DEEP INTEGRATION - that is what the leaders, business and political, of Canada have planned for the future of Canada.  

Check out:  

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives http://www.policyalternatives.ca.

Polaris Institute http://www.polarisinstitute.org

Council of Canadians www.canadians.org

Deepintegration@list.web.net mailing list! http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/deepintegration

As Canadians watch their daily news — the same sex marriage debate, the continuing saga of equalization payments and the fight over splitting the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in two — the future of the country is being decided elsewhere by unelected corporate power brokers. This particular future is called "deep integration" and is backed by the most powerful business groups, think tanks and foundations in the country. The most recent manifestation of this betrayal of Canada is called the Task Force on the Future of North America. Its leaked report shows the plan in its most refined form to date. The "team" backing this annexation initiative is politically ambidextrous, which signals the élites' unanimity. Two of the heavy hitters on the Task Force are John Manley, quite likely the next leader of the federal Liberals, and Michael Wilson, former Tory finance minister. It also includes former Quebec Premier Pierre Mark Johnson. Two of the six Canadian members are energy CEOs — just to indicate to George Bush that the oil companies run Canada, too. The fact that Canadians are more anti-American now that any time in the past 50 years has had no impact on the plans of the annexationists in our midst. It doesn't matter that huge majorities of Canadians want nothing to do with more integration with the rogue nation to the south of us. The democratic imperative is well and truly dead amongst the high rollers who, having failed to meet the competitive challenge of free trade, have adopted a new slogan: If you can't beat 'em, join em. Water, power, culture on the table The deep integration initiative was publicly launched in early 2002 with an opinion piece in The Globe and Mail by the C.D. Howe Institute's Wendy Dobson. A former staffer in Paul Martin's finance department, she described the thrust of the initiative this way: "Instead of waiting to be told what's expected of us [by the Americans], Canadian governments and industry should prepare for this possibility in a proactive way." She discussed the "Big Idea": that in order to get the Americans' attention we should give them everything we think they might want and then pray they give us real, unimpeded access to their market. The Task Force — co-chaired by John Manley — is trilateral and reports not to governments but to the Council on Foreign Affairs (CFA), one of the most influential think tanks in Washington. The CFA is one of three co-sponsors of the Task Force along with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) and the Mexican Council on Foreign Affairs. The ubiquitous Tom d'Aquino of the CCCE (formerly the BCNI) is a vice-chair. There isn't much new in the summary report of the Task Force's first meeting, held last October in Toronto. But it does focus in on the most critical features of what Canada's business leaders want. Among the most controversial: eliminating the current NAFTA exemptions for culture and certain sectors of agriculture. Another is expanding the egregious energy provisions of NAFTA — which guarantee the U.S. an ever-increasing percentage of our gas and oil production regardless of Canadian needs — to other resources, including water. Messrs. d'Aquino and Manley also want to offer the Americans the same deal on electricity that they already have with natural gas — through a North American electricity grid. The initiative is driven by the post-9/11 geopolitical atmosphere and was first launched just months after the attack. The report states plainly that "security considerations trump other issues." The thinking behind this annexationist plan suggests that the only way Canada will not be hurt by U.S. security concerns is to adopt them as our own — and redefine ourselves as North Americans. Kids to learn continental virtue Indeed one of the most perverse parts of the plan would see the education system hijacked to implant in the minds of young Canadians the idea that they are, actually, North Americans: "Participants agreed that progress on this front will require effort within the education system [including] supplements to the standard curriculum." Talk about social engineering. Thomas Axworthy, another Task force member, and a long time advocate of creeping annexation, is going to "work" on this idea. A North American passport would also be part of the effort to erase any vestige of Canadian identity and replace it with one that would inevitably be American — not North American. Until recently, Bay Street's annexation initiative has been almost exclusively a private affair — the CCCE, think tanks, business columnists and now the Task Force. But the proponents believe that the time is ripe to engage the three governments and make the process a formal political project. In January the CCCE's d'Aquino initiated news coverage of the idea of a trilateral summit of Bush, Martin and Mexican President Vincente Fox. D' Aquino claimed that Bush was interested in calling a summit this year on "the scope and extent of a major initiative to forge a new economic and security partnership within North America." This is the most dangerous development in the annexation push so far. Conventional wisdom has suggested that the U.S. was simply not interested. If Bush is suddenly willing to talk about the idea there is only one reason: Behind the scenes our quisling economic elite has promised the U.S. such huge concessions on security, energy and water that they can't afford to ignore them. Sound the alarm. Murray Dobbin is the author of Paul Martin: CEO for Canada? This article has appeared in The Tyee.

http://www.canadians.org/documents/TF_ReportFeb05.pdf

Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda? by Michel Chossudovsky http://www.globalresearch.ca 23 November 2004 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html 

 SUMMARY For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that US Northern Command would have a jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. The US Northern Command's jurisdiction as announced by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need." (Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft- lagasse1.htm Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid) Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States". The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons. The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel responsible for detailed joint military planning". Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP). The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established "military contingency plans" which would be activated "on both sides of the Canada-US border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat". Under the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat scenarios" would involve: "coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada." In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians. What these developments suggest is that the process of "binational integration" is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada's jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed? Canada and NORTHCOM Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG's two years mandate. No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being "in the national interest". It "will create jobs for Canadians" and "will make Canada more secure". Meanwhile debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield will serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which would, in any event imply Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including hikes in defense spending which would allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon. And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation: * Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security. * US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement. * Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa. But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation. The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc. Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004) Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists. LAST SECTION OF REPORT [some of this is summarized above in last foud paragraphs of the Summary but it bears reading in its entirety ] "Integration" or the "Annexation" of Canada? The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. This is not a rhetorical issue. This project is confirmed by official military and national security documents. The military blueprint for global US domination is outlined in the Project of the New American Century (PNAC). (see http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf ) Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. It is worth recalling in this regard, that throughout history, the "conquering nation" has expanded on its immediate borders, acquiring control over contiguous territories. Military integration is intimately related to the ongoing process of integration in the spheres of trade, finance and investment. Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian economy is already in the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the interests of big business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the US. Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the USA. The US- Canada FTA and NAFTA has not only opened up new avenues for US corporate expansion, it has laid the groundwork under the existing North American umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military command structures, public security, intelligence and law enforcement. No doubt, Canada's entry into US Northern Command will be presented to public opinion as part of Canada-US "cooperation", as something which is "in the national interest", which "will create jobs for Canadians", and "will make Canada more secure". Meanwhile debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield will serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which would, in any event imply Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including hikes in defense spending which be would allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon. And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation: Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security. US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement. Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa. But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation. The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc. Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004) Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists. Note The purpose of this report is to encourage discussion and debate in Canada and Quebec on the implications of military integration with the US at this critical juncture in our history. The notion of "sovereignty" presented in this article does not constitute an endorsement of any particular constitutional arrangement or political platform. "Sovereignty" is meant in the broadest sense, in relation to the aspirations of Canadians and Quebecois. It is associated with a broad commitment to peace, justice and social equality. Moreover, it is understood that any meaningful nationalism and sovereignty in Quebec is out of question under the militarisation of North America. This report is also presented in solidarity with the ongoing efforts by the American people, who are fighting within the US for their own sovereignty, against their government and the US led war agenda. Email this article to a friend To become a Member of Global Research To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca . For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com © Copyright MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY CRG 2004.

See also [1] CROSSING THE LINE A CITIZEN'S INQUIRY ON CANADA-U.S. RELATIONS http://www.canadians.org/browse_categories.htm?COC_token=coc_token&ste p=2&catid=356&iscat=1 "Deep integration" or "assimilation" with the United States is largely being promoted by Canada’s corporate elite. While there is little public awareness of this issue, lobby groups are already promoting the idea in the U.S. It is time to reflect on the current state of Canada-U.S. relations and the impact on our Canadian identity, before we move even further down this road. [2] http://www.canadians.org/documents/DI_Tour_Sessions.pdf Colony or Country: The Future of Canada - U.S. Relations Strategy Sessions Report. As part of the campaign against the so-called "deep integration" (more on that name below), the Council of Canadians embarked on a seven-city tour titled Colony or Country: The Future of Canada-U.S. Relations. [3] The Canada We Want What’s the Big Idea? [25 page report by Maude Barlow] http://www.canadians.org/display_document.htm?COC_token=coc_token&id=8 85&isdoc=1&catid=245 The same economic and political elite that advanced the Canada-U.S. free trade agenda 20 years ago is now pushing an even more dangerous agenda. The C.D. Howe Institute calls it a "Big Idea." The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) calls it the "North American Security and Prosperity Initiative." The new deal envisaged by these powerful right-wing think tanks and lobby groups, and supported by various newspaper editorial boards and members of the Liberal and Conservative parties, including Mulroney, would include a greater integration of the Canadian Armed Forces into U.S. military strategies, new security measures in Canada akin to those implemented by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and an iron-clad guarantee of an increasing supply of Canadian energy resources to the United States. [4] 2: The "Big Idea", the "Grand Bargain", Our Next PM and the Vanishing Country by Mel Hurtig http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d0912mh.htm The 72nd Annual Couchiching Conference Orillia, Ontario, August 8th, 2003 Only the most na•ve of the most na•ve fail to understand that increasing American ownership and control and increasing economic, military and other integration will inevitably lead to increasing across-the-board policy harmonization. And, to repeat, it won't be the Americans harmonizing to Canadian policies and standards. The progressive erosion of Canadian sovereignty will be almost impossible to reverse. The ability of Canadians to act in their own best interests will diminish daily. The vitally important and valued differences between Canada and the United States will soon disappear. [5] http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=cfac587 8-d471-4e58-9e9d-8775291a5b8c NATIONAL POST Latest News 'NAFTA-plus' talks aim for security pact Continental customs, energy, immigration policies on agenda of group co-chaired by Manley Robert Fife CanWest News Service Saturday, October 16, 2004 Senior business and political leaders from Canada, the United States and Mexico are joining forces to establish a blueprint for a powerhouse North American trading bloc to take on the world, shielded by a Fortress America-style defence perimeter. The trinational task force, which has the full backing of the three governments, has been charged with creating a road map toward a continent-wide customs-free zone with a common approach to trade, energy, immigration, law enforcement and security that would virtually eliminate existing national borders. The idea of a "NAFTA plus" perimeter, including a continental energy pact, was first proposed by Paul Cellucci, the U.S. Ambassador, several years ago. .... prominent members of the task force include former U.S. ambassadors Gordon Giffin and Tom Niles, former Tory finance minister Michael Wilson, Tom d'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and former Alberta treasurer Jim Dinning. Brian Mulroney has also proposed a customs union and new security arrangements for the continent. [6] Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda? by Michel Chossudovsky http://www.globalresearch.ca 23 November 2004 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence. At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th, an understanding of these issues is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement. The purpose of this detailed report is to encourage discussion and debate in Canada and Quebec, as well as in the US. Kindly circulate this article widely. [7] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41447 FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN Meet NAFTA on steroids New U.S.- Mexico-Canada security plan would virtually eliminate national borders Posted: November 15, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern The "NAFTA-plus" plan has also been referred to as "deep integration." Skeptics see it as a plan to eliminate national sovereignty and erode the American concept of representative government accountable to the people under the framework of the Constitution. Discussions so far indicate that Canada, under the new agreement, would immediately sign on to the U.S. strategic missile defense initiative. Canada would also make its vast lumber resources available to the U.S. and Mexican markets and provide more open access to the northern neighbor's oil, natural gas and hydro-electric power resources. [Complete text below] ---------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41447 FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN Meet NAFTA on steroids New U.S.- Mexico-Canada security plan would virtually eliminate national borders Posted: November 15, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com – a journalist who has been developing sources around the world for almost 30 years. © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com WASHINGTON – North American national borders would be virtually eliminated under plans being considered by senior business and political leaders from Canada, the United States and Mexico for a "NAFTA-plus," continent-wide, customs-free zone with a common approach to trade, energy, immigration, law enforcement and security. A tri-national task force, chaired by former Liberal Party deputy prime minister John Manley, with the full backing of all three governments, is plotting the roadmap for this new, bolder alliance meant to compete with the European Union. William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts and Pedro Aspe, former Mexican finance minister, join Manley on the panel that reports directly to the Council on Foreign Relations. The mission has the formal blessing of Tom Ridge, U.S. Homeland Security secretary, who is close with President Bush. The committee is scheduled to issue its report next spring. The elimination of borders along the lines of the EU experiment seems to be high on the agenda of the panel. "I think we've had 11 years of incrementalism, and during that time we've seen the EU expand its borders, eliminate borders among (member) countries and launch a common currency," explains Manley in the diplomatic magazine Embassy. "We're going to have to provide a vision that is more bold than incrementalism. What's the choice? Europe has made enormous steps in the years since NAFTA was signed. China has been going through a transformative process. In Canada, our only leverage is access to the U.S. market. If we're not going to develop and pursue how we use our advantage of location to be the foundation for future prosperity, then we are going to have to figure out another vision." The "NAFTA-plus" plan has also been referred to as "deep integration." Skeptics see it as a plan to eliminate national sovereignty and erode the American concept of representative government accountable to the people under the framework of the Constitution. Discussions so far indicate that Canada, under the new agreement, would immediately sign on to the U.S. strategic missile defense initiative. Canada would also make its vast lumber resources available to the U.S. and Mexican markets and provide more open access to the northern neighbor's oil, natural gas and hydro-electric power resources. Other members of the task force include: Canadian Finance Minister Michael Wilson and Nelson Cunningham of Henry Kissinger's consulting firm, Kissinger McLarty Associates. Subscribe to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll. <><><><> [8] http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/rulemakers/682.html NAFTA Minus Crossborder Updater, Vol. 1, No. 7 May 09, 2003 By Laura Carlsen In his first public appearance after six weeks of convalescence, Mexico's President Vicente Fox grandiosely announced that the current phase of NAFTA is over, and that Mexico, the U.S., and Canada will embark in June on negotiations toward a "new phase of NAFTA." What's been dubbed as the "NAFTA Plus" would include, according to Fox, "more development, more trade, and more integration." The declaration caused immediate confusion among the other signatories of the agreement, and even within the Fox cabinet. Canadian officials stated to the Mexican press, "We don't know what he's referring to" and reported they have asked the Mexican government for clarification. The meeting scheduled for June actually addresses private-sector involvement in development, with Canada participating as an observer, and has no such grand plan on its agenda. Moreover, both the U.S. and Canada have reiterated their position not to renegotiate any part of NAFTA and neither has shown enthusiasm for Fox's "NAFTA Plus" agenda. Undaunted, the Fox cabinet quickly went to work to elaborate a policy to go along with the press declarations and two days later the Secretary of Economy unveiled intentions to seek "European Union- style" integration for North America, including a common currency, free transit, and immigration agreements. The NAFTA Plus agenda is being pushed by Mexico, precisely when civil- society groups are pressuring to downscale NAFTA. The huge farmers' movement of the past six months demanded renegotiation of the NAFTA chapter on agriculture and, despite signing an agreement that does not include reopening the trade agreement, many organizations continue to insist on major changes. What the farmers want above all is to exclude corn and beans, which are currently scheduled for zero tariffs by the year 2008. They argue that tariff reduction in these basic staples has led to massive imports to the detriment of small farmers and national food sovereignty. Mexican farmers aren't the only ones pushing to reevaluate the agreement. Several major Canadian and U.S. agricultural organizations had hoped to take advantage of the Mexican demand to reopen the agreement because of the damaging effects it has had on small- to medium-sized farms in those countries. In addition to trade liberalization, citizen organizations have pointed out that other clauses of NAFTA go too far rather than not far enough. The breadth of Chapter 11 protection for foreign investors has come under fire, especially since Mexico was forced to pay over $15 million to the U.S. firm Metalclad after its toxic dump project was cancelled due to protests over environmental hazards. Although the firm never obtained a local permit nor cleaned up the site, a NAFTA panel ruled that it be compensated for its investment. The attempt to include broader social issues in NAFTA also does not bode well for a NAFTA Plus. NAFTA's labor and environment side agreements have proved to be a feeble forum for resolving serious issues stemming from increased economic integration, and both are structurally and practically subordinated to the trade and investment agenda of the agreement. In proposing a NAFTA Plus, Fox seems to naively assume that, having conceded to a grossly inequitable free trade agreement with its northern neighbors, Mexico is now "in the club" and can expect privileged treatment on other issues. This assumption has not been borne out, as evidenced by the stalled immigration talks, continued non-tariff barriers to Mexican products, and the massive dumping of subsidized U.S. goods on the Mexican market. Clearly, Washington expects its trade partners to acquiesce to U.S. interests, having recently admonished Canada and Mexico for not supporting the war in Iraq. A second misconception of the NAFTA Plus proposal is that regional trade agreements are the best place to resolve nontrade issues between neighboring nations. Well-intentioned groups seeking to address the U.S.-Mexico migration crisis have suggested that by conceiving of labor immigration in terms of economic integration the U.S. might take it more seriously. But there is something chilling about reframing the human tragedy on the border in terms of "rationalizing labor flows." Urgently needed immigration reform in the United States is fundamentally a matter of human decency between neighbors rather than a factor in economic integration. Given that the U.S. and Canadian governments are nowhere near to agreeing to a NAFTA Plus agenda, attempts to resolve all bilateral issues within the context of the free-trade agreement distorts the real social problems that are at the root of these issues. Instead of a NAFTA Plus, what Mexico needs is a NAFTA Minus. Such a renegotiation would recognize the need for the country to establish policies oriented toward national development, even when those called for temporary protective measures. It would acknowledge asymmetries and dispense with the illusion that free trade will automatically close development gaps and elevate public welfare. It would remove decisions on crucial issues--such as migration and natural resource use--from macroeconomic models and place them in the context of building a strong and sovereign nation. Increased economic integration has, predictably, expanded international trade but it has not led to improved standards of living in Mexico. Fox's own Technical Committee on Poverty just released a study showing one in every five Mexican households does not receive enough income to cover the cost of the basic food basket-- a minimal standard of family survival. In that context, a NAFTA Minus, along with scuttling the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, would be a gain not a loss.

The following are post-Bush visit

I would like to add to the description of yesterday's events that Halifax Block the Empire was also involved in mobilizing hundreds of people back into the streets for a roving demonstration for two hours, against not only Bush in Halifax, but the imperialist agenda of the US administration in Iraq, Palestine, Haiti, Colombia and many more.... Block the Empire was successful in adding a strong anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist message to the event while maintaining a festive attitude that created a safe space for many to express their dissent. Anna Hunter Community Development Community Action On Homelessness Phone: 420-2186 email: ahunter@cahhalifax.org

-----Original Message----- From: deepintegration-bounces@list.web.net [mailto:deepintegration-bounces@list.web.net] On Behalf Of Janet M Eaton Sent: December 2, 2004 2:27 PM To: deepintegration@list.web.net Subject: [Deepintegration] Halifax - Thousands ..Say NO to Bush by Janet M Eaton & Sheila Zurbrigg

Dec 1st Bush Visit Protest, Halifax Thousands turn out to say NO to Bush ! Police say 7000; local media say 4000! It was utterly astonishing, all the more so on a weekday morning, in a town of 300,000, its economy largely dependent on its naval military base. Even if CBC TV The national 10 pm news didn't report this historic rally, the significance for Prime Minister Paul Martin has to be deafening. by Janet M Eaton and Sheila Zurbrigg, December 1st, 2004 The Halifax Peace Coalition (HPC) organized a highly successful and peaceful rally, in downtown Halifax today, to protest the visit of George W Bush and to send a message to Prime Minister Martin and his Government that Canadians do not want further military and deep integration with the United States. According to police and HPC estimates, from 7, 000 to 10,000 people, turned out, to protest at the rally. They came to call for global peace and justice and to condemn President Bush's dangerous unilateral policies and actions. They chanted their slogans 'Bush Go Home', 'Thanks but No Thanks' and carried their messages on a sea of signs as they flowed down Barrington Street to Cornwallis park, near Pier 21: 'UN Yes - US No' ! 'Block the Empire', 'No More War', 'Warmongers Not Welcome', 'War is Costly -Peace is Priceless'; 'We Don't Like War'; 'Why did You Come Here Bush'?, ' I am an American and I live here now because of you', 'Drop Bush, Not Bombs'. http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/_galleries/gallery_d01/gallery/index.htm Just before 10:00 a.m the massive numbers of protestors converged in the Grand Parade Square next to City Hall, overflowed into the surrounding streets and the speeches began. Carolyn van Gurp, an HPC facilitator who welcomed the crowd, was visibly moved by the vast numbers, as far as her eye could see, and emphasized the diversity of the protestors, some of whom came from neighbouring Atlantic Canada, and even Quebec and Ontario. She spoke of the hundreds of e-mails HPC had received from Americans expressing their appreciation and solidarity with the HPC actions in opposing the visit of George Bush and in condemning his government's foreign polices. Tamara Lorincz , an organizer with the HPC explained the foremost reasons that peace activists in Nova Scotia and beyond reject the presence of Mr. Bush. These included his brutal war on Iraq, his violations of international laws and conventions, his abrogation of the vital Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, his relentless promotion of missile defence program which weaponises space, and his persistent failure to sign significant and crucial conventions and treaties on the environment, and human rights. And she reported that yesterday the Halifax Peace Coalition put George Bush on Trial and a public court found him Guilty of criminal charges for the death of thousands of Iraqis and for irreparable damage done to the environment during this war . See photo of banner 'Bush on Trial for War Crimes - Verdict guilty' http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/_archives/11.30.04bushtrial.html Janet M Eaton, is with the Halifax Peace Coalition and a Co-Chair of the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace jmeaton@ns.sympatico.ca Sheila Zurgrigg, is with the Halifax Peace Coalition Sheila Zurbrigg <szurbrig@dal.ca> More reports follow from the Halifax Peace Coalition Website http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/index.html ===========================================

[1] http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/_archives/12.01.04bushinhalifax.html LOUD AND CLEAR- BUSH NOT WELCOME IN HALIFAX posted by the Halifax Peace Coalitition, December 1, 2004 Police estimated a crowd of at least 7,000 protesters marched through downtown Halifax Wednesday morning to protest U.S. President George Bush's visit to Halifax. The event was organized by a coalition of more than thirty Atlantic peace organizations and was loud but peaceful. Participants came from all around the Atlantic area, taking the day off work or school to tell the American and Canadian governments, "He's Not Welcome, Eh!" Demonstrators met at the Halifax Grand Parade, then marched down Barrington St. As heard from chanting protesters, the clear message of the march was "Bush Go Home!" Participants raised the energy level by yelling out protest cries and banging on homemade drums. A samba group could be heard for a block and a half in each direction. The talent of local MCs was blasted from a sound system being wheeled down the street. As the march continued, dozens of photographers lined the streets recording the event. Arriving at Cornwallis Park, participants heard from speakers who presented a range of views on controversial issues. Many are against America's presence in Iraq. Others want to prevent oil drilling in environmentally protected areas and the teaching of Creationism in American Schools. Some protested in support of gay rights. Speakers, including students, farmers, and civil servants also called upon Prime Minister Martin to ensure that Canadian policies are uninfluenced by American pressure. by Dave Jerome & Sarah McWhinney <><><><><><><><>

[2] BUSH FOUND "GUILTY!" http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/_archives/11.30.04bushtrial.html Published by HPC, November 30, 2004 Early Tuesday evening, cries of "Guilty!" rang from Victoria Park in downtown Halifax. This was the verdict rendered by the general public after watching the "trial" of U.S. President George W. Bush. The play, written by the organization Lawyers Against War, was performed by members of the Halifax Peace Coalition (HPC). 8 x 10 image - 125 kb Photo: Jan Meyerowitz After the trial, over 300 participants left Victoria Park and marched down Spring Garden Rd. Both lanes of the road had been blocked off to traffic by the Halifax Regional Police. Cheering "Drop Bush, Not Bombs!" the group weaved their way through the core of the city until they reached the steps of the U.S. Consulate's office. After a short rally at the steps to the building, the demonstration ended, and the participants dispersed quietly. These actions in Halifax occured the same day as at least 25 other demonstrations across Canada, protesting U.S. President Bush's Tuesday visit to Ottawa. President Bush is visiting Canada as part of an international tour. While in Ottawa President Bush will not address Parliament, where he could face the questioning of Canadian MPs. Bush will be leaving Ottawa Wednesday morning, and plans to stop in Halifax for a few hours before continuing his trip. Another demonstration has been planned by the HPC to take place while President Bush is in Halifax. Wednesday morning's demonstration is expected to draw thousands of participants from across the Maritimes. Dave Jerome, Freelance Writer 8 x 10 image - 132 kb Photo: Jan Meyerowitz DOWNTOWN PROTEST PRECEDES BUSH'S ARRIVAL IN HALIFAX TOMORROW Under a statue of Robbie Burns, peace volunteers are working against the clock to stage the mock trial of George W. Bush, a play written by the group Lawyers Against the War. Organizers ask for people to hoist placards. It's a good-humored, quiet crowd; many come forward immediately to take up a sign. Folks sip coffee and greet friends. They wear toques and knitted headgear, protest buttons and white poppies in lapels. Some wear purple ribbons. Around the edge of the park are larger banners. A spectacular one is Picasso's great anti-war work, Guernica, painted on a banner the size of a small billboard. No War On Iraq is written across the image. "Have fun," says Halifax Peace Coalition organizer Chris Maxwell from the stage, "And get our message out". The trial of George W. Bush begins, and a dead-ringer for Bush is read the charges against him: responsibility for the death of Iraqis and for irreparable damage done to the environment because of the war. The white-wigged Judge admonishes the crowd against spitting and other forms of displeasure; they laugh easily and boo at all the right times. It's all in fun and good spirit. Lawyers argue: Bush's defender is played by a local human rights lawyer, Philip Girard. Witnesses speak and then the Judge asks for a verdict. The entire crowd forms the jury. "How do you find the defendant?" asks the Judge. "It's a no brainer -guilty!" yells a wag in the audience. To cheers, Bush is found guilty, directed to be deported from Canada, and then he's whisked off by the crowd towards the American Consulate. The march has begun. Motorcycle cops clear the street of traffic, and the 400-strong crowd chants noisily through Halifax's downtown business district, past store clerks stepping out to cheer, and window displays hawking peace t-shirts. Cars and an 18 wheeler honk in support. Five tall, lanky guys with crewcuts and an oversized cowboy hat walk alongside chanting "pro bush" "pro bush" and "who's going to protect you?". "Who's going to invade us, more likely", a protester wryly responds. At the steps of the US consulate, a single line of security stand with arms crossed. Only a few feet away, a sound system on a bicycle cart is quickly set up, and several speakers talk of US imperialism and Canada's complicity. Some impromptu singing breaks out in the crowd, with renditions of John Lennon's "Imagine", and a few heartfelt verses of Twisted Sister's "We're not going to take it, anymore." After about 15 minutes the crowd disperses into the night, saving their energy for the big non-welcome the next morning. Liz vanBerkel & Jane Kansas & Jan Meyerowitz © 2004 Halifax Peace Coalition hfxp <><><><><><>

The following are pre-Bush visit

Should Canada Indict Bush? by Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star November 17, 2004