babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » US plans to invade Canada?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: US plans to invade Canada?
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 22 September 2006 09:31 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In another thread, Fidel claimed that the United States "even have a 94 page contingency plan" to invade Canada. Earlier in the thread, he gave us this link to a Washington Post article about this plan.

I feel the need to point three things out:

(1) All this article shows is that the US had a plan over seventy years ago! The use of the present tense "have" is misleading, and unsupported by the evidence provided.

(2) No plan drawn up in 1930, upated in 1934 and 1935, and made public (declassified) in 1974 is particularly relevant today. (Are they still going to invade Montreal and sort of leave Toronto alone?)

(3) The linked Washington Post article also points out that "Canadian military strategists developed a plan to invade the United States in 1921 -- nine years before their American counterparts created War Plan Red." Would it be fair to say that Canada has a plan to invade the US?

(4) The US actually invaded Canada in 1812. This is certain of historical interest, but that's about it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 22 September 2006 09:48 AM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anyway, why would the US invade what it aready owns?
From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 22 September 2006 10:02 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Somehow the movie "Canadian Bacon" pops to mind ^^

That said, the US will have half assed contingency plans for everything... Apparently there was a plan in place for Katrina as well. How well thought through or implementable that plan is a different matter...

Also to be defined... by invade, are we talking military? economically? culturally? Though a military invasion option seems a lil off, I can see the presence of unification and take-over of Canada style plans that would not involve military power existing.

[ 22 September 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 22 September 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
Somehow the movie "Canadian Bacon" pops to mind ^^

That said, the US will have half assed contingency plans for everything... Apparently there was a plan in place for Katrina as well. How well thought through or implementable that plan is a different matter...

Also to be defined... by invade, are we talking military? economically? culturally? Though a military invasion option seems a lil off, I can see the presence of unification and take-over of Canada style plans that would not involve military power existing.

[ 22 September 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]


Exactly.

Like in one of my favourite movies from the seventies, Three Days of the Condor, the Deputy Director of the CIA(?) said:

"We play games".


From: none of your business | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 22 September 2006 10:16 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyway, why would the US invade what it aready owns?

Or what we'll readily give them for a pat on the head and the phrase, "good boy. Now have a bone."

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
BrianG
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13228

posted 22 September 2006 10:24 AM      Profile for BrianG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Like that plan is something new. The USA has invaded Canada numerous times, and Canada has invaded the USA numerous times.

Did you know that Canadians invaded the USA and pushed the Americans back past DC and burnt the Whitehouse to the ground. Then they left, crossed back across the St. Lawrence saying, "There! Now piss off and don't come back here again!"


From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
slimpikins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9261

posted 22 September 2006 10:30 AM      Profile for slimpikins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Arrogant Worms even did an excellent song about it, called 'The War of 1812'
From: Alberta | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 22 September 2006 11:10 AM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd be astonished if they didn't have some sort of contingency plan drawn up somewhere. It wouldn't take them long - about the time it takes to fly from the border to Ottawa, leaving a bit extra for our PM to prepare a proper red carpet reception.

I doubt it'll happen, unless we see two major changes.

1. The US continues down its current path to authoritarianism/autocracy.
2. Canada takes another path, possibly electing an NDP or Green government, and consequently cuts up NAFTA and/or cuts off the supply of oil.

We've seen the nonsensical rhetoric about Venezuela and other democratic countries that dare to make waves or stand up for themselves, I imagine we'd get the same treatment. At a certain point they would invade, or threaten to in exchange for serious concessions.

In which case, vive le resistance!


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
slimpikins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9261

posted 22 September 2006 11:18 AM      Profile for slimpikins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And the White House burned, burned, burned
And we're the ones that did it
It burned, burned, burned,
While the president ran and cried
It burned, burned, burned,
And things were very historical
And the americans cried like a bunch of little babies
In the war of 1812

Chorus from 'War of 1812', Arrogant Worms.

There is also a verse about how if you go to visit, bring a pack of matches and burn it down again. One of my favorite songs.


From: Alberta | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 22 September 2006 11:38 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They'd be able to set up a Vichy Regime here pretty quickly if they were successful. There are a lot of quislings in this country who are more fond of US institutions than Canadian ones. Mind you, I think Quebecers would put up more of a fight as they may well be more conscious of their own unique traditions, culture and institutions.

The real, current threat is from those who would "harmonize" our institutions, economic and political life with that of the USA. Read Maude Barlow.

[ 22 September 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 22 September 2006 11:39 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We already have a Vichy Regime here, and Stephen Harper is its leader.

Did you hear him at the UN?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 22 September 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
M. Spector: Did you hear him at the UN?

Regretfully, yes. One of the repulsive aspects of the Prime Minster's address was the way he just strung together a series of vacuous slogans in his speech. "once and for all" was followed by "be realistic" which was followed by "no quick fix" which was followed by "success cannot be assured" which was followed by "equal grief for the casualties" which was followed by "the page has not been turned" which was followed by "taxpayers full value for their money" which was followed by "Canada has always been with you". It was a series of gag-inducing farts that would have caused my high school English teacher to fly into a rage and slap me, deservedly so, upside the head.

And this hoser is our PM? gag. Incidently, I thought the Liberal critic, Xxx Martin, was pretty fast on his feet and scored some palpable hits right away in his response.

Of course, Liberals campaign from the left and govern from the right. What did the NDP say and how quick were they to say it?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 22 September 2006 12:09 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i thought that the made for t.v. movie, h2o presented an interesting and chilling scenario. i've lived in the u.s. as a child, as a young adult and fairly recently---i'd say the writers had it just about right.

i believe that if the u.s. decided that they wanted something from us, we'd be no better off than iraq in defending ourselves from the 'spin' that they'd put on it. they haver no compunction about lying. and no concern about being caught in a lie.

we know people who have continued to stay in the u.s. as its citizens, precisly because they want to be there to help stem the hype that could become an attack on canada. they are worried that if too many americans who are revolted by their administrations ethics leave, the field will be open to the zealots.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 22 September 2006 12:36 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The US actually invaded Canada in 1812. This is certain of historical interest, but that's about it.

And as BrianG so eloquently pointed out, we kicked their ass and sent em home crying.

But, in case no one has noticed, the u.s government and its corporate interests are already firmly established in Alberta without firing a single shot and they have used their money and influence to first seduce and then take over the Canadian conservative party in the diguise of the Reform party.

Therefore, they have full control over the most important resource they desire namely the tar sands and they have the puppet government they have craved since they lost their other puppet, Mulroney/Morebaloney firmly installed in order to plunder whatever else fancies their eye.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 22 September 2006 12:42 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They've considered us chattel since 1971.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Proaxiom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6188

posted 22 September 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for Proaxiom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Somehow the movie "Canadian Bacon" pops to mind ^^

No, dude. South Park!


quote:
That said, the US will have half assed contingency plans for everything... Apparently there was a plan in place for Katrina as well. How well thought through or implementable that plan is a different matter...

Also to be defined... by invade, are we talking military? economically? culturally? Though a military invasion option seems a lil off, I can see the presence of unification and take-over of Canada style plans that would not involve military power existing.


The plan was written in 1921. I think there was a naval arms race on, at the time, fuelled by the appearance of the really big battleships in WWI. The United States and Britain were both participants in the arms race. Canada didn't have independent foreign policy at the time, it was still bound to the UK in that regard.

A contingency plan to invade Canada would mean they were concerned about the possibility of war with Great Britain. Canada was still technically a at odds with the US Monroe Doctrine (because it represented British influence on North American soil), and it would also be noteworthy that Great Britain and Japan were the only countries that posed a realistic military threat to the United States.

History moved on.


From: East of the Sun, West of the Moon | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sans Tache
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13117

posted 22 September 2006 01:09 PM      Profile for Sans Tache        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe we should make it mandatory for every Canadian household to be trained and possess a semiautomatic or automatic riffle. Then have a mandatory conscription for 2 years for every adult, like the Swiss and have well trained militia. The Americans would never invade Canada then. Hmm, the Swiss have the most guns per capita in the world with one of the lowest crime/murder rates. Maybe we could learn a lesson from them...

I can’t remember where I saw the report or by whom but if there were a referendum on Canada joining the USA, it is us older folk that would vote no and those under 35 years of age would vote yes. I hope the under 35's don't become the majority one day.

This is just something to contemplate on the second equinox of 2006. Happy autumn everyone!


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 22 September 2006 01:19 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
or maybe we could combine a strengthened committment to global social justice, becoming boosters for the developement of a truly effective u.n., align all of our trade with like minded countries, and loudly and consistently call for the disarming of the globe.

naming and shaming may also still be useful in counteracting american avarice.

it wouldn't take long for canada to display genuine ethical leadership worldwide.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 22 September 2006 02:29 PM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Canada would be difficult to occupy militarily as we are a huge, mostly empty nation. We'd be easy to invade but very difficult to occupy the whole country for any length of time.

Why would the US want to invade us? They already have financial control over most of our national resources.

I sometimes think that Canada should seek to join the US. If Canadians could vote in US elections then we'd shift their whole system to the left. Now we're just a vassal state controlled by the US but with no influence on their system.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 22 September 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I can’t remember where I saw the report or by whom but if there were a referendum on Canada joining the USA, it is us older folk that would vote no and those under 35 years of age would vote yes.
I would be extremely surprised if there was an iota of truth to this claim.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 22 September 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Imperialism takes various forms, economic imperialism being just one. Why invade, all that matters is that the profits end up in Rome.


quote:
im·pe·ri·al·ism (ĭm-pîr'ē-ə-lĭz'əm)
n.
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 22 September 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First - Arrogant worms song - I love it too.

Second - contingency plan. As a former PSYOP soldier with the US Army (reserve) I can state with some degree of confidence that the US has a plan to invade just about every country in the world that might have something our industrialists need or in some way pose a threat to our ruling class's security.

Elect a national NDP government and there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Washington would immediately treat Canada in much the same way they treat Venezuela. No doubt a combination of CIA and business interests would quickly put the squeeze on Canada hoping the pain would cause the Canadian electorate to quickly 'see the light' and restore a more friendly government.

If things go south pretty quickly in terms of natural resource need (oil and water) my best guess is the US would not attempt to hold the entire country (hell, look at Iraq) but seize the major cities and major natural resource areas and instill a "Fort Apache" strategy to protect those areas from guerilla attack.

Carrot and stick methods would be used against the population and reprisals, should they occur, would be surprisingly brutal. A Vidkun Quisling would undoubtedly be found and installed. What is happening in Iraq is a good template for the establishment of US puppet states.

Third - read any of Harry Turtledove's Great War series which postulates a US invasion of Canada during World War One for a good idea of how the Americans would treat the Canadians should they lay hands on them. In his book, Turtledove's scenariois that the US would offer Quebec semi-autonomy in which they would have their own government and economy (dependent on US trade) but not their own foreign policy. A Quebecois Army would be used to police the rest of Canada on behalf of the US military. Take it for what its worth.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 22 September 2006 03:28 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by eau:
Imperialism takes various forms, economic imperialism being just one. Why invade, all that matters is that the profits end up in Rome.

If you want some of the profit to end up in Canada, then (if you're Canadian) buy stock in US-based companies that operate in Canada. If the company distributes dividends, some of those will end up in Canada (i.e. in your possession). If the company reinvests rather than give out dividends and if the value of the company goes up, then at least one Canadian (you) will be that much wealthier.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 22 September 2006 03:35 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They'll never take me alive.
From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 22 September 2006 03:49 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just want to say here and now that I'm NOT INVOLVED in any invasion plans.

(There are some guys down the block wearing uniforms with shoulder patches that feature Avril Lavigne with an international no slash drawn through her face. They've also taken to spraypainting "Death to the Barenaked Ladies" on walls and chanting "Let's Burn the Back Bacon". I'd watch THEM if I were you...)

[ 22 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 22 September 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 September 2006 05:23 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

If you want some of the profit to end up in Canada, then (if you're Canadian) buy stock in US-based companies that operate in Canada.


That's an interesting comment. I would think it a natural thing for Canadians to share in the takeover of our crown corporations and assets. But Mel Hurtig says that in the mid 1980's, half of all American corporations in Canada were 100 percent American-owned. Ten years later, some 85 percent had no Canadian shareholders.

Mel Hurtig says that over three dozen important sectors of our economy are largely foreign controlled. The same number in the U.S. is less than two or three.

And there has been a trend in Canada for corporate shares to be decreasingly "widely-owned", meaning that corporations are increasingly controlled by smaller and smaller groups of majority shareholders. I don't believe large, Soviet-sized multinational corporations with top-down command structures are representative of democracy. And i think this is especially true since privatization and deregulation began on a large scale since Thatcher, Reagan and Mulroney. Our free trade agreements are designed so that democratically elected governments have less and less control of our economies. In fact, Hurtig, Tony Benn, Linda McQuaig and Noam Chomsky that I can list off the top of my head right now say essentially the same things.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 23 September 2006 07:43 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
That's an interesting comment. I would think it a natural thing for Canadians to share in the takeover of our crown corporations and assets. But Mel Hurtig says that in the mid 1980's, half of all American corporations in Canada were 100 percent American-owned. Ten years later, some 85 percent had no Canadian shareholders.

Well, if these US-owned companies operating in Canada are publically traded (and many are) then any Canadian can simply buy shares on the open market. If you have an RRSP, you can set it up as a self-direced RRSP: that way, instead of having your money invested for you by some mutual fund, you can invest it yourself.

My point is this: rather than complain about all the profits made by US-owned companies operating in Canada going south of the border, Canadians could if they wanted ensure that some of the profits came back north.

By the way, you don't have to be rich to set up an investment account with any of the major banks. You do have to have some savings you're willing to take a risk on.

I'd be curious, by the way, I'd be curious to see evidence that 85 percent of US companies operating in Canada have no Canadian shareholders. This might, of course, include all sorts of dinky little companies that sell stuff to Canadians -- so it would be more interesting to see the following statistics: how much Canadian ownership is there is major companies with major operations in Canada. I would be very surprised to discover that no Canadian owns shares in WalMart or McDonald's. In fact, I'm tempted to buy one share of each! (That will cost me a little less than $100.)


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 23 September 2006 07:55 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
I doubt it'll happen, unless we see two major changes.

1. The US continues down its current path to authoritarianism/autocracy.
2. Canada takes another path, possibly electing an NDP or Green government, and consequently cuts up NAFTA and/or cuts off the supply of oil.


Does Canada sell oil to the USA for sub-market prices?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 23 September 2006 08:02 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
I would be extremely surprised if there was an iota of truth to this claim.

Well, I'm sure you noticed there was no link to support it...


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 23 September 2006 08:05 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
Elect a national NDP government and there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Washington would immediately treat Canada in much the same way they treat Venezuela.

The NDP and Chavez are not even close to being equivalent.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 23 September 2006 08:19 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
The NDP and Chavez are not even close to being equivalent.
That's why it's so stupid that the US wouldn't recognize the difference!

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 23 September 2006 08:26 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think that Sven's point is that the US would indeed recognize the difference, despite Americain Egalitaire's assertions to the contrary. (Correct me, Sven, if I am wrong.)
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 23 September 2006 08:31 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, I figured he thought that as well, but I disagree with him.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 23 September 2006 08:33 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The NDP and Chavez are not even close to being equivalent.

Everyone that even looks cross eyed at u.s. of assholes foreign policies is most definitely in the same category as far as the greedy bastards are concerned. Namely the "gonna teach those furunners whose boss" category.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 September 2006 12:51 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

I'd be curious, by the way, I'd be curious to see evidence that 85 percent of US companies operating in Canada have no Canadian shareholders.


Good luck in finding that out. Because apparently, Ottawa doesn't think you need to know about the degree and depth of foreign takeovers of Canadian corporations and assets. The Petroleum Monitoring Agency, which once reported detailed info on foreign ownership, assets and sales in the industry, was scrapped. Statistics Canada has been hollowed out, too, and reporting less and less to Canadians information about things like what percentages of dozens of key industries are foreign-owned and foreign-controlled. Mel says by the time StatsCan publishes its data, it's two or three years out of date. And those figures he quotes in his book were from 1999. Who knows what the figures are today?.

Hurtig says,

quote:
The less the public knows the better. Where once it was possible to compare the sales and profit of foreign corporations in Canada with the number of their employees in this country, we can no longer do so. It had always been insightful to see how few Canadians were employed for every million dollars in foreign corporation sales. Since foreign corporations import far more parts and components and services from their parent companies, the contrast with Canadian-owned operations was invariably dramatic.
Now, such comparisons are no longer available. .

Add to that Mulroney's scrapping of our Foreign Investment Review Agency after a time when large American energy companies were complaining about not being able to takeover control of Canada's oil and gas resources fast enough.

Big multinationals no longer have to disclose certain information about their companies while enjoying the full privileges of doing business in Canada. The hollowing out of Canada has been happening for years since FTA and NAFTA. Some Canadians are saying it's too late, and that we will become a branch plant economy and subsidiary colonial interest for corporate America.

They don't really intend for Canadians to own very many shares in their corporations doing business in our country, Martha. Colonialism doesn't work that way. They want our raw materials and to hell with Canadian identity and nationalism. It's happening under our noses and at rates comparable to the liquidation of Eaton's.

"Never let them make so much as a hair pin" -- Benjamin Disraeli on the British colonies

[ 23 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 23 September 2006 02:21 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Data on net flows of stock purchases.

Data on foreign control.

And a couple of StatsCan studies:

Foreign firms were three times more likely to operate a head office in Canada during the 1990s than domestic firms

Foreign-controlled plants are more productive than domestic-controlled plants in general. This is because foreign-controlled plants and firms are also more innovative, more technologically advanced, and more likely to perform research and development.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 September 2006 02:38 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

The NDP and Chavez are not even close to being equivalent.


The CIA and Pentagon have not yet had the opportunity to orchestrate a coup against a federal NDP leader. I think they have entertained thoughts that even our Liberal lapdogs of Washington's were too far to the left for comfort. I don't believe they would tolerate a federal NDP with nationalism on the agenda. In fact, after FTA and NAFTA they won't have to. Violation of corporate-friendly clauses and guarantees to multinationals made by our two old line parties in those "agreements" might be cause for them to wage economic and perhaps a little dirty war on Canada. The Yanks are all tied up in the Middle East right now though. They don't even have time to wage a proper dirty war on Venezuela. There's little chance that our pluralistic voting system would ever cause Canadians to rise to the occasion and elect anything other than the stoogocrats of Washington's that we have for the last 100 years in a row. European's think Canadians are docile when it comes to politics. The Yanks have no fear of an outbreak of Chavez-like revolution in Canada. There are enough Canadians who enjoy being dominated by Uncle Sam's will that we pose no real threat to corporate America's hunger for Canada's raw materials and energy.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sans Tache
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13117

posted 23 September 2006 02:56 PM      Profile for Sans Tache        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I sometimes think that Canada should seek to join the US. If Canadians could vote in US elections then we'd shift their whole system to the left. Now we're just a vassal state controlled by the US but with no influence on their system.

See LTD, Dana just proved my point.

The poll was quite some time ago, but it was broadcast.

As for swaying the USA vote, with just 34 million people compared to their 300+million, I don’t think we would stand much of a chance to influence much. Besides, Texas, being the (second) largest state would not allow for all of the provinces and territories of Canada to be larger then it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 23 September 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Brad DeLong on Manifest Destiny:

quote:
A hundred and fifty years ago it was our "manifest destiny" to own the entire North American continent. Today the desire to annex Canada is limited to us left-of-center Democrats desperate to turn the marginal voter from a guy outside of Nashville with a hound dog to a guy in suburban Toronto with a Greenpeace card.

From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 September 2006 05:30 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
And a couple of StatsCan studies:

Foreign-controlled plants are more productive than domestic-controlled plants in general. This is because foreign-controlled plants and firms are also more innovative, more technologically advanced, and more likely to perform research and development.


It's a StatsCanorama! It's a good thing we still have those guys around. But why should we even be relying on other countries to do what we could be doing for ourselves ?. We can do R&D in Canada, and we can own the technology. Like Canada's AVRoe Arrow, an entire aircraft industry that went south and an estimated 16 thousand jobs along with it a few decades ago.

Industry Canada described Canada's aggregate economic performance through the 90's as "about the worst" in a comparison of 30 developed economies.

quote:
"Over and over and over again, Canadians have been told that the globalized world is becoming more competitive and we have to do a much better job of increasing our innovation performance and our productivity: a small problem. Branch plant countries do very little R&D.

After years of increasing foreign ownership and after fourteen years of free trade, Canada is now(2002) in thirtieth place in a U.N. list of forty-eight high-development countries when it comes to high-technology exports of as a percentage of total goods exports" -- United Nations Human Development Report, 2001



AS for R&D spending, Hurtig's book quotes Industry Canada:

quote:
The total R&D propensity - defined as the ratio of R&D spending to sales - of foreign-controlled firms in the Canadian manufacturing sectors is significantly lower than that of their Canadian-controlled counterparts ... foreign-controlled firms spend significantly less on R&D than Canadian-controlled firms" -- from Industry Canada, Micro, vol.8, no.1, Summer 2001

Economist Michael Porter writes:

quote:
Typically a company's home base is where the best jobs reside, where core research and development is undertaken and where strategic control lies. Home bases are important to an economy because they support high productivity and productivity growth

Apparently it's the same people in Canada complaining about our poor productivity growth who are demanding lower corporate taxes and stripping what remains of restrictions on foreign ownership in Canada.

And,

quote:
Here it's interesting to see the impact on our imports as a result of the high degree of foreign ownership and control that we have in Canada. Here's a recent look at imports as a percentage of GDP in G7 countries:

Japan---------------9 per cent
United States-------13 per cent
Italy---------------24 per cent
France--------------24 per cent
United Kingdom------27 per cent
Germany-------------28 per cent
Canada--------------41 per cent


I think most of the productivity growth in Canada has come from the auto industry and foreign-owned car companies with branch plants operating in Southern Ontario. Thank goodness for pre-NAFTA managed trade deals like AutoPact, or our productivity growth would really be in the basement.

[ 23 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 24 September 2006 12:20 AM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
See LTD, Dana just proved my point.

The poll was quite some time ago, but it was broadcast.


Please don't take my comment as indicating support for joining the USA!

I was trying to be sarcastic but I guess I failed.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 September 2006 06:21 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
I would be extremely surprised if there was an iota of truth to this claim.

Me too. (To the claim, that is, that most people under 35 would want to join the US and that people over 35 would not.)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 24 September 2006 08:29 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Foreign-controlled plants are more productive than domestic-controlled plants in general. This is because foreign-controlled plants and firms are also more innovative, more technologically advanced, and more likely to perform research and development.

Here's an interesting remark from a speech given by the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, Mark J. Warshawksy: "Foreign-owned firms also tend to be more productive than their domestic counterparts, and some of this superior productivity spills over to domestic firms."

I fished around a bit on the net and it seems that foreign-owned and foreign-controlled companies tend to be more productive than domestic companies in many countries. So it's nothing peculiar about Canada. Perhaps there's a general explanation along the lines of this OECD report: "Comparisons of domestic firms and foreign affiliates should be made with caution. The latter usually do not have the same profile as domestic firms, they are generally larger and concentrated in relatively more productive and capital-intensive industries, and they typically require a higher level of skills than the average national firm."

[ 24 September 2006: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 24 September 2006 08:48 AM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fidel I agree wholeheartedly with your points. Why does it seem (as opposed to what is generally thought of US liberals) that Canadian liberals are perhaps the most patriotic of citizens (NOT nationalistic) and that the right in Canada seems to love making puppy-dog eyes at the US? Or have I been reading too much into the news I've gotten?

I do believe that this administration would consider a Federal NDP government to be an enemy of the US.

Canada could un-yoke itself from the US economically and become quite self-sufficient, don't you agree Fidel? But then the investing class would lose some of their fortunes and ordinary Canadians would be squeezed (for a time) during such a transition that most would not want to go through the pain. Such a move would entail sacrifice - under what circumstances would your people be willing to endure it? Or would they? Or is there still an illusion that the ties that bind aren't as strong as they seem?


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 September 2006 11:09 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
Fidel I agree wholeheartedly with your points. Why does it seem (as opposed to what is generally thought of US liberals) that Canadian liberals are perhaps the most patriotic of citizens (NOT nationalistic) and that the right in Canada seems to love making puppy-dog eyes at the US? Or have I been reading too much into the news I've gotten?

That sounds about right to me, A.E. I think Liberal supporters as well as a few Liberal politicians are patriotic towards Canada, but not those who've led the Liberal party, that's for sure. Our Liberals are just as willing to selloff pieces of Canada to wealthy America and other foreigners if the price is right. And our political conservatives are entirely agreeable with the U.S. Republican agenda by what I've read of Stephen Harper. Brian Mulroney and hundreds of Ottawa lawyers were soft putty in the hands of shrewd Washington free trade negotiators in the 1980's.

quote:

I do believe that this administration would consider a Federal NDP government to be an enemy of the US.

This administration, yes, absolutely. And like our Liberals, there have been some of your Democrats who have actually told our guys that they're not acting in Canadians best interests, like holding a knife to our own throats over softwood lumber. Washington can't have had much respect for our weak and ineffective governments of the past.

TC Douglas was a hit in the U.S. when he travelled south to pluck his daughter from the clutches of U.S. law enforcement. Some Dems were impressed with the likes of Dave Barret when he was in Washington a couple of decades ago to fight for British Columbians best interests over electrical power generation. Some Democrats would like to see more NDP'ers in Ottawa, and talking about things that matter in Washington with that city's power elite.

quote:
Such a move would entail sacrifice - under what circumstances would your people be willing to endure it? Or would they? Or is there still an illusion that the ties that bind aren't as strong as they seem?

I tend to agree with you on that. The U.S. is a natural geographic partner for trade. The NDP I think believes that we've just not handled trade deals very well when dealing with the most powerful and influential nation in the world to the south of us. I'm not sure we have to unyoke ourselves from the U.S. wrt to trade so much as needing someone to steer the ship just a little. Our own Maurice Strong said in 2001 that America has a voracious appetite for Canada's non-renwable resources, and we owe it to the world to help America conserve what precious resources we have left.

I think that growing inequality in the U.S. is what frightens both our Liberals, NDP and the majority of Canadians. We don't want to become as America as it looks today. We were doing relatively well while copying Washington's policies for New Deal socialism and Great Society. Where did the train run off the rails ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sans Tache
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13117

posted 25 September 2006 09:06 AM      Profile for Sans Tache        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Regarding the survey, I have sent an email out to a few different news directors and pollsters to see if they can provide me with the details. This survey was reported quite a few years ago, so it will be in the archives somewhere. Now, with the passport issue to cross the USA border, it might become an important issue again. And Dana, I was joking as well. I did not intend to suggest you wanted to become an American. I just wanted to show that the idea wasn't so far beyond belief.

Secondly, I have seen no one here from the economics side discussing the impact of foreign ownership as compared to a Canadian low dollar. The best way to keep foreign investors out is to have a high dollar. A low dollar only makes it a cheap(er) investment for foreigners to purchase your goods for export and corporations. Unless you want to severely cap restrict foreign corporate (takeovers) investment from Canada, then a high dollar is the best way to reduce foreign ownership. As for the cheap goods, quality usually overcomes that export issue. The Big 3 automotive manufactures know that Ontario usually produces the best made North American cars.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 25 September 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sans Tache:
The best way to keep foreign investors out is to have a high dollar.

You were not explicit in your post about whether you think that we ought to "keep foreign investors out", or whether you're just neutrally claiming that a high Canadian dollar would have the effect of discouraging foreign investment.

quote:
Originally posted by Sans Tache:
The Big 3 automotive manufactures know that Ontario usually produces the best made North American cars.

If the answer to the first question is "yes", then I ask: Do you believe that we should forbid GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, et al from opening any more plants in Canada?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 11:06 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):

If the answer to the first question is "yes", then I ask: Do you believe that we should forbid GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, et al from opening any more plants in Canada?


What does anyone think about last year's Investment Review Division of Industry Canada's report ?.

quote/unquote, It covers the period from 1985, when the Mulroney feds enacted Investment Canada after abolishing FIRA, to 2005.

In just over 20 years, there were 11,380 companies in Canada taken over by foreign-controlled corporations. The total value of the takeovers was almost $549 billion.

During the same years, new foreign investment for new businesses in this country was just over $18 billion.

That was a bit more than 96.8% foreign investment for takeovers of Canadian corporations and assets, and less than 3.2 percent for new business investment. Of course we shouldn't mind the Japanese building car plants in Ontario and providing good paying unionized jobs like Toyota workers enjoy back in Japan. That would be good news for Canadian workers.

And what percentage of the funding for these takeovers of Canadian corporations does StatsCan attribute being provided by Canadian banks ?.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 25 September 2006 11:25 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just a few weeks ago our soverign promotting governemnt had a meeting in banff..remember this was the government that promised to exercise there soverignity as Canadians over americans.What a joke and conjob ..read this...


Secret Banff Meeting of CEOs and the Defense
Establishment : Militarization and the
Deconstruction of North America


by Michel Chossudovsky

September 19, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca


Cabinet ministers, Five Star Generals together
with North America's top corporate executives
mingle in the plush surroundings of the Fairmont
Banff Springs Hotel.
This secret venue on "Continental Prosperity in
the New Security Environment" focused on "Deep
Integration," which largely consists in flushing
national sovereignty in favor of "Fortress North
America".
According to the draft program (see below),
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld traveled to
Banff, Alberta to deliver the keynote address on
"military to military cooperation". Canada's
Minister of Public Security Stockwell Day focused
his address on issues of North American public
security.
Top brass from the US and Canada were in
attendance. Canada's Minister of Defense Gordon
O'Connor was present together with Chief of
Defense Staff, General Rick Hellier.
There was, however, no confirmation that Canada's
Prime Minister Stephen Harper attended the
meetings.
On the US side, several of Rumsfeld's top policy
advisers were present alongside a handful of
researchers and consultants.
The commander of US NorthCom Admiral Tim Keating
was also in attendance with several of his senior
staff members. Keating is also Commander of NORAD,
which is slated to be merged with US NorthCom.
Deep Integration
"Deep Integration" was first enunciated by "The
Independent Task Force for North America", led on
the Canadian side by former Liberal deputy prime
minister, John Manley together with Tom Aquino,
president of the Canadian Council of Chief
Executives. The task force led by US, Canadian and
Mexican officials was sponsored by the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR).
"D’Aquino and his partners in a corporate task
force, former deputy prime minister John Manley
and former finance minister Michael Wilson, tell
us that by integrating ever more into the U.S.
we will somehow guarantee our prosperity,
creating fortress North America to compete with
China, Europe, and other competitors." (Murray
Dobbin, April 2005)
In 2005, Manley’s task force released its
"Trinational Call for a North American Economic
and Security Community by 2010".
Both Aquino and Manley are participants in the
Banff venue, which essentially constitutes a
follow-up to the CFR sponsored initiative. Another
central theme of the Banff conference is the
integration of military command structures, which
could eventually lead to the scrapping of NORAD
and the integration of Canada into US Northern
Command.(Chossudovsky, November 2004)
The Banff venue was co-chaired by George Shultz, a
staunch Republican, former Secretary of State to
President Ronald Reagan who later became president
and director of Bechtel corporation.

George Shultz
Top execs from the military-industrial complex and
the oil companies were present including Lockheed
Martin, Chevron, Mexico's PEMEX and Suncor
Energy.
Top officials and policy analysts from the
military's research labs and thinks tanks
including Livermore were invited to integrate
several of the specialized panels.
The meetings focused on the interrelationship
between North American defense systems,
militarization, national security, borders,
immigration, military production and the control
over North America's energy reserves.
The venue had more to do with profit driven
militarization than "continental prosperity" .
No journalists, no press releases, no commentary
which might inform public opinion, a total media
blackout: The program of this venue, which was a
carefully guarded State secret was first revealed
by Canadian author and politician Mel Hurtig on an
internet posting :
Thought you would like to see this. They're at
it again. The sellouts, the usual suspects.

September 12th to 14th, at the Banff Springs
Hotel, a conference on North American
Integration.

Among the long list of those who will be there
are Perrin Beatty, Peter Lougheed, Thomas
d'Aquino, Stockwell Day, Wendy Dobson, Roger
Gibbins, John Manley, Anne McLellan, Gordon
O'Connor, James Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfeld,
George Shultz and a long list of others.

Among the topics: "A Vision for North America",
"A North American Energy Strategy", "Demographic
and Social Dimensions of North American
Integration", "Opportunities for Security
Cooperation".

Many prominent high level U.S. government people
will be there.

Lots of military. Lots of Deputy Ministers.

Lock up your valuables. Hide your children.
Mel Hurtig

ANNEX
The list of participants and the draft program
dated respectively August 31st and September 1st,
were sent out on email lists. [we were not able to
verify the accuracy of this draft program and
whether all the confirmed participants attended
the venue]

NORTH AMERICAN FORUM CONFIRMED PARTICIPANTS
(Internal Document, Not for Public
Release)
Report dated August 31, 2006
Forum Co-Chairs:
Dr. Pedro Aspe
Hon. Peter Lougheed
Hon. George Shultz
Canadian Participants
Col. Peter Atkinson Special Advisor to Chief of
Defence, Staff
Hon. Perrin Beatty Canadian Manufacturers &
Exporters
Mr. Peter M. Boehm Assistant Deputy Minister,
North America Foreign Affairs and International
Trade Canada
Mr. Thomas d’Aquino, Canadian Council of Chief
Executives
Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety,
Government of Canada
Dr. Wendy Dobson The Institute for International
Business
Mr. N. Murray Edwards Edco Financial Holdings Ltd.

Mr. Ward Elcock, Deputy Minister of National
Defence
Mr. Bill Elliott Associate Deputy Minister, Public
Safety
Dr. John English The Cdn Centre for International
Governance Innovation
Mr. Brian Felesky Felesky Flynn LLP
Mr. Richard L. George, Suncor Energy Inc.
Dr. Roger Gibbins Canada West Foundation
Rear Adm Roger Girouard, Commander Joint Task
Force Pacific, Cdn Forces
Major Gen Daniel Gosselin, Director General,
International Security Policy
Mr. James K. Gray Canada West Foundation Mr. Fred
Green Canadian Pacific Railway
Mr. V. Peter Harder Deputy Minister of Foreign
Affairs
Mr. Paul J. Hill Harvard Developments Inc.
General Rick Hillier Chief of the Defence Staff
Mr. Pierre Marc Johnston Heenan Blaikie
Mr. James Kinnear Pengrowth Corporation
Mr. Harold N. Kvisle TransCanada Corporation
Hon. John P. Manley, McCarthy, Tetrault LLP
Mr. Ron Mannix, Coril Holdings Ltd.
Mr. Ron Mathison, Matco Investments
Hon. Anne McLellan, Senior Counsel, Bennett Jones
Hon. Greg Melchin, Minister of Energy, Government
of Alberta
Ms.Sharon Murphy, Chevron Canada
Ms. Sheila O’Brien, President, Corporate Director,
Belvedere Investments
Hon. Gordon O’Connor, Minister of Defense,
Government of Canada
Mr. Berel Roda,l International Center on
Nonviolent Conflict
Mr. Gordon Smith, Chairman, The International
Development Research Centre
American Participants
Ms. Deborah Bolton, Political Advisor to
Commander, US Northcom
Mr. Ron T. Covais, President, The Americas,
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Sec. Kenneth W. Dam, Max Pam Professor Emeritus of
American & Foreign Law and Senior Lecturer,
University of Chicago Law School
Mr. Dan Fisk Senior Director, Western Hemisphere,
National Security Council
Sec. Ryan Henry Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy
Ms. Carla A. Hills, Chairman & CEO, Hills & Co.
Ms. Caryn Hollis DASD (Acting) Western Hemisphere
Affairs
Mr. Bill Irwin Manager - International Government
Affairs; Policy, Government and Public Affairs,
Chevron Corporation
Mr. Robert G. James President, Enterprise Asset
Management Inc.
Admiral Tim Keating Commander, US Northern Command

Mr. Floyd Kvamme Chair, President’s Council of
Advisors on Science & Technology; Director, Centre
for Global Security Res.
Dr. Ronald F. Lehman II, Director, Center for
Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory
Mr. William W. McIlhenny Policy Planning Council
for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Dr. Peter McPherson President, National
Association of State Universities & Land-Grant
Colleges
Ms. Doris Meissner Senior Fellow, Migration Policy
Institute
Dr. George Miller Director, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory
Mr. George Nethercutt Chairman, US Section of the
Permanent Joint Board on Defense, US – Canada
(Security)
Mary Anastasia O’Grady, Journalist for Wall Street
Journal (Area Specialist)
Dr. Robert A. Pastor Director, Center for North
American Studies, American University, Washington,
DC
Dr. William Perry Co-Director, Preventive Defense
Project
Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF Senior Military
Assist. to Sec. Rumsfeld
Mr. Eric Ruff, Department of Defense Press
Secretary
Sec. Donald R. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, US
Department of Defense
Dr. James Schlesinger, Former Sec. Of Energy &
Defense
Mr. William Schneider President, International
Planning Services
Sec. Clay Sell Deputy Secretary of Energy, US
Dept. of Energy
Dr. Thomas A. Shannon Assistant Secretary of State
for Western Hemisphere A
Dr. David G. Victor Director, Program on Energy &
Sustainable Development, Center for Environmental
Science & Policy
Maj. Gen. Mark A Volcheff Director, Plans, Policy
& Strategy, NORAD-NORTHCOM
Ms. Jane Wales President & CEO, World Affairs
Council of Northern California
Mr. R. James Woolsey Vice President, Booz Allen
Hamilton
Mexican Participants:
Emb Andrés Rozental (Mexican Coordinator) –
Mexican Council on Foreign Relations
Silvia Hernández Former Senator and Chair of the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on North
America
Mario Molina 1995 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Fernando Chico Pardo CEO, Promecap
Juan Gallardo CEO, Grupo GEUSA
Gerónimo Gutiérrez Deputy Foreign Minister for
North America
Luis de la Calle Consultant. Former Deputy
Minister of Economy
Agustín Barrios Gómez Solutions Abroad
Vinicio Suro PEMEX
Eduardo Medina Mora Secretary of Public Security
Carlos Heredia State Government of Michoacán
Jaime Zabludowsky Consultant. Former trade
negotiator
Manuel Arango CEO, Grupo Concord
Jorge Santibañez President, El Colegio de la
Frontera Norte
Luis Rubio CIDAC
Mónica Serrano El Colegio de México, Señor Fellow
Oxford University
Arturo Sarukhan Coordinator of Int’l Affairs,
Campaign of Felipe Calderon
Juan Camilo Mouriño General Coordinator of
President Elect’s transition team
Ernesto Cordero Coordinator for Public Policy
Issues
Ambassadors/Consul
General: Mr. Carlos de Icaza, Ambassador of Mexico
to the United States
Mr. Gaëtan Lavertu Ambassador of Canada to Mexico
Ms. Maria Teresa Garcia Segovia de Madero,
Ambassador of Mexico to Canada
Mr. Thomas Huffaker U.S. Consul General in Calgary
(on DOD’s list)
Mr. John Dickson Deputy Chief of Mission, US
Embassy in Ottawa (representing Ambassador of US
to Canada)
Mr. Colin Robertson Minister & Head, Washington
Advocacy Secretariat, (representing Ambassador of
Canada to US)

Draft Detailed September 1, 2006 Agenda Internal
Document
North American Forum
Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel Banff, Alberta
September 12-14, 2006
Under the Joint Chairmanship of:
The Hon. George Shultz, Former U.S. Secretary of
State,
The Hon. Pedro Aspe, Former Finance Minister of
Mexico,
The Hon. Peter Lougheed, Former Premier of Alberta
Continental Prosperity in the New Security
Environment
Session I: Opening comments by Messrs. Aspe,
Lougheed and Schultz
Session II: A Vision for North America: Issues and
Options
Session III: Toward a North American Energy
Strategy
Session IV: Opportunities for Security Cooperation
in North America (Parts I and II)
Session V: Demographic and Social Dimensions of
North American Integration
Session VI: Border Infrastructure and Continental
Prosperity
Session VII: Roundtable Conversation with the
Co-Chairs
Draft September 1, 2006 Agenda
North American Forum
The Fairmont Banff Springs Banff, Alberta, Canada
September 12-14, 2006
Under the Joint Chairmanship of:
The Hon. George Shultz, Former U.S. Secretary of
State
The Hon. Pedro Aspe, Former Finance Minister of
Mexico
The Hon. Peter Lougheed, Former Premier of Alberta
Continental Prosperity in the New Security
Environment
Tuesday, September 12th
3:00 to Advance Registration 4:30 pm Location:
Heritage Hall
5:00 pm Registration Location: Oval Room
5:45 pm Opening and Welcoming Reception Location:
Conservatory in the Cascade Ballroom
6:45 pm Dinner & Keynote Address Location: Cascade
Ballroom
8:00 pm Keynote Address – “Energy and Environment:
a vision for North America” Dr. Mario Molina, 1995
Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Wednesday, September 13th
7:30 am Continental Breakfast & Registration
Location: Alhambra Room
8:15 am Keynote Address - Hon. Greg Melchin,
Minister of Energy, Government of Alberta Q & A
8:45 – 9:00 a.m.
9:00 am SESSION I: OPENING COMMENTS BY MESSRS.
SHULTZ, ASPE AND LOUGHEED Location: Alhambra Room
SESSION II: A VISION FOR NORTH AMERICA: ISSUES &
OPTIONS
Location: Alhambra Room 9:30 am PANEL:
Moderator: Dr. Thomas A. Shannon, Assistant
Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Panelists: Robert Pastor, Director, Center for
North American Studies, American University Roger
Gibbins, President & CEO, Canada West Foundation
Andrés Rozental, Mexican Council on Foreign
Relations
10:05 am ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
10:45 am Break
SESSION III: TOWARD A NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY
STRATEGY Location: Alhambra Room
11:05 am REMARKS: Secretary Clay Sell, Deputy
Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
11:25 am PANEL: Moderator: N. Murray Edwards, Vice
Chairman, Canadian Natural Resources Limited
Panelists: Richard George, President & CEO, Suncor
Energy Inc. David Victor, Director, Program on
Energy & Sustainable Development, Center for
Environmental Science & Policy Vinicio Suro,
Planning & Evaluation Subdirector, PEMEX
12 noon ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
12:45 pm Break
1:00 pm Lunch Location: Cascade Ballroom
1:30 pm Keynote Address: Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, US Department of
Defense
SESSION IV: OPPORTUNITIES FOR SECURITY COOPERATION
IN NORTH AMERICA - Military-to-military
cooperation Location: Alhambra Room
2:30 pm PANEL: Moderator: William J. Perry, former
US Secretary of Defense Panelists: Admiral Tim
Keating, Commander NORAD/USNORTHCOM Major General
Daniel Gosselin, Director General, International
Security Policy, Gerónimo Gutiérrez,
Undersecretary for North America, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
3:05 pm ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
4:00 pm Break
SESSION IV: OPPORTUNITIES FOR SECURITY COOPERATION
IN NORTH AMERICA CONTINUED Location: Alhambra Room
4:15 pm PANEL: Moderator: William Schneider,
President, International Planning Services
Panelists: Ward Elcock, Deputy Minister of
National Defence Eduardo Medina-Mora, Secretary of
Public Safety Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy
4:50 pm ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
5:45 pm Wrap-up of daytime sessions
6:30 pm Reception Location: Conservatory in the
Cascade Ballroom
7:00 pm Dinner & Keynote Address Location: Cascade
Ballroom
8:10 pm Keynote Address - The Hon. Stockwell Day,
Minister of Public Safety, Government of Canada
Thursday, September 14th
7:00 am Breakfast Location: Alhambra Room
7:15 am Keynote Address - Floyd Kvamme, Chairman,
President’s Council of Advisors on Science &
Technology Q & A – 7:40 to 8:00 a.m.
SESSION V: DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF
NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION Location: Alhambra Room
8:00 am PANEL: Moderator: Andrés Rozental, Mexican
Council on Foreign Relations Panelists : Dr. Wendy
Dobson, the Institute for International Business
Carlos Heredia, Chief International Affairs
Advisor to the Governor of the State of Michoacán
in Mexico Doris Meissner, Senior Fellow, Migration
Policy Institute
8:35 am ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
9:30 am Break
SESSION VI: BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONTINENTAL
PROSPERITY Location: Alhambra Room
9:45 am PANEL: Moderator: Hon. John P. Manley,
McCarthy Tetrault LLP Panelists: Thomas d’Aquino,
Canadian Council of Chief Executives Carla Hills,
Chairman & CEO, Hills & Co. Luis de la Calle,
Consultor
10:20 am ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
11:00 am SESSION VII: ROUNDTABLE CONVERSATION WITH
THE CO-CHAIRS Location: Alhambra Room Moderator:
Jane Wales, President and CEO, World Affairs
Council of Northern California Presenters: George
Shultz, Co-Chair, North American Forum Peter
Lougheed, Co-Chair, North American Forum Pedro
Aspe, Co-Chair, North American Forum
12:00 pm Adjourn
12:30 pm Informal lunch Location: Alhambra Room
9:45 am PANEL: Moderator: Hon. John P. Manley,
McCarthy Tetrault LLP Panelists: Thomas d’Aquino,
Canadian Council of Chief Executives Carla Hills,
Chairman & CEO, Hills & Co. Luis de la Calle,
Consultor
10:20 am ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
11:00 am SESSION VII: ROUNDTABLE CONVERSATION WITH
THE CO-CHAIRS Location: Alhambra Room
Moderator: Jane Wales, President and CEO, World
Affairs Council of Northern California Presenters:
George Shultz, Co-Chair, North American Forum
Peter Lougheed, Co-Chair, North American Forum
Pedro Aspe, Co-Chair, North American Forum
12:00 pm Adjourn
12:30 pm Informal lunch Location: Alhambra Room

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky,
GlobalResearch.ca, 2006

The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060919&articleId=3274


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 12:17 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If there's one thing we do know about the private sector, it helps to be large, as in soviet-in-size. Not only do large corporations have deep pockets for things like research and development, and big pharma is probably the worst example, being big help in swallowing market competitors whole.

The city of New York gave up on contracting out city services at the turn of the last century, like street cleaning, because they found no discernable benefits for it. The Economic Policy Institute report(pdf) says that every device for making privatization successful today was known to them in the 1890's. And yet they turned their backs on privatization across America at the time because of problems with corruption, job loss and poor service in general.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sans Tache
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13117

posted 25 September 2006 12:27 PM      Profile for Sans Tache        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Martha, I just wanted to point out that Canada dug a massive hole by keeping our dollar artificially low and foreign corporations took advantage of this situation. If we want other countries to allow Canada to invest in their corporations, then we must allow the same. Even Allan Rock (if you go back that far) admitted that the dollar was too low when he was Minister of Industry. All investment is good and helps to support competition and diversity, however, there must be some checks, balances and considerations. An example might be the recent purchase, by the Chinese government for majority shares in a steel company. But, China does not tie human rights with trade and we still trade with them. Another good example is our wine trade imbalance with France.

Magna is a great example of how well Canadian companies can compete. The Big 3 automotive manufactures may often have “close the Canadian plant” rumblings but soon come to their senses as they know that our workers make quality product and I believe GM recognized the Oshawa plant for this. Toyota, Honda and many other (foreign) manufactures also recognize that Canadians can and do make “quality, job one” and set their operations up in Ontario.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 25 September 2006 12:28 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
What does anyone think about last year's Investment Review Division of Industry Canada's report ?.

Does anyone have a link to the actual report, rather than to Hurtig's interpretation of it?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 01:10 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm looking for it now. It might be a case where we have to request it in writing. I suppose they operate on a need to know basis.

"Breaking down the numbers further: 11, 380 companies over 20 years is 569 companies a year average. Or you can think of it as 3 companies every two days, and an average of 47 a month, EVERY month for the last 20 years!"

"Fewer than 13% of takeovers were reviewed by the Review Division."

"Not a single takeover was rejected" -- Hurtig

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 25 September 2006 01:45 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The u.s. of arrogance is not the real problem. It is only the most visible instrument that the behind the scenes carpetbaggers, plunderers and truly "organized" criminals are using to manifest their various agendas. Unfortunately they can be found in every political party on the planet, simply because this representative system of governance is the easiest path to gaining control of the resources of whole regions and nations.

But as long as we continue with this top down hierarchy of poltical decision making we will, invariably end up with guys like Mulroney, Bush, Stalin, Hitler, and a host of other mutts who end up holding the reins of power over us all.

It is time for electorial reform, but this time we should actually try something that is truly a reformation, name getting rid of the whole representative concept entirely and going back to the basic premise of Democracy which means that the people themselves decide, not some middlemen who we have no control over once they are elected.

BTW, have i mentioned Direct Democrac y before?


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 25 September 2006 01:53 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why no, otter, I've never heard you say a word about it...
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 02:04 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Buenos dias, Ken. Got any bananas ?.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 25 September 2006 05:14 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As for accessing this report (which I haven't yet found) it would certainly have helped if Hurtig had properly cited it -- maybe by name! Or, when he says, "the latest figures from the Investment Review Division of Industry Canada are now available", it might help his reader if he told us where they are available.

Anyway, if one is going to use figures from a government report in order to support an argument, it normally helps the reader if you cite the report by name.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 06:18 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It looks like the feds have acquisition stats online from year 2000 Q1 to 2006 Q2 here.

I'm guessing that we have to email the technical contact listed at bottom of the page for the missing data from 1985 to 1999

So, the official sum total number of foreign takeovers of Canadian corporations since June 30, 1985 to date is 11, 788 and counting.

quote:
it's interesting to note that, in compiling its figures, Statistics Canada does not consider companies such as Air Canada, the CNR, Petro-Canada, or Canada's largest oil and gas producer Encana in its foreign ownership calculations, even though all four and dozens of other important Canadian corporations are already majority-foreign-owned, mostly by Americans.

So when will be able to buy duty-free shoes in the States and not have to worry about wearing our old ones coming back and sweating it out with being cross-examined by border kgb like those Mulroney government TV ads promised we'd be able to avoid in the 1980's ?. I mean, I don't care who takes over this frozen Puerto Rico du Nord as long as I can bring some new Nikes across the border duty-free and not be kgb'd about it. In fact, I think the kgb weren't as much of a pain in the ass.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Abdul_Maria
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11105

posted 26 September 2006 07:28 AM      Profile for Abdul_Maria     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
I doubt it'll happen, unless we see two major changes.

1. The US continues down its current path to authoritarianism/autocracy.
2. Canada takes another path, possibly electing an NDP or Green government, and consequently cuts up NAFTA and/or cuts off the supply of oil.

In which case, vive le resistance!


there would be a fair few Americans who would support Canada if this happened.

the US shows no sign of stopping in its current path. electing Hillary in 2008 might be a step forward, but the citizenry here has the attitude that your oil belongs to us.

elect NDP ? tear up NAFTA ? please do. PLEASE.


From: San Fran | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 26 September 2006 07:58 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We don't need an election to tear up nafta, just a referendum on the subject. The citizens would do in a heartbeat what the politicians do not have the courage or the interest in doing.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 28 September 2006 12:39 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The other day on Lou Dobbs' show, he made reference to the drive for North American Union. He sounded pretty contemptuous and ticked off about it, seeing it as a threat to American interests. I find this viewpoint interesting. Maybe if he starts another crusade, anti-North American Union, we might find we have an ally on this issue, for entirely different reasons!
From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
barb_anello
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1319

posted 28 September 2006 01:08 PM      Profile for barb_anello   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
.
Here's a series of articles on the North American Union that I've collected over the last 5 months ...

1. Bush sneaking North American superstate without oversight?
Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress
by Jerome R. Corsi, WorldNetDaily, June 13, 2006

Despite having no authorization from Congress, the Bush administration has launched extensive working-group activity to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada.

The membership of the working groups has not been published, nor has their work product been disclosed, despite two years of massive effort within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada. >>

- - - - -

2. Tancredo confronts 'super-state' effort
Demands full disclosure of White House work with Mexico, Canada
WorldNetDaily, June 15, 2006

Responding to a WorldNetDaily report, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of an office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress.

As WND reported, the White House has established working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005. >>

- - - - -

3. Kansas City customs port considered Mexican soil?
WND investigation finds new evidence U.S. facility to be on foreign territory
by Jerome R. Corsi, WorldNetDaily, July 5, 2006

A Mexican customs facility planned for Kansas City's inland port may have to be considered the sovereign soil of Mexico as part of an effort to lure officials in that country into cooperating with the Missouri development project.

Despite adamant denials by Kansas City Area Development Council officials, WND has obtained e-mails and other documents from top executives with the KCSmartPort project that suggest such a facility would by necessity be considered Mexican territory · despite its presence in the heartland of the U.S. >>

- - - - -

4. 'No EU in U.S.'
Tony Snow responds to warnings about North American superstate
by Les Kinsolving, WorldNetDaily, July 12, 2006

Presidential press secretary Tony Snow yesterday emphatically stated that there would be no "EU in the U.S." when asked about administration efforts to more closely integrate state relations between Canada, Mexico and the U.S.

As WorldNetDaily reported, some critics of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America have said the program, though supposedly beneficial to the U.S., will lead to a North American superstate similar to the European Union, open borders, loss of sovereignty and even a common currency. >>

- - - - -

5. Feds stonewalling on 'superstate' plan?
Agency fails to respond to FOIA request on 'North American union'
WorldNetDaily, July 19, 2006

The U.S. Department of Commerce appears to be stonewalling a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain complete disclosure of a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American union.

The plan is being implemented through an office within the Department of Commerce as the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," under the direction of Geri Word, who is listed as working in the department's North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, office. >>

- - - - -

6. Congressman presses on 'superstate' plan
Asks Bush administration to fully disclose its activities
WorldNetDaily, July 19, 2006

A congressman is pressing the Department of Commerce to fully disclose a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that critics say could lead to a North American union.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Integration and Oversight of the House Committee on Homeland Security, wrote July 11 to Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez requesting detailed disclosure of working groups in the Security & Prosperity Partnership office within his department. >> >>

- - - - -

7. Senator ditches bill tied to 'superstate'
Makes decision after WND points out link to 'North American Union'
by Jerome R. Corsi, WorldNetDaily, July 25, 2006

Responding to information from WorldNetDaily, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has taken steps to ensure the Senate will not act on a bill that would further a plan to create a European Union-style alliance in North America.

Cornyn made the decision after WND pointed out Friday the legislation · the North American Investment Fund Act · would constitute an attempt to pass a key piece of American University Professor Robert Pastor's plan to create a "North American Union." >>

- - - - -

8. Feds finally release info on 'superstate'
Asked to disclose details of plan that could form 'North American Union'
WorldNetDaily, July 26, 2006

After missing a deadline, the U.S. Department of Commerce finally has granted a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain complete disclosure of a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that critics say could lead to a EU-style alliance in North America.

The plan is being implemented through an office within the Department of Commerce called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," under the direction of Geri Word, who is listed as working in the agency's North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, office. >>

- - - - -

9. North American merger topic of secret confab
Meeting on integration of U.S., Mexico, Canada brings together top officials
WorldNetDaily, September 20, 2006

Raising more suspicions about plans for the future integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, a high-level, top-secret meeting of the North American Forum took place this month in Banff with topics ranging from "A Vision for North America," "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

While the conference took place a week ago, only now are documents about participants and agenda items leaking out. >>

- - - - -

10. North American Forum agenda
Program of secretive high-level meeting in Canada
WorldNetDaily, September 21, 2006

Draft Detailed September 1, 2006 Agenda
Internal Document
North American Forum
Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel
Banff, Alberta
September 12-14, 2006 >>

- - - - -

11. Attendance list North American forum
Donald Rumsfeld, George Schultz among U.S. officials on roster
WorldNetDaily, September 21, 2006

NORTH AMERICAN FORUM CONFIRMED PARTICIPANTS
(Internal Document, Not for Public Release)
Report dated August 31, 2006

Forum Co-Chairs

Canadian Participants

American Participants

Mexican Participants

>>

- - - - -

12. North America confab 'undermines' democracy
Attendee of high-level meeting says officials wanted to hide it from public
by Jerome R. Corsi, WorldNetDaily, September 21, 2006

A closed-door meeting of high-level government and business leaders that discussed the merger of North America was designed to subvert the democratic process, charged an attendee of the confab in Banff, Canada.

Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author and publisher who was the elected leader of the National Party of Canada, provided WND the agenda and attendee list of the North American Forum at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, Sept. 12-14. >>

- - - - -

13. North American students trained for 'merger'
10 universities participate in 'model Parliament' in Mexico to simulate 'integration' of 3 nations
WorldNetDaily, September 25, 2006

In another example of the way the three nations of North America are being drawn into a federation, or "merger," students from 10 universities in the U.S., Mexico and Canada are participating annually in a simulated "model Parliament."

Under the sponsorship of the Canadian based North American Forum on Integration, students met in the Mexican Senate for five days in May in an event dubbed "Triumvirate," with organizers declaring "A North American Parliament is born."

A similar event took place in the Canadian Senate in 2005. >>

[ 28 September 2006: Message edited by: barb_anello ]


From: North Bay | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 28 September 2006 02:14 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Under the sponsorship of the Canadian based North American Forum on Integration, students met in the Mexican Senate for five days in May in an event dubbed "Triumvirate," with organizers declaring "A North American Parliament is born."

...Oceania is born.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 28 September 2006 09:54 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The other day on Lou Dobbs' show, he made reference to the drive for North American Union. He sounded pretty contemptuous and ticked off about it, seeing it as a threat to American interests. I find this viewpoint interesting. Maybe if he starts another crusade, anti-North American Union, we might find we have an ally on this issue, for entirely different reasons!

Im sorry, who are you talking about? Tancredo?

I must admit Fidel, the corporate takeover stats that you cited are really disturbing.. And whats even more shocking is how not a single takeover was opposed.
I guess I will no longer laugh when you call Canada a northern banana republic next time


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 28 September 2006 11:56 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
BetterRed, it was Lou Dobbs himself (CNN) who was talking about NAU. It was just some brief comments on it, but today he said more about it, and even had an email poll on it:

Question: "Are you outraged that the Bush administration is considering combining the United States, Mexico and Canada?"

Yes 95% 12670 votes
No 5% 646 votes
Total: 13316 votes

So I expect he will be covering the push for a NAU much more in the days to come. I'm sure a lot of the reasons many Yanks will have for opposing it will be diametrically opposed to what we Canucks think, i.e. they're afraid we'll all be wanting to move into the States and take all their jobs, creating a socialistic liberal (small-l)voting bloc, and so on, when in fact it would be Americans taking over the productive parts of Canada, making us do things their way (even more so than now, that is), forcing the privatization of health care and anything else they can get away with on us, and swamping us with the worst of American popular culture and politics.

But, I think we would all agree that for any of the 3 countries involved, giving up our own sovereignties to a greater organization is abhorrent. So, I'm not sure I care why Dobbs' watchers are opposed to the idea, as long as he can keep the issue alive and make a lot of people call their congress people to complain, like they did over the Dubai ports controversy.

Now if only we could get one of our large Canadian media outlets to take the issue on (except that it would probably be pro-union)(except maybe, hopefully, the CBC). Letters to MP's are in order, methinks.


From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 29 September 2006 12:14 AM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Barb_anello, thanks for those articles you link to. It sure makes for some scary, unsettling reading. I'll probably have nightmares tonight.

For the life of me I can't understand why Paul Martin went along with this crackpot idea (I sure know why darling Stevie will). Don't these bozos see that it will spell the end of Canada?? And at this time in US history, when the country is on a dizzingly fast downhill slide morally, and is well on its way to being a red-white-and-blue police state with power-crazed torture-loving psychopaths running the show - and they want us to join up with it ?????!!!! WTF????!!!!


From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 02 October 2006 02:14 PM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Disgusted:
Barb_anello, thanks for those articles you link to. It sure makes for some scary, unsettling reading. I'll probably have nightmares tonight.

For the life of me I can't understand why Paul Martin went along with this crackpot idea (I sure know why darling Stevie will). Don't these bozos see that it will spell the end of Canada?? And at this time in US history, when the country is on a dizzingly fast downhill slide morally, and is well on its way to being a red-white-and-blue police state with power-crazed torture-loving psychopaths running the show - and they want us to join up with it ?????!!!! WTF????!!!!


I wouldn't worry yet ...americans aren't too happy either with noth america's behind closed door decisions. Remember they have the right to "bare firearms" and many do, just for that purpose. As they head towards their police state I'm sure many are stocking up.

If push comes to shove they could arm Canada also. Just the simple fact that you can walk into any town village and city in canada and pretty well get what you want...tells you there is a BIG gaping hole called the underground. Hell you can even walk into a fortified institution (prison) and get any drug you want. What does that tell you.

For the most part Canadians just don't think things are that bad yet. If they do deteriate I'm sure government will underestimate there power.Damn they can't even build a bridge for crying out loud much less trust.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 October 2006 05:21 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BetterRed:
I must admit Fidel, the corporate takeover stats that you cited are really disturbing. And whats even more shocking is how not a single takeover was opposed.

I was shocked when I read Hurtig's book, Vanishing Country. I had no idea we were being sold down the river as fast as this. Hurtig says no other developed nation has allowed this much foreign ownership and control of its economy. Canada is unique in this regard. We were a vastly underperforming nation before FTA, and I don't see how selling the family jewels and silverware makes it any better. Politicians in our two old line parties have to be on the take. They have to be, because nobody could be this dumb on purpose.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 03 October 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't say every Canadian politican is on the take..after all they all get a lottery sized pension that would make every Canadain drool.

They all are "lying sacks of crap " ..as if they told you the truth ..you wouldn't vote for them.

The liberals and conservatives have it made as Canadians play both ends against the middle and one of them always wins and they each pave the road for each other. The media helps along with this also..less they lose their club membership.


Which brings up other perks that americans have bestowed on canadian politicans in the past. Exlusive memberships to certain elite golf clubs..chairmen positions in super huge american companies, etc. etc.

I think it more has to do with the powerfull ruling elite you don't see..they real people with the real money..the ones that can destroy a country or build one. The halliburtons of the planet...the can wests of the planet, the international bank owners and trillion dollar drug cartels. These are the people that goverment suck up too..when they rattle their chains governments get on their knees beckoning there call.They better or else!!!

Intresting tho, the same people that have all the money and power are the same that always had the money and power throught history. They have learnt how over time to secure there wealth.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sans Tache
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13117

posted 03 October 2006 03:08 PM      Profile for Sans Tache        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Survey Says!

This is not the survey I was referring to but it shows there are a number of Canadians in favour of becoming part of the USA.

quote:
On the question of annexation by the United States, 19.9 per cent of Canadians said at that time that they would be in favour, while 76.5 per cent rejected the proposition. Another 3.6 per cent said they didn't know or refused to answer.

When it comes to adopting the $USA, it is even higher than the above number.

quote:
In last year's poll, 39.9 per cent of Canadians said they'd be in favour of the switch, while 55.1 per cent were opposed and five per cent said they didn't know or refused to answer.

Now there could be a reason for the higher "lets switch to the $USA" because of the $0.65 Cdn. at the time but almost 20% of the respondents stating they would rather be American without showing the demographic breakdown shows some willingness to abandon ship. Considering the Green Party has approximately 5% support in Canada and the NDP has under 20% national support, it looks like an interesting showing.

The key word in the survey was "annex" which is a very powerful statement. I wonder how many Canadians would say "yes" if the key work was join or amalgamate...

As well, the time when I remember the survey being conducted was when the deficit was $45 billion, dept was a mile high and the CPP was in dyer need of extra funding. I remember interview with young Gen-X, Canadians, who saw their future as a tax support network for their retiring Boomers elders. In 2002, the figures were lower but still has a base to build from.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 October 2006 05:05 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think the Yanks have any burning desire to amalgamate with or even annex Canada. For one thing, the powerful right wing lobby in the states would have no desire to dilute the estimated 34 to 36 percent Republican voter support base with leftish-leaning Canadians. About 76 percent of eligible voters in Canada did not vote for the CPC's in the last election.

Our weak and ineffective leadership in Ottawa over the last two decades has resulted in political maneuvering to bring Canada's food, health, education and safety standards in-line with corporate America's and multinational interests. Corporate jackals from the U.S. to Australia are waiting in the wings for Ottawa and provinces to hack off pieces of our public good and toss it their way for profiteering at the expense of equality and democracy. Because destroying equality destroys democracy, Canadians will accept these changes gradually and without public debate or being informed about it. They're operating on a need-to-know, what we don't know won't hurt us basis.

And besides, corporate America has a guaranteed supply of Canadian raw materials since FTA and NAFTA. American capitalists own and control more of Canada's economy than any other developed nation would allow while shipping profits made here out of the country untaxed. And the right wing in America have all the cheap labour they need pouring in over the border from Latin America and stonewalling them in their quest for full citizenship rights.

As long as Canadians keep electing weak and ineffective leadership with our two old line parties while 35 or 40 percent of us boycott polls on election day, Yanqui imperialists don't need to bring Canada under its umbrella let alone occupy this northern U.S. colony militarily. And our own billionare capitalists will continue living in the U.S. or Caribbean or Riviera for 181 days of the year to avoid paying Canadian taxes. Unbridled foreign ownership has resulted in non-Canadian control of over 30 important sectors of our economy. And StatsCan admits to 35 percent foreign ownership/control of Canadian corporations as it is. Imagine what the real number is.

[ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca