Denouncing secrecy and demanding transparency
Jean-Yves Lefort, trade campaigner for the Council of Canadians
Secret: "Kept or meant to be kept private, unknown, or hidden from others," or, "intended to be concealed from all but a few." - Oxford Canadian Dictionary.
Private: "Kept or removed from public knowledge or observation," or, "confidential; not to be disclosed to others (private talks)." - Oxford Canadian Dictionary.
What should be one of the greatest debates on Canada's future has been reduced to a battle of semantics.
When a select group of corporate CEOs and political leaders from Canada, the United States and Mexico met in Banff last September, it was only one of a series of secret meetings held by the business and political elites to discuss the future of the three countries under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).
The Council of Canadians denounced the secrecy and demanded transparency.
The media strategist for the event later told journalists that this was "not a secret meeting, it was a private meeting." This line was repeated by Stockwell Day, who reportedly attended the meeting along with other high-ranking government officials from the U.S. and Mexico.
According to a report obtained through an Access to Information request last week by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), this was part of an elaborate public relations plan implemented by organizers of the conference in order to keep the media and public out.
Secret or private, the fact that the future of North America is being decided behind closed doors by a few government
officials and corporate lobby groups should force us to ask ourselves why this discussion isn't taking place in public and why the legislatures aren't talking about this as well."This isn't about the future of North America, it is about changing a few boring rules to facilitate border crossings and trade in goods" is the typical response by business lobbyists. And yet another document obtained through the same Access to Information request states: "We have come together to define and build a North American Community, a new and different relationship among the peoples and governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States."
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives - the driving force behind the SPP - and its president Thomas d'Aquino have long called for a customs union or a common external tariff with the United States. If this were to happen, Canada would essentially cease to have an independent trade policy.
In a 2004 discussion paper entitled "Building a 21st Century Canada-United States Partnership in North America," the corporate lobby group clearly called for a "harmonization of tariff rates." The Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which Mr. d'Aquino later co-chaired with former Liberal minister John Manley on behalf of Canada, recommended governments adopt a "common external tariff" in a 2005 document which helped establish the SPP. The Banff meeting document, dated September 2006, also calls for a customs union and a common external tariff.
Pretty clear, right? The corporate lobbyists Mr. d'Aquino represents want North America to be one big continental trading zone. Wrong.
At a press conference held in February 2007, Mr. d'Aquino specifically denied that a common external tariff had ever been discussed.
Why is this important? It is important because they are discussing the future of North America; because we are into the third year of a tri-national agreement called the SPP and hardly anyone knows about it; because democratically elected representatives of the three countries involved have never voted on it.
In addition, a common defence policy, a common passport, a common immigration policy and a resource sharing agreement that would allow bulk water exports from Canada and keep the oil from Canada and Mexico flowing into the U.S. no matter what are also being discussed in the documents mentioned above.
The SPP's only purpose is to turn three countries into one market and to transform citizens into consumers.
Whether you call this process secret or private, we don't buy it.
This op-ed was submitted by Jean-Yves Lefort, trade campaigner for the Council of Canadians, as part of an educational awareness teach-in called Integrate This: Challenging the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. The event includes speakers Avi Lewis, Elizabeth May, Maude Barlow and others, as well as workshops. It happens on Saturday and Sunday, March 31 and April 1, at Ottawa Tech High School (440 Albert) at 8 a.m. Visit www.integratethis.ca for more info.
| Canada Sells Itself Short |
|
Confidentiality is what you propose when a meeting's agenda is to be kept secret and that would also entail privacy of that matter so that information doesn't leak out to staff members that might use inside secrets for their own personal benefit. So here is where the meaning of the two words overlaps. Privacy of a meeting though does not necessarily entail its secrecy or its secret agenda; when it comes to the free trade option we have accepted, a select group of people who meet to discuss the matter would mean they are going to be familiar with the procedings and that is far from having the issues kept secret. Still since the future of this continent is at stake I would push semantics aside and say it concerns all of us and we should all be aware of what is happening. Instead so far we have been sold short on several key industrial facts while those industries have been shut up to the advantage of our largest trading partner. Need I say more about why the meeting is being held behind closed doors? Meeting organizers know that we know about having our energy and other resources sold out and they don't want to bear the responsability of facing accusations.
|
|
Martin Dansky
|
{3 votes}
|
|
|
| The Use of the English language |
|
I agree that a meeting such as this causes us to take pause (a long, prolonged, pregnant pause) but getting back to the opening paragraph, there is a distinction between the two words. If the meeting had truly been "secret", then the objective of the participants would have been for nobody to actually know that the meeting has taken place. Since the meeting was only open to a select group of participants, then it was a "private" meeting. One must always put the words in context to be able to understand them. Don't you think?
|
|
Brian Downing
|
{14 votes}
|
|
|
The fact that the future of North America is being decided behind closed doors by a few government officials and corporate lobby groups should force us to ask ourselves why this discussion isn't taking place in public? Really? Come on now, don't we all already suspect why this is? None of us are really virgins to how big business and big government operate anymore, I mean, we've gotten screwed over enough times to have lost any claims of naiveté, haven't we? If this was done above board and in front of our eyes we'd be steaming pissed and they wouldn't be able to get anything done because we wouldn't allow it. Secrecy or privacy, however the powers that be put it, it all comes down to one thing--the way they've always done things.
|
|
Pedro Eggers
|
{8 votes}
|
|
|
| Private Lobby with Privileged Access... |
|
At first read, I tend to think that you are giving them too much importance, this glorified boys club using their deep pockets and economic clout (they claim to administer $3.2 trillion in assets) to lobby government (I apologize to the one or two female members for the generalization, but its true... the list of members is 99% male). But then, I worry when Cabinet Ministers go too far out of their way to meet with them. In Ottawa, its normal for government Ministers to be lobbied by every group from left to right to centre. All I ask is that they have equal challenges to gain access to these politicians. I don't like reading that a Minister went out of his way, all the way to Mexico, to meet with them. They can make all the plans and policy proposals they want, I just don't mind if they are a private lobby who want to hold private meetings. There web site has tons of material on a variety of policy issues that are of direct or no direct impact to their businesses ... they can write and say what they like. I just don't want them getting privileged access to government --- and please, I hope that no parliamentary members or "high ranking government officials" are considering being party of this lobby group. I get concerned when I see groups working outside of the Parliamentary process and "crossing boundaries" - creating "councils" of senior officials, members of parliament, and the private sector - and then using public money to lobby government and work behind closed doors.
|
|
Joe Shebib
|
{6 votes}
|
|
|
Why would a group of people who generally cannot muster 50% of their number to participate in a democracy in the most basic way possible (voting) pretend to want to have access to this kind of discussion? Good god, we don't even listen when they TRY to tell us what they're doing, and now we want a seat at the table? Try recruiting a focus group sometime - you literally need to offer about 20 people a free meal and a hundred bucks each just to get ONE of them to come in for 2 hours and discuss this kind of subject. Good luck getting them whipped up over this issue, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
Qalu B'nopo
|
{5 votes}
|
|
|
"Democracy: government by the people. A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. The common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power." Now excuse me if I am wrong, but the last time I checked, Canada was considered to be a "Democracy", as defined above. So was the United States. Mexico... well, that's a little more dubious, but I'm sure my point is clear: exactly how is it that these priviledged few are the only ones being granted access to trade negotiations that affect not only our country, but how our country interacts with the rest of the world?!
Whether these meetings are "private" (unlikely) or "secret" (more plausible), the fact of the matter is that Canadians have a right to know about them and what business is being conducted at them. We elected these people. They are supposed to represent our interests. So how are we supposed to keep tabs on the people who basically run our world if they are lying to us about what they are doing and when!? Canada's so-called "New" Government, a term I resent more and more with each passing day, needs to give it's collective head a shake. Then again, so do the people of Canada, especially those that voted this closed-door loving party into office, Minority or otherwise. If we do not take a stand and force our government representatives to answer to us, how can we be certain that they are acting in our collective best interest? And furthermore, if we do not act and stand up to the government bullies who are slamming doors in our faces at every turn, can we really complain about what the future brings us? After all, "government by the people" implies that "the people", and that's you and me, have to act on their own behalf to ensure that their rights and interests are fairly represented.
|
|
Christina DeCurtis
|
{3 votes}
|
|
|
