G. Marshall
Global Research
March 15, 2008

The year 2010 will mark a very important date for all people living within Canada, the United States and Mexico. The often-cited Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) document, in conjunction with the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), titled “Building a North America Community,” serves as the blueprint for the objectives of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

The three above-mentioned “interest” groups make up the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, who produced the report, in which they state, “The Task Force’s central recommendation is 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.”

A Vancouver daily newspaper reported on March 5, 2008, that “Canada, U.S. and Mexico are planning a massive joint military exercise in April 2009 "to focus on terrorist events that could affect [the] 2010 Olympics," according to Public Safety Canada documents released to 2010 Watch via access to information.”

As the march towards 2010 accelerates along with the march towards the “North American Community,” Vancouver will be subject to the establishment of a police state to provide “security” for the Olympics. In essence, Vancouver 2010 will mark the coronation of a “new” form of governance for North America, anointing a crown upon a regional bureaucracy and its corporate controllers, removing power from the people of each of the three nations.

In 2006, Vancouver’s Police Chief Jamie Graham said, “public cameras would help in the Vancouver Police Department’s contribution to the War on Terror, before he went on to dismiss critics warning of privacy invasions with the usual corker, ‘If you’re doing nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide’.” The article continued in stating, “The new police-installed anti-terrorism-juiced cameras won’t be your garden-variety, convenience-store set-up, but instead will be a centralized web of digital recorders linked to sophisticated computers running facial recognition software.”

Also in 2006, Vancouver began to test “a new police car-mounted device that automatically scans licence plates,” and that, “The new device uses a series of tiny cameras mounted on the squad car to automatically scan every licence plate it passes -- up to 3,000 plates an hour -- and checks the number against the police database.”

In 2005, CBC reported that during the run-up to the Canadian elections, “Conservative Leader Stephen Harper was back on the campaign trail this week, promising to beef up military presence in major cities to respond to emergencies,” and that, “If he's elected Jan. 23, Harper said, territorial battalions made up of 100 regular troops and 400 or more reservists would be stationed in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, the Toronto area and other major metropolitan areas.” Further, Harper also “said Canada currently does not have the capacity to respond to crises in its own back yard, especially in British Columbia.”

The Province reported in 2008 that, “Some 267 people have died in police custody or in police-involved deaths in B.C. from 1992 to 2007, with 53 involving Vancouver police,” and that, “Of the 267 deaths, 28 are listed as "First Nations," which Ward points out is more than 10 per cent of the total, although aboriginals form less than four per cent of the B.C. population.”

After September 11, 2001, the Bush administration created the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, and in December of 2003, “Prime Minister Paul Martin announced the creation of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Portfolio under the purview of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC).”

This department includes “the RCMP, CSIS [Canadian Security Intelligence Services], National Parole Board, Canada Firearms Centre, Correctional Service of Canada, and the Canada Border Services Agency. It also comprises three review Agencies: the RCMP External Review Committee; the Office of Correctional Investigator; and the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP.”

In effect, it is centralizing control over a wide range of departments. Also interesting to note is that the RCMP will report to the same individual as the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP. But I’m sure that’s not a conflict of interest.

In January of 2005, the CBC reported that, “A Vancouver man has won an out-of-court settlement from the RCMP after an incident in which he says he was illegally searched by an American police officer.

The report then went on to explain that “The Texas state troopers were in B.C. as part of an exchange program with the RCMP to spot and stop drug traffickers. Called Pipeline Convoy, the program involves training officers to detect people who are lying or trying to hide things from police.”

On October 5, 2006, the CBC reported that, “Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day acknowledged Thursday that U.S. agents conduct investigations in Canada but said all are done according to Canadian law.” Elaborating, “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.”

But not to worry, after all, Stockwell Day said it was legal. Although, he failed to identify what law is being obeyed by having foreign agents sneak across our border, without government approval (or knowledge) on unspecified and largely unknown missions. If that’s considered legal, Stockwell Day can be considered a Canadian patriot, upholding the rule of law and preserving and protecting the freedoms and rights of all Canadian citizens. Neither seem very plausible to me.

An RCMP press release in 2006 reported that, “To effectively combat cross-border criminal activity, Canadian and American law enforcement are taking an international and integrated approach to their investigations.”

In 2006, the Bi-National Planning Group (BPG) released its final report, in which they states, “The Bi-National Planning Group (BPG) was established in December 2002 through an exchange of Diplomatic Notes on enhanced military cooperation between the Governments of Canada and the United States.”

It later states as a recommendation, “With respect to the movement of Canadian and US military personnel across the border for military operations, including military-to-military support to civil authorities, Foreign Affairs Canada, US Department of State, Canada Command, US Northern Command, border agencies and other appropriate military and civil entities should work together to ensure processes are in place to fully address cross-border movement legal issues prior to deployment.”

It was reported by The Vancouver Sun on February 23, 2008, that, “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.” Further, “Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas,” but, “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 in a civil emergency.” The article then quoted Canada Command spokesman, David Scanlon, as stating, “If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military.”

This is a really amazing exercise in Orwellian double-speak, as he is saying that US forces in Canada would be under the tactical control of Canadian Forces, meaning under a degree of direction. Yet, at the same time, in the same sentence, he states that they will still be under the command of the US military.

Terrorism and the process of “deep integration” of Canada, the US and Mexico are not unrelated and separate concepts. In fact, there is a very close relationship between the two. On February 12, 2008, the Financial Post ran an op-ed in which the author stated, “The crisis of Sept. 11, 2001, provided a perfect opportunity to seize the moment to re-imagine the border,” and pursue a process of deeper integration between Canada and the United States.

The Oregonian reported in 2007 that Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, asked the White House to see secret documents related to NSPD 51 that were not released in the press statement, and he was denied “the right of reviewing how [the White House] plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack.”

Given the close relationship between the events of 9/11 and the speeding up of North American integration, it is very significant that much of the integration is focused around military responses to “catastrophic emergencies”, which would undoubtedly further accelerate the process of integration. However, given the laws, contracts and directives put in place by the US, in the event of a “catastrophic emergency”, any vestige of democratic institutions in North America would cease to exist.

Vancouver in 2010 will be a very interesting time. Terror drills will be conducted in Vancouver in April of 2009 in preparation for the Olympics, as Vancouver turns itself into a police state while the military and security structures of Canada and the United States are merged together to form a North American Military-Security State, all under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Laws such as the Military Commissions Act and Defense Authorization Act are reason enough for Canada to not merge with the United States on this level, but when taking into account NSPD 51 (National Security Presidential Directive 51) for “Continuity of Government” and the contracts for KBR to build “detention camps”, it is, in fact, in Canada’s national security interests to immediately cease and undo what integration has already been undertaken.

Much like how China’s emergence into the modern world community is to be marked by their 2008 Olympics, the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver will not mark Canada’s show of pride in the world, but will mark the coronation of the North American “Community”, eventually to become a Union.

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.


  1. I agree. The Liberals are taking us toward police state status. There is a vast divide between what they say on public safety and what they do. What is the rationale for disarming law abiding Canadians and denying their historic culture of private firearms ownership? Is Iggy the new Leader?

    I include an article from the London Free Press for your education.

  2. Thank you for the link. I read the article and I'm sorry but a family who shoots together does not make me feel all warm and fuzzy. There are better ways for a family to bond.

    "You can have a good time just trying to blow stuff up with bullets." Blow stuff up with bullets???

    Look, I don't object to hunting or even owning long guns. I just agree with the police that they should be registered, and a safety course completed if you want to keep those guns.

    I also stand by my conviction that no civilian should own a hand gun.

    This is not the Liberal gun registry as the Conservatives love to tell us, but the Canadain gun registry, voted on by all parties.

    It came about after intense lobbying by Canadian citizens, when Marc Lepine opened fire at Montreal's École Polytechnique, killing 14 women. We can't forget that.

  3. We do not change the cultural fabric of our society based on anomalous outrages. If that were the fact then logically private automobile ownership would be restricted or not allowed as cars are a luxury for urbanites and automobiles are frequently involved in violent crime. Sport shooters have a legitimate historic culture that they are entitled to. We agree that handguns should be registered. They have been since 1934. That fact means statistically zilch when you consider that registration has not improved public safety. The same holds true in spades for the long gun registry. The difference is for zero crimes solved we have a bill of now nearly two billion dollars. You don't have to subscribe to our firearms culture but as a Canadian you do have to respect our right to it. We support the licensing of individuals based on training and a clean criminal and mental health record. Also, you will find nobody arguing against proper storage requirements.

    What we do resent is the false manner the Liberals used to encourage compliance. For the record it was a Liberal majority government that voted in Bill C-68 and the Conservatives/Reform voted nay. The Liberals created a new class of 'paper' criminals' being those individuals that had improper or lapsed licenses. They promised no confiscation but are actively working to just that end. On your side, the Liberals promised a lower suicide and violent crime rate. Neither promise has been fulfilled by the long gun registry. Practically speaking you are wasting your effort on banning legally registered handguns. They account for less than 2% of all gun crimes nationally including stolen firearms. Stats Canada.

    Why demonize legal firearms usage because of the Marc Lepines of the world? Why did the Liberals instead not set up a national registry of those barred from firearms ownership, i.e. convicted felons and the mentally incompetent? That would have been cost effective and a useful public safety tool. Going by results alone the majority of Canadians feel the long gun registry must go and that is based on all recent polls from all sources.

  4. As a footnote I grew up in Toronto/Scarborough,attended school through university and then worked there so I do understand urban society. On the flip side I was exposed to firearms through Cadets and with rural family. As a result I see both sides of the argument. The long gun registration has split rural/urban Canadians as no other issue has in recent history. The Liberals reject the history of firearms ownership in Canada and continue to concentrate their efforts on law abiding gun owners. They have turned the ignorance about firearms culture and nature of firearms, prejudices and unreasonable fear of urbanites into votes. The cost in human terms is acceptable to them. It is always easier to give away someone else's rights.

    As for Marc Lepine we guaranteed that sick sod his moment in history. Most of us cannot name one of the victims but we all have seen his picture and know his name. Our treatment of such perpetrators makes us an accessory after the fact. We encourage copycats by our reporting and therefore should not be surprised when other sick individuals carry out such outrages. We would do well to follow the Dutch practice of giving only the first name and never a picture. I gained nothing in understanding by seeing Lepine and by knowing his name. In these circumstances our media and police do not serve the public good.

    As a last thought. When I go hunting I have to carry on my person the following: my federal firearms license, the valid registration certificates for the firearms I am using that day, my provincial Outdoors Card with a current small game tag and tags for any large game such as deer, moose or bear. Also, the gun must have a trigger lock when not in use and must be stored according to federal standards. All of this is required to hunt on private property. Your car or truck does not need a license for use on private property.

    I am afraid the attitude of the average urbanite is based on personal perception that has little to do with the realities of the issue and that is the underlying problem. Ignorance, emotion and prejudice are a poor basis for judging anything.

  5. The Liberals didn't introduce the Gun Registry because of Marc Lepine, but because of intense lobbying after the incident. What some people forget is that poltiicians must answer to us, and those 'us' demanded tougher legislation.

    Because they were in power at the time, critics refer to it as the Liberal gun registry, but no matter who was in power then, they would have had to take action to create a Canadian Gun Registry.

    No one is saying you can't own a hunting rifle. You are obviously responsible, but for others, they need laws to make them take responsibilty.

    Before making his decision, Mr. Ignatieff spoke with the police chief in his riding and was told that police officers like the registry and find it valuable, especially in dealing with things like domestic violence.

    So for me, aside from my personal loss, the fact that the majority of Canadians want guns registered and our police officers want guns registered, is good enough for me.

    The NDP and Bloc also oppose handguns and support a gun registry. All elected officials working for their constituents.

    But again, no civilian needs to own a handgun. They are too easy to steal and fall into the wrong hands.