Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

question for canadians?

Are you aware of the summit on August 20-21 in Quebec between Harper, Bush, and Calderon. Do you want to know what's at stake? Notice the lack of media attention, notice the timing of the cabinet shuffle. if you are interested and you like our superior standards for health, labour, food quality, envrionment among other things please check out

Council of


There are many more sites also

These two sites have info on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the North American Union (NAU)

Type in SPP for official government sites

Do you want Canadian policy dictated by corporate america?

The corporate players are getting face time with our political leaders, and decisions are being made with no public consultation. The EU developed over many years, and had public consultation, don't you think you deserve the same?


Thanks for your response semi. There could be a potential benefit to the NAU, but with no public consult it is all suspect. If it is so good for Canadians, why is there NO info from the media. If you refer to gobal there is a list of the 33 members of the NACC (US has 3 extra). All corp players (walmart, banks, auto, big pharma,home depot, Lockheed Martin) Also, Canadians interests are not being prioritized by our illustrious political and industry leaders. A US style Canada will not benefit Canadians. If we really wanted to be the 51? state we would've joined up a long time ago. What's worse we are expected to give up our resources readily (water, energy) to US 1st, us 2nd if some event occurs. That is what is also at stake. Would you want that for your country?

1 Answer

  • Favorite Answer

    I'm not Canadian, but I'm an American that takes a deep interest in the politics of Canada, so maybe I'll have something of an answer.

    My position is one that favours some sort of North American Union not unlike the European Union. Of course there would have to be significant differences given that the geography and populations are rather different, but ultimately a unified economic system would benefit the whole continent. The only thing different is that the impetus isn't as urgent, given that Europe had this tendency to go to war, making the EU almost necessary for peace, while no one has seriously contemplated war within N.A. for nearly a century.

    I will agree with you on two points. First, discussions of this nature need to be in the public spotlight. I am actually surprised to be hearing about this for the first time, although I do not follow the news so closely these days. However, given that much of the mainstream media in the U.S. is highly critical of the Bush administration, one would think that this would be major news, except that perhaps they are complicit in it.

    Second, I agree that the public needs to have a say, possibily in the form of referenda. At least the EU nations had plecibites on the Maastrict Treaty, so I agree that N.A. requires the same. Also, I agree that it should be direct and not in the mold of the 1988 parliamentary elections that were something along the lines of a Free Trade referendum. It might be difficult to have that in the U.S. given the nature of our voting system (which is under individual states), but I suspect that something can be done.

    In terms of concerns of "corporate America" being dominant, I don't know about the corporate part so much, but as the U.S. has the majority population of the three nations, it would be natural for the U.S. to be the major influencer of N.A. policy. I do believe that provisions that do not denegrate Canada and Mexico should be in place, which can be negotiated in advance.

    Source(s): Just my North American opinion.
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.