As one more assault on our sovereignty, Peter Van Loan has inked a deal that gives the U.S. Department of Homeland Security the same jurisdiction as our RCMP. They can move freely and arrest Canadian citizens, with little recourse.
The project is called "Shiprider" and was implemented with no Public debate. "On November 27, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson tabled legislation that would transform designated U.S. police and security agents into peace officers equal to the RCMP "in every part of Canada"
The pilot project began in March 2008, but has now been made permanent. A background:
The Department of Public Safety is reporting today that a joint RCMP-Homeland Security pilot project, which put U.S. security agents on Canadian maritime patrols and vice versa, will be made permanent. “During this most recent pilot project, which took place in the St. Lawrence Seaway near Cornwall and in the Strait of Georgia between British Columbia and Washington State, Shiprider officers boarded 187 vessels,” claimed the government press release. “In 39 separate incidents, Shiprider teams contributed to 41 arrests, with six of these being made directly by the integrated marine teams.”
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said: “The Shiprider pilot projects are an excellent example of our joint efforts to tackle cross-border crime. In keeping with this theme, it gives me great pleasure to announce today that our countries will begin negotiating a framework to govern the conduct of joint cross-border maritime law enforcement operations in shared waterways along the Canada-USA border.” ....
The above is Part VI 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 dealt 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.
In part six Mr. Hurtig continues to discuss the effects of NAFTA on Canada and the fact that we have the most foreign owned corporations of any other developed nation. He also mentions the SPP and the fact that the media has not discussed what this deep integration policy means for us.
Following is a brief history of foreign ownership in Canada. Even some Canadian companies are now concerned that we are losing control of our resources and the fact that foreign companies are moving their head offices out of the country, taking jobs away, while contributing little to the betterment of Canada.
Foreign ownership is the result of investment by non-resident corporations in another country's companies in the pursuit of profit through control. It is incidental to the operations of transnational, multinational, or global corporations in setting up subsidiaries or branch plants. The recipient, or host, country can get the economic benefit of superior technology and management but at the possible political costs of dependency and susceptibility to foreign practice and policy.
For much of its history Canada has had, for good or bad, the highest level of foreign ownership of any country in the world—particularly high for a developed and industrialized country. This can be attributed in part to proximity to the United States, where multinational corporations are disproportionately headquartered, and to American demand for Canada's rich supply of exploitable natural resources. But it is also the consequence of conscious Canadian government policy to encourage foreign investment.
The high protective tariff of the National Policy of 1879 helped infant Canadian firms, but it also attracted American branch plants that were already spreading nationally throughout the United States and simply spilled over its northern border. Canadian politicians boasted to their constituents about the jobs created when branch plants came to their communities. The great prosperity associated with the economic boom prior to the First World War masked the higher costs of branch plants, which lost economies of scale by producing a full range of American goods for the smaller Canadian market. Whether this inefficiency was the result of the tariff or of foreign ownership was hard to sort out since the two were so bound together.
In the first decade after the Second World War, there was another great round of American investment in Canadian resources for American consumption. For the first time, a backlash manifested itself against the extent of foreign ownership. Walter Gordon , a prominent Canadian businessman and Liberal party guru, headed the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, which, while admitting of the benefits, warned of the costs of foreign ownership in terms of economic and political sovereignty.
The stage was set for a sustained debate on how to devise policies that would increase the amount of Canadian ownership and at the same time would increase the benefits and decrease the costs of foreign ownership. As minister of finance in the Pearson government in the mid-sixties, Gordon proposed a tax on foreign takeovers, but it generated so much controversy it had to be abandoned. The best chance to deal meaningfully with foreign ownership was lost but the issue did not go away. In 1968 a task force appointed by the Pearson government and overseen by Gordon produced a comprehensive report on foreign ownership called the Watkins Report after its chief author, economics professor Melville Watkins . It endorsed a long-standing proposal of Gordon to create the Canada Development Corporation as an instrument to increase Canadian ownership, and proposed setting up an agency to monitor the activities of foreign-owned companies to increase benefits and decrease costs.
The Trudeau government commissioned another report under the direction of cabinet minister Herb Gray ; his comprehensive Gray Report ( 1972 ) laid the basis for action, particularly when the Liberals found themselves in a minority government situation in 1972 and needed the support of the nationalist NDP in order to govern. The Canada Development Corporation had been created in 1971 and the Foreign Investment Review Agency was set up in 1973 , though with far fewer powers than the Gray Report had recommended. In 1974 Petro-Canada was established as a Crown corporation to facilitate the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry. Foreign ownership fell relative to Canadian ownership in the 1970s and into the 1980s. This seems, however, to have had less to do with the foreign ownership policies of government—FIRA turned out to be quite toothless—than with the increasing maturity of Canadian business.
The election of the Reagan administration in the United States and then of the Mulroney government in Canada in the 1980s precipitated a sharp about-face on foreign ownership policy. The Canada Development Corporation and Petro-Can were privatized and FIRA was given the mandate of promoting and encouraging foreign investment. Out of the long debate on foreign ownership, little of substance remained, though rules limiting foreign ownership in the media have survived.
The free trade agreements struck in the 1990s contained ‘national treatment’ provisions that require all firms, regardless of nationality of ownership, to be treated the same, thereby ruling out policies directed at foreign-owned firms. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment that would have enshrined globally the rights of multinational corporations failed in its implementation in the late 1990s because of global opposition organized, in part, by the Council of Canadians.
Ironically, in the early years of the 21st century, the Canadian business community, which had mostly opposed any restrictions on foreign ownership, has expressed some concern about the tendency of American companies, in the era of free trade, to rationalize on a North American basis by closing the Canadian head-office of the subsidiary, thereby limiting decision making in Canada and eliminating some jobs. With tariffs gone, it would now seem that there may be some problems that inhere in foreign ownership itself.
Part one dealt with the 'harmonization' of safety standards between the US, Mexico and Canada; with a policy of 'Risk Management' rather than one of prevention.
Part two delved a little further into the fact that the SPP agreement now mentions our water as a 'good' and all 'goods' are part of the NAFTA deal.
Part three discussed the plans for a global government with the world being divided into trading blocks, and the increasing police presence in Canada.
Part four was a continuation of the concerns of a different style of policing and the fact that our Internet use may be monitored.
In part six we witnessed the stormtroopers trying to box in a crowd of protesters, and using pepper spray and tear gas without provocation.
Part seven reveals how provocateurs were used to incite the crowd, which in turn would justify the use of physical force to break up a peaceful demonstration.
In part eight the discussion turns to the militarization of our police, as part of the new "Law and Order" Canada, where human rights are a thing of the past.
Part nine discussed the use of pepper spray and tear gas as becoming more common, and the attempts of Mrs. Peacock's Kindergarten class to normalize it. They no longer care what the protesters have to say, and some have even reverted to calling them 'anarchists', despite the fact that many protests are quite peaceful.
Part ten summed up the protest against the SPP and interviews with Bush and Harper.
The final video reiterates that it is an ongoing struggle, with Harper being so secretive about everything he does. We have to leader from American websites what's happening at home.
For now it would appear that the SPP is dormant, though skeptics believe it has just been added to NAFTA. They are probably right. We have to be vigilant. The website of the Council of Canadians is a great place to get information:
When the Council of Canadians set up its Integrate This! website in October 2007 to challenge the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), few had heard of the secretive executive agreement aimed at integrating North American policy in more than 300 areas. Few, that is, beyond a blue chip advisory panel made up of North America’s largest corporations intent on perpetuating and intensifying an unsustainable trade model that sidelines serious environmental, labour, health and security concerns. The SPP was about fortifying NAFTA and defending it against alternative economic models that put people and the environment first.
According to business and media commentators who had access to the SPP talks, momentum for the “deep integration” of North America’s various security, regulatory, citizenship and immigration, environmental and labour regimes died off when former U.S. President George W. Bush left office. Obviously the SPP was not as robust as its proponents had thought if it could not survive a transition in the U.S. government. More importantly, commentators now acknowledge that public opposition to “deep integration” talks have made the SPP politically poisonous. Transparency has been promised, as shown by U. S. President Obama’s statement that he would re-start the North American dialogue with “the active and open involvement of citizens, labour, the private sector and non-governmental organizations.”
The fifth North American Leaders' Summit took place in Guadalajara, Mexico from August 9 to 10, 2009. As in previous years, The Council of Canadians was there to push for this promised transparency and accountability, and to oppose any attempts to restart the failed SPP dialogue that puts corporate interests ahead of the people of North America.
On August 9, 2009, over 1,000 people marched through downtown Guadalajara during the North American Leaders' Summit to protest the expansion of NAFTA through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, and to demand an immediate renegotiation with full public participation in Mexico, Canada and the United States.
Part one dealt with the 'harmonization' of safety standards between the US, Mexico and Canada; with a policy of 'Risk Management' rather than one of prevention.
Part two delved a little further into the fact that the SPP agreement now mentions our water as a 'good' and all 'goods' are part of the NAFTA deal.
Part three discussed the plans for a global government with the world being divided into trading blocks, and the increasing police presence in Canada.
Part four was a continuation of the concerns of a different style of policing and the fact that our Internet use may be monitored.
In part six we witnessed the stormtroopers trying to box in a crowd of protesters, and using pepper spray and tear gas without provocation.
Part seven reveals how provocateurs were used to incite the crowd, which in turn would justify the use of physical force to break up a peaceful demonstration.
In part eight the discussion turns to the militarization of our police, as part of the new "Law and Order" Canada, where human rights are a thing of the past.
Part nine discussed the use of pepper spray and tear gas as becoming more common, and the attempts of Mrs. Peacock's Kindergarten class to normalize it. They no longer care what the protesters have to say, and some have even reverted to calling them 'anarchists', despite the fact that many protests are quite peaceful.
Part ten sums up the protest against the SPP and interviews with Bush and Harper. Now be honest. Listen to the two men talk. Do they not sound and even look drunk? They are barely coherent and sickeningly patronizing.
A recent story concerning an American journalist shows just how much of a police state Canada has become. This is an outrage.
U.S. broadcaster and author Amy Goodman said she is concerned a journalist would have to undergo an interrogation while trying to enter Canada. (CBC)
U.S. journalist Amy Goodman said she was stopped at a Canadian border crossing south of Vancouver on Wednesday and questioned for 90 minutes by authorities concerned she was coming to Canada to speak against the Olympics.
Goodman says Canadian Border Services Agency officials ultimately allowed her to enter Canada but returned her passport with a document demanding she leave the country within 48 hours.
Goodman, 52, known for her views opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, told CBC News on Thursday that Canadian border agents asked her repeatedly what subjects she would cover at scheduled speaking engagements in Vancouver and Victoria.
'You're saying you're not talking about the Olympics?'—Canadian border agent
Goodman said she told them she planned to speak about the debate over U.S. health care reform and the wars in Asia.
After much questioning, Goodman said the officials finally asked if she would be speaking about the 2010 Olympics.
"He made it clear by saying, 'What about the Olympics?'" said Goodman. "And I said, 'You mean when President Obama went to Copenhagen to push for the Olympics in Chicago?'"
"He said, 'No. I am talking about the Olympics here in 2010.' I said, 'Oh I hadn't thought of that,'" said Goodman.
"He said, 'You're saying you're not talking about the Olympics?'"
"He was clearly incredulous that I wasn't going to be talking about the Olympics. He didn't believe me," Goodman said.
The CBSA declined comment on the incident Thursday.
Searched car, computer and notes
Goodman said her car was searched and the officials demanded to look at her notes and her computer.
Goodman is best known as the principal host of Democracy Now, a U.S. syndicated radio broadcast. She was coming to Canada as part of a tour to promote a new book, Breaking The Sound Barrier.
"I am deeply concerned that as a journalist I would be flagged and that the concern – the major concern – was the content of my speech," said Goodman.
Part one dealt with the 'harmonization' of safety standards between the US, Mexico and Canada; with a policy of 'Risk Management' rather than one of prevention.
Part two delved a little further into the fact that the SPP agreement now mentions our water as a 'good' and all 'goods' are part of the NAFTA deal.
Part three discussed the plans for a global government with the world being divided into trading blocks, and the increasing police presence in Canada.
Part four was a continuation of the concerns of a different style of policing and the fact that our Internet use may be monitored.
In part six we witnessed the stormtroopers trying to box in a crowd of protesters, and using pepper spray and tear gas without provocation.
Part seven reveals how provocateurs were used to incite the crowd, which in turn would justify the use of physical force to break up a peaceful demonstration.
In part eight (above) the discussion turns to the militarization of our police. The gentleman being interviewed states that he has been in a lot of protests, but found it alarming that our police now treat them as the 'enemy' and that their movements are more indicative of an army.
Journalist Jonathon Narvey wrote in the Vancouver Sun recently: A mob of demonstrators blocked the Olympic torch relay last week and protests are expected to continue from now until the Olympics are done. Which brings us to the main question: What is the point of these protests?
Plenty of demonstrators seem incensed at the money spent on the Olympics instead of, say, health care, education or housing. But that money has already been spent. And it's not like the protesters are going to be able to actually prevent the Olympics from taking place. So what do you think the demonstrators want? Isn't the traditional media falling down on the job here in terms of probing the protesters with basic questions?
Our media would always listen to and report both sides of the story. But now that Mrs. Peacock's Kindergarten class is allowing the PMO to write all their copy and take all their photos, they are content to just eat cookies and hope they don't pee in their pants. We'll learn all we need to know in tomorrows edition of Pravda Ca-Na-Da.
Besides the Bush administration's imperial aims and permanent war on the world, add the one at home below the radar. Its weapons include the WTO, NAFTA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI, CIA, NSA, NORTHCOM, militarized state and local police, National Guard forces, paramilitary mercenaries like Blackwater USA, and all other repressive instruments of state power and control. They target the people of three nations slowly becoming one headquartered in Washington. That's the apparent aim of those in power here wanting one continent, "indivisible" minus old-fashioned ideas like "liberty and justice for all" we used to believe in when, as kids, we recited our "Pledge of Allegiance." They now have a whole new meaning. They're just words drummed into young minds hoping they'll still believe them when they're old enough to know better.
Part one dealt with the 'harmonization' of safety standards between the US, Mexico and Canada; with a policy of 'Risk Management' rather than one of prevention.
Part two delved a little further into the fact that the SPP agreement now mentions our water as a 'good' and all 'goods' are part of the NAFTA deal.
Part three discussed the plans for a global government with the world being divided into trading blocks, and the increasing police presence in Canada.
Part four was a continuation of the concerns of a different style of policing and the fact that our Internet use may be monitored.
In part six we witnessed the stormtroopers trying to box in a crowd of protesters, and using pepper spray and tear gas without provocation.
Part seven (above) reveals how provocateurs were used to incite the crowd, which in turn would justify the use of physical force to break up a peaceful demonstration. We should all be outraged over this. It was an abuse of police power, and what is even more troubling, is the fact that they were allowed to get away with it.
Opposition members can no longer protest these things in Parliament or the Reformers immediately pounce on them, having it put on record that they are anti-police, anti-RCMP and anti-Canadian.
We are allowing Stephen Harper to run his government like he has a dictatorship. This is not hyperbole. Sadly, it is fact.
And all of those who sit with their arms crossed on election day, too apathetic to vote, will be the ones who scream the loudest over the dire affects of a Harper Majority. Shame.
The Union of BC Indian Chiefs and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association are calling for the public release of a police videotape showing officers using a Taser to subdue a man six years ago in an RCMP detachment in Prince George.
Clayton Alvin Willey, 33, died on July 22, 2003, about 16 hours after he was picked up by police for causing a disturbance on the streets of Prince George.
According to the coroner's report, Willey died from a massive heart attack brought on by a cocaine overdose.
But Grand Chief Stewart Phillip questions the way authorities handled the investigation into the death, pointing out Willey was stunned twice with a Taser by police while he was tied up inside the RCMP detachment.
'It was very very difficult to watch and it stirred a deep anger within myself.'— Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
Phillip was able to watch the RCMP video of the incident at the force's headquarters in Vancouver (with the permission of Clayton Willey's mother), and he now believes it's time police released the recording.
"I can tell you it was sickening. It was very very difficult to watch and it stirred a deep anger within myself."
Coroner's inquest questioned
Officers testified at a 2004 coroner's inquest into the death that Willey fought with police, even after he was "hogtied" and taken to the detachment. They said police used a Taser on Willey because they were unable to control him during his transfer from the police vehicle into the detachment.
David Eby, the executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberites Association, also believes the coroner's inquest and the police investigation were both flawed and would like to see the case re-opened.
"There are many significant oversights, we believe, in the RCMP investigation that was done … and in the coroner's inquest investigation that was done in this death," said Eby.
He said the case is one more example of the need for an independent police accountability system.
Part one dealt with the 'harmonization' of safety standards between the US, Mexico and Canada; with a policy of 'Risk Management' rather than one of prevention.
Part two delved a little further into the fact that the SPP agreement now mentions our water as a 'good' and all 'goods' are part of the NAFTA deal.
Part three discussed the plans for a global government with the world being divided into trading blocks, and the increasing police presence in Canada.
Part four was a continuation of the concerns of a different style of policing and the fact that our Internet use appears to be monitored.
In part six we witness the stormtroopers trying to box in the crowd, and using pepper spray and tear gas without provocation. Grassroots protests are a vital part of a democracy. Once we lose our right to protest, we have officially lost all of our rights.
They had an important message to deliver in Montebello. Stephen Harper was selling away our natural resources that belong to all Canadians. Everyone should be speaking out against this.
But it also speaks to something else that is quite different from previous protests in this country. Mrs. Peacock's Kindergarten Class no longer listens to their side. They report on the protests, but paint the citizens as common criminals. In fact, many of these demonstrations are not covered at all. That may be the real story here. Pravda Ca-Na-Da is not doing it's job.
A mob of demonstrators blocked the Olympic torch relay last week and protests are expected to continue from now until the Olympics are done. Which brings us to the main question: What is the point of these protests?
Plenty of demonstrators seem incensed at the money spent on the Olympics instead of, say, health care, education or housing. But that money has already been spent. And it's not like the protesters are going to be able to actually prevent the Olympics from taking place. So what do you think the demonstrators want? Isn't the traditional media falling down on the job here in terms of probing the protesters with basic questions? For instance, in this Ottawa Citizen report:
Police rerouted the torch to avoid a clash with the shouting protesters — wearing masks or face paint and hoisting signs — who had blocked the route by gathering at one of the intersections of the route.
So, what precisely were the protesters shouting? What were the messages on their signs? And later in the same report:
Events at the afternoon Five-Ring Circus anti-Olympics protest were much more peaceful, with speeches and "poverty games."
OK, then. What precisely was the Five-Ring Circus? What does one do at a "poverty games"? Could we at least get a quote or two from those speeches? Instead of this information, we're treated to a story in which Olympics protesters are mostly made to look like incoherent lunatics bent on little more than venting anarchic rage against the cops (which undoubtedly some members are -- but all of them?). One incident involving marbles being tossed at horse-riding police (presumably to bring down the animal and its rider, causing injury or death) is being particularly cited as an ominous sign of the lengths protesters are going to go to in order to make their point. Later in the report cited above, the specter of terrorism is raised:
Bomb-sniffing dogs swept the torch route, said Hamilton, noting that "in past Olympic events there has been terrorist activity."
This kind of reporting certainly leaves one with an impression of the protesters as unreasonable malcontents, and potentially very dangerous ones at that -- as though thrown marbles are just a prelude to fertilizer bombs. There's no question that the Olympics are a target for terrorists, but I'd be awfully surprised to find out that the ringleaders of the Olympics protests received training from Al Queda in the untamed borderlands of Pakistan.
Overall, I'm a supporter of the Olympics and recognize that there will be benefits accruing from the games, not least for those private business interests in a position to capitalize on the event. I also have very little sympathy for the protesters at the extreme end, with their slogan of "No Olympics on stolen Native Land", who seem to imply all Olympics supporters are fascists. Some of these people will be satisfied with nothing less than a wholesale handover of British Columbia to Native groups. But as usual, the best response to the lunatic fringe is to let them spout off -- and when their ideas don't find traction, they can go back to living under a rock. (What a horrible thing to say)
That said, I recognize there are plenty of good reasons to criticize these Olympics and you don't have to be an anarchist or terrorist to do so. We've already seen impacts on freedom of speech due to IOC rules.Taxpayers will also be on the hook for huge debts. And the amount of money expended on Olympic officials and delegations brings to mind the disgusting compensation arrangements made by financial sector parasites. I'm looking forward to hearing more about the real story behind these protests.
Part one dealt with the 'harmonization' of safety standards between the US, Mexico and Canada; with a policy of 'Risk Management' rather than one of prevention.
Part two delved a little further into the fact that the SPP agreement now mentions our water as a 'good' and all 'goods' are part of the NAFTA deal.
Part three discussed the plans for a global government with the world being divided into trading blocks, and the increasing police presence in Canada.
Part four was a continuation of the concerns of a different style of policing and the fact that our internet use appears to be monitored.
I loved the guy in the above video who was talking about micro chips being put in your body. It made me chuckle, but he's obviously passionate about losing his civil liberties, even if he is a little over the top. However, while I understand the need for increased securty around George Bush, I was appalled at the intimidation by the stormtroopers. Sure didn't look like Canada.
There are other grave concerns with the new face of Canada .... law and order ... strong aggressive military ... Gone are the notions of a peaceful nation.
No doubt we will see a lot more of this with the Olympics this winter. There are already startling investigations on private citizens in the name of security.
November 3, 2009 The Business of Intelligence Corporate intelligence-gathering harkens by Tim Groves The Dominion
TORONTO—In the US, a new model of law enforcement has emerged in which police, military, security contractors and large corporations are collaborating on intelligence gathering. Are the 2010 Olympics ushering this new paradigm into Canada?
The security committee for the 2010 Olympics Task Force, based in Washington State, is at the forefront of planning US security efforts for the games. According to The Globe and Mail this group brings together government agencies from both sides of the border, more than 100 from the US and 17 from Canada.
Documents acquired by The Dominion reveal that this committee consists of not only the US Military, Canadian Forces, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but also “Pacific Northwest Private Sector Company Volunteers.” The amount the US will spend on Olympic security has not been disclosed.
“The safety and security of the 2010 Olympics and the United States is at risk if we do not take direct action,” testified Jeffery Slotnick, a member of the committee, at a Congressional hearing on Olympics security in March 2008.
Video of the hearing showed Slotnick wearing a dark blue suit and glasses. His bald head and black moustache hinted at the decades he spent in the military. He is president of Setracon Inc., a Tacoma, Washington-based company that contracts out security personnel and trains private security, military and police. Slotnick explained some of the reasons the US should be involved in Olympic security, including the potential for attacks or natural disasters that could impact US businesses and have significant economic costs to the region. He called for increased funding to prepare for securing the games, plans to expedite border crossings, and a greater role for the private sector in information sharing.
“[The] private sector has tremendous awareness of what is going on... the opportunity to share in both directions is key and critical,” said Slotnick, emphasizing the need for corporate involvement in intelligence gathering for the Vancouver Olympics.
“Boeing, Microsoft, [and] Starbucks ... possess significant intelligence assets. In many cases, individuals from these organizations have higher security clearances than law enforcement officials. It would be unfortunate not to capitalize on these assets...”
It is perhaps not surprising that Boeing, a defence contractor, and Microsoft, a computer technology corporation, have large intelligence and security operations. Starbucks, on the other hand, runs a global chain of coffee shops. Yet they too have a program to identify and mitigate risks to the company.
During a 2007 security conference in Colorado Springs, Starbucks revealed part of their security operation includes monitoring retail stores, roasting plants and container loading sites from a “central security facility.” Press releases from the Industrial Workers of the World, the union representing some Starbucks workers, claim the company conducts surveillance of union activities.
“Are we trying to deputize every private company to be minor league James Bonds against citizens of our own countries?” asked Mike German, reached by phone from Washington, DC.
German is a former FBI agent who now works for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “From a security perspective this is a nightmare; I mean, you are actually giving private companies, who operate on profit margins, access to extremely valuable information.”
“I am sure the data [US] companies collect on Canadian citizens is routinely shared with their headquarters in the United States,” he said. “Is consumer information being collected in Canada that is shared across the border and [then] being brought back to [Canadian] law enforcement in violation of privacy regulations? If the answer is 'we don't know', that's a problem, and if the answer is 'we don't think so', that is still a problem. Because nobody is overseeing these intelligence activities it makes it very difficult to know the extent of the abuse.”
When asked about their involvement in 2010 security, Starbucks responded with a statement reading “...we cannot discuss specific security measures Starbucks is taking for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games.” They explained that they are prioritizing “the safety and security of our [employees] and customers,” and are “working with and will rely on the direction of local authorities and other official sources.”
Boeing and Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment.
The efforts to integrate multinational corporations into Olympic security have broad implications. The US has done much to involve the private sector in their security infrastructure. Washington State is at the forefront of blurring the lines between private and fusion security.
Slotnick informed the Congressional hearing that a “fusion centre” called the Washington Joint Analytical Center plays a role in coordinating intelligence with Canadian authorities. This organization has since been renamed the Washington State Fusion Center (WSFC).
Fusion centres emerged after September 11, 2001, as places for the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, military, local and state police, and in some cases private sector companies, to jointly gather and respond to intelligence on terrorism and other criminal activities. Currently over 40 fusion centres exist in the US.
While fusion centres are generally not well known, criticism of them has started to emerge.
An ACLU report entitled What's Wrong with Fusion Centers? compares them to COINTELPRO, a controversial domestic intelligence program run by the FBI between 1956 and 1971.
The report outlines problems with fusion centres including: excessive secrecy, military involvement in law enforcement, corporations sharing private information on their customers and employees, and “policy shopping.”
Policy shopping is the practice of manipulating the differences between laws regulating various agencies and jurisdictions, in order to find loopholes in privacy legislation.
According to an article by the Center for Investigative Reporting, at the 2008 Republican National Convention a Minnesota fusion centre undertook data mining on protesters and requested their police partners conduct preemptive intelligence gathering.
Police then infiltrated groups, tapped information exchanges and conducted questionable searches. To justify these activities, some protesters were equated with terrorists.
The private sector is involved in the WSFC. Internal documents made available through Wikileaks show several of their intelligence analysts are contracted from security firms.
An article published at securitymanagement.com said the head of WSFC was "'adamant' about getting Washington State’s major private sector entities involved." It also revealed that Alaska Airlines, Amazon.com and Starbucks have shown interest in working with WSFC and that efforts have been made to give Boeing clearance to place a full-time analyst inside the organization.
A 2007 Washington State Preparedness Report revealed that the WSFC “...is integrated into the planning and intelligence gathering structure pertaining to... the 2010 Winter Olympics.” However, this is not the only area where the WSFC is involved in Canadian security matters. WSFC plays a role in the Northwest Warning Alert and Response Network (NWWARN), a “regional information fusion centre” which shares intelligence between the public and private sectors, and rapidly disseminates alerts during disasters.
NWWARN originally operated exclusively in Washington State. The Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) was instrumental in expanding NWWARN into BC, Alberta, the Yukon and Saskatchewan in Canada, and Oregon, Montana, Idaho and Alaska in the US. PNWER is a forum that brings together business leaders and elected officials from these western provinces and states to impact policy decisions. Atlantica is a similar organization on the east coast, and there is talk of creating such organizations all along the Canada-US border.
These “cross-border regions” build upon free-trade agreements such as NAFTA, finding ways to harmonize policies to fit the needs of business interests without high profile changes to treaties.
NWWARN's benevolent-sounding mission to rapidly disseminate information during disasters is giving the private sector a growing role in policing, not only in the US but also in Canada. This permanent intelligence network works in a wide range of areas, but in his testimony Slotnick explained it would play an important role in Olympics intelligence gathering.
Canada has welcomed US involvement in Olympic security. In practical terms, this seems to include preemptive intelligence gathering. It is unclear to what extent multinational corporations will be involved in this, but it is undeniable that the Olympics are seeing an increased use of the fusion centre model of law enforcement in Canada.
“Obviously the Olympics are political," said German. "You have to expect that people are going to want to engage in the debate and discuss the issues that are important to them, and to treat those people as if they are criminals or terrorists is inappropriate.”
Part one dealt with the 'harmonization' of safety standards between the US, Mexico and Canada; with a policy of 'Risk Management' rather than one of prevention.
Part two delved a little further into the fact that the SPP agreement now mentions our water as a 'good' and all 'goods' are part of the NAFTA deal.
But what the video also revealed is the fact that we are losing our civil liberties, when it comes to the Internet. Social media, like Facebook and Myspace are being monitored for dissidents. This follows with another article I read recently, about secret negotiations that threaten anyone on the net. This is Canada? My God, what happened to us?
Canada's Most Secret Treaty Why don't they want us to know about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement? By Michael Geist, 10 Nov 2009
Last week, Canadian officials travelled to Seoul for the latest round of closed-door negotiations on an international treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). While battling commercial counterfeiting would seem like a good idea, the ACTA process has been marked by unprecedented secrecy as well as leaks revealing that the treaty is really about copyright rather than counterfeiting.
From the moment the talks began last year, observers noted the approach was far different from virtually any other international treaty negotiation. Rather than negotiating in an international venue such as the United Nations and opening the door to any interested countries, ACTA partners consisted of a small group of countries (Canada, United States, European Union, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Morocco, and Singapore) meeting in secret and opposed broadening the process.
The substance of the treaty was also accorded the highest level of secrecy. Draft documents were not released to the public and even the locations of negotiations were often kept under wraps. In fact, the U.S. government refused to disclose information about the treaty on national security grounds.
The leaky truth
Despite the efforts to keep the public in the dark, there has been a steady stream of leaks. Earlier this year, it was revealed criminal provisions would target both commercial and non-commercial infringement, creating the prospect of jail time even in cases where there was no intent to profit. Further, border guards would be given new powers to search people and seize products as they enter a country.
Just as negotiators were sitting down to discuss ACTA's Internet-related provisions last Wednesday, information on those proposals also leaked. The disclosures were the most disturbing to date, since they conclusively demonstrated that ACTA is fundamentally not a counterfeiting treaty, but rather one focused on copyright.
The Internet provisions feature specific requirements on the legal protection for digital locks that extend far beyond those required under international law. Moreover, they would move Canada toward a three strikes and you're out approach that requires Internet providers to cut off subscriber access on three allegations of infringement. Canada's successful "notice and notice" approach to addressing infringing content hosted by Internet providers -- adopted by both Conservative and Liberal copyright bills -- would be rejected in favour of a U.S. model that requires removal of content without evidence of infringement.
Sovereignty in the balance
The combined effect of these provisions would dramatically reshape Canadian copyright law and eliminate sovereign choice on domestic copyright policy. These issues were at the heart of thousands of submissions as part of this summer's national copyright consultation. However, if Canada agrees to ACTA, flexibility would be lost and the government would be forced to implement a host of new reforms.
Such an approach contradicts recent comments from Industry Minister Tony Clement. In an interview earlier this month, he stated, "Canada and its international trading partners each have distinct copyright policies, laws and approaches for addressing the challenges and opportunities of the Internet. Canada's current framework provides strong intellectual property protections and our copyright laws apply in the digital context, including on the Internet. Moreover, Canada's regime for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights is fully consistent with its international obligations."
Yet the ACTA provisions seek to remove those distinctions. If adopted, the robust copyright debate that occurred over the summer would be rendered moot. Instead, it would appear that a made-in-Canada approach would give way to decisions made last week at secret meetings in Seoul.
(Michael Geist, whose column on digital policy and law runs every Tuesday on The Tyee, holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law)
In discussing the documentary The Nation's Deathbed, the introduction or trailer outlined the SPP and the danger it imposed on Canadians. Signed by Paul Martin in 2005, it was completely hijacked by Stephen Harper (with Bush and Calderon), who has since signed away the rights to our natural resources.
Part one of The Nation's Deathbed deals with the 'harmonization' of safety standards between the US, Mexico and Canada; with a policy of 'Risk Management' rather than one of prevention. In other words, as we saw with the Listeriosis outbreak, all industries will be allowed to inspect themselves, but they then must "clean up their own mess". Naturally this is putting our lives at risk, but that's not really their concern.
Part two delves a little further into the fact that the SPP agreement now mentions our water as a 'good' and all 'goods' are part of the NAFTA deal. So even if we need our water, we don't get first dibs, and if we run low, we have to purchase it from someplace else, while our own is being sent to Mexico or the US. In fact, NAFTA's proportionality clause, makes it illegal for us to do anything but. Before becoming Prime Minister Harper was quoted as promoting: "Continental economic and security integration" with the U.S. as well as a "continental energy strategy" that should be broadened "to a range of other natural resources."
The above video is part three and discusses the plans for a global government with the world being divided into trading blocks. We already have a European Union and are one step closer to a North American Union. The Pan-Asian is also in the works and I'm sure Africa will be next.
At one time I dismissed the notion of a 'New World Order' as being science fiction or futuristic nonsense, but what ever you want to call it, Canada is trading her sovereignty in the interest of a free market system. And all of this is being done without any input from the people. Even in the US there is a grassroots movement to demand accountability and Obama has promised more transparency in future negotiations, but we'll see. Don't expect any from the Harper government.
Part three ends with the increasing police presence in Canada. It's everywhere. Harper will suggest that he travels and campaigns in a bubble for security, but as we've seen, it's not about protecting him from a potential assassin, but about protecting him from the media. Right from the beginning:
Harper’s staff, media battle over access issues March 27 2006 Canadian Press
Security on Parliament Hill barred reporters from attending a pair of Stephen Harper photo opportunities Monday as the Prime Ministers Office flexed its media messaging muscles.
The made-for-TV confrontation between security and reporters outside Harper’s office door graphically illustrated the deteriorating relations between a PMO seeking total message control and news media defending their hard-won access.
It’s a battle that may be beginning to resonate beyond the cozy precincts of the Peace Tower as the Conservatives threaten to hold secret cabinet meetings and withhold information about visiting heads of state.
In part one of the documentary The Nation's Deathbed, we witness political activism against the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), with the battle cry "People united will never be defeated." A powerful message but is the message falling on deaf ears? Latest polls certainly would indicate that, though polls outside of an election are rarely indicative of future election results.
In 2005, the new Reform-Conservative Party was at 23% and Stephen Harper's leadership at 14%, and we all know how that turned out.
But another important part of this segment, is the new Canadian standards. At one time a CSA label on a product, really meant something. It may have hindered the ability of our trading partners to market goods here, but we didn't care. Part of our sovereignty was about the safety of Canadians.
However, there has been an erosion of those standards, and in 2007, when Harper met with then U.S. President Bush and Mexican President Calderon in Montibello, a deal was struck that pretty much eliminated government standards on goods from these two countries. Many believe that H1N1 is a direct result of that and in fact some have dubbed it the 'NAFTA Flu'.
We saw evidence of these new product safety standards with the Listeriosis outbreak, which actually provides an excellent example of how the new agreement works.
Instead of government officials doing food inspection, the move is toward allowing food processors (and indeed all industry) to inspect themselves. Then when something goes wrong, which it inevitably does, a scheme they call 'Risk Management' takes over. According to the Council of Canadians:
"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."
Under the RM plan, industry can police themselves but if something goes wrong, they will bear the brunt of it. Hence the Maple Leaf ads, that gave the appearance of a company that cared. In fact these ads were a mandatory part of the new agreement.
And before we think that taxpayers will benefit from not having to pay public servants to act as food police, remember that 22 people died from that tainted meat. And how many more outbreaks are there in the works, from listeriosis or some other contaminant? What will the death toll be then? There is a reason to have these controls and to have these inspections.
Listeriosis Timeline and Why a 'Risk Management' Scenario is Wrong:
3. Before the Listeriosis outbreak became public, a biologist working for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, blew the whistle on the cutbacks that were removing food inspections from government responsibility, and turning them over to the industry itself. He was fired.
4. News of the outbreak of Listeriosis from tainted meat hits, and in a conference call Gerry Ritz, the minister in charge of food safety, finds it all rather amusing.
5. A year after the outbreak the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is stating that they are not being given the resources to do their job (sound familiar?) and threaten that another outbreak is likely.
6. We were warned that this type of 'privatization' was just the beginning: "The listeriosis outbreak that has killed 20 Canadians could be "the tip of the iceberg" both in terms of food safety dangers and risks from other federal cutbacks, according to Agriculture Union President and food inspector Bob Kingston."
7. Harper sets up a bogus panel to investigate the situation, but stacked the team with his own staff.
9. The final report makes the recommendation that they hire an independent auditor to ensure outbreaks like this are prevented. Ritz gives the job to his own assistant, which effectively means that they inspect themselves, and it is business as usual. Underfunded agency and the industry still inspects itself.
Now before you think that Gerry Ritz's callousness was unique, it is not. In order for the neo-conservative movement to be successful, you have to remove the human element. The Queen of the neo-cons, Margaret Thatcher, once said: "There is no such thing as society."
Another neo-con guru, Roger Douglas, told his disciples "Don't blink".
The SPP has actually disbanded, but not the principles. They have just been rolled into a juiced up NAFTA, and the fight continues.
Murray Dobbin believes we still have a chance to turn this movement around, but we must first get people to pay attention, and above all VOTE. I can't stress that enough. Apathy is probably more dangerous than the SPP.
As I've mentioned in several posts, SPP is pretty much the selling off of our country, giving the U.S. control of our natural resources, and unheard of rights to enter our country; whenever they want, to arrest our citizens and who knows what. Pierre Trudeau would be rolling over in his grave.
Something like this would never have happened under his watch.
Well I did find some temporary good news. A posting in September, that because of the economic downturn, the SPP was officially dead. However, I also discovered that it would appear that the mandate of the SPP has simply been transferred to that of NAFTA, giving it more bite.
Unfortunately any news that our country is being dissected and sold off by Stephen Harper is being missed by the mainstream media, so you have to go to the civilian media, which is growing all the time. This should be a wake up for Media outlets to smarten up and start informing us or close up shop. I'm sure Paris Hilton is eager to have someone else follow her around with a camera.
With virtually no fanfare or media analysis, one of the most transformative agreements ever signed by Canada and the U.S. (and Mexico) is officially dead. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the formal expression of a corporate lobbying campaign called deep integration, is no more. Its official U.S. government website declared last month: "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is no longer an active initiative... There will not be any updates to this site." (It's been edited since to be a little less brutal) ....
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.
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.
For those who believe that corporations are running out country, on many levels, they are.
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), appears to be ensuring present and future military contracts, and Conservative Rob Merrifield is working on an agreement whereby Canada will go to war whenever the U.S. does.
The Reform/Alliance have always supported what they referred to as an Angloshere defense strategy, and the new Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), also allows the American FBI to enter Canada to arrest or interrogate Canadians.
However, we didn't learn of any of this from our own government. 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. "I can assure you that everything that is done on Canadian soil in relation to security and safety investigations are done in accordance with our law."
As well as the reference to "routine investigations" inside Canadian territory it also says that about 30 per cent of FBI agents crossing the border to work in Canada failed to get "country clearance." In other words, they didn't get Canada's approval.
The inspector general's report documents 135 unapproved FBI crossings and says there is no sign the crossings will stop. Canadian officials say they have made no protest to the U.S. government about FBI agents operating without permission on Canadian soil.
According to the report, the FBI has struggled to keep up with its Canadian workload despite opening two new branch offices. It pursues thousands of leads a year in Canada, far more than in any other country except the United States.
