The SPP: no cause for concern

From the Council Of Canadian's document Behind Closed Doors

Recently, Prime Minister Harper played host to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), an annual meeting of the North American leaders to discuss issues of cross-border trade, security, and other juicy elements of the trilateral relationship. The SPP is hated by some, valued by others, and ignored by most.

So what’s it all about? Is the SPP as secretive as its opponents suggest? Is it driven by business interests, pushing for deeper North American integration? What actually came out of this year’s meeting? And did Stephen Harper wear another embarrassing vest?

My blanket answer: opponents of the SPP should chill out. Citizen interest groups like the Council of Canadians deserve to be given a voice in the process, it’s true. But the SPP’s detractors aren’t going to be taken seriously if they keep touting this “grand corporate conspiracy” rhetoric. The SPP is useful in ironing out wrinkles in the North American partnership, healthy for continued continental growth, and an utterly un-sexy and un-scary institution. This conspiracy stuff just won’t wash, as I hope to show.

The Case of the Detractors: A Highway to Nowhere?

Several citizens groups, led primarily by Maude Barlow and the nationalistic Council of Canadians, have many complaints about the SPP and the way it does business. They accuse it of being anti-democratic, driven by corporate interests, and dragging Canada down a dangerous path of energy depletion and water diversion. I read through their publication Behind Closed Doors: What they're not telling us about the Security and Prosperity Partnership to check out their talking points, and while they do make some good arguments (particularly that the door is closed to citizen groups and lobbies), it seems to me that most of their fears are unwarranted, premature, or lacking in substance. Here are their main complaints, with my comments:

1.) The SPP is un-democratic

“The SPP is the political manifestation of a corporate plan for economic and security integration that was never voted on in any country… Meanwhile, the public and most of our publicly elected officials have been left out of the picture completely.”

Part of this complaint is fair, and part of it is overstated. To suggest that the SPP is a “corporate plan” is taking things too far. Yes, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives plays an advisory role in the process, but that doesn’t imply that it is driving the debate. At the end of the day, the leader’s get to decide what to talk about and implement, and guess what? They were elected.

And besides, I think it’s good to get the business community involved in the process. For instance, if Canada is going to keep plugging away at its “smart border” ideas to provide border security and easy trade, we need the business community in our corner, telling Washington that they’re prepared to make the adjustments, that they value ease-of-access borders, etc. I think the talks likely benefit from private-sector involvement.

However, it’s only fair that if the business sector is involved, the citizens groups should get their say, too. Would it have been too much for the leaders to meet with Maude Barlow and other interest-group leaders to involve them in the process? And Harper’s refusal to accept the petition submitted by the protestors in Montebello was arrogant, disrespectful and low. Real low. No wonder they feel marginalized. Let’s allow for some civic participation, huh?

2.) The SPP is an “Energy Grab” (Maude's words)

“Canada and Mexico have agreed to give U.S. oil companies an even tighter grip of both countries’ resources in return for vague assurances that the U.S. won’t shut the border to our goods. In Canada, that means guaranteeing a fivefold increase in tar sands production, no matter what the consequences for the environment and public health – and even if it makes greenhouse gas reductions impossible.”

Now hold on a second. I’ve read the 2007 SPP meeting declaration, and I don’t remember reading anything about a 5-fold increase in tar sands production. I’ve also poked around some of the past summit declarations and agendas, and even though the Council of Canadians asserts that “a fivefold increase in tar sands production is actually built right into the SPP,” I can’t find reference to this anywhere. It seems weird that an increase in energy production would be “built right into” the SPP – especially since the SPP isn’t a document or agreement; it’s just a meeting. And besides, isn't the decision to increase oil production in the hands of the companies pumping the oil? The Prime Minister doesn't force companies to increase their oil production. How could this have been an agreement? And where was it agreed to? Does anyone know what they’re talking about here?

And anyway, if you’re against the development of the oilsands for environmental reasons, why bother attacking the SPP? Why not lobby for stronger environmental regulations? It seems strange to attack the SPP (which actually aspires to promote environmental cooperation between its members) because of the oil sands development. After all, the oilsands would be tapped with-or-without the SPP’s existence.

And besides, the oil sands are extremely valuable to the Canadian economy. Is it wrong to sell energy to the United States? Certainly not. We need environmental protection, to be sure, but can’t we have the SPP also? Calling the SPP an “energy grab” just doesn’t wash.

3) The SPP is destroying Canadian sovereignty over fresh water

“There is very little mention of water in publicly available Security and Prosperity Partnership documents ... But we know from several leaked documents from U.S. groups like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies that bulk water exports and other contentious issues related to water management have been discussed in trilateral talks linked to the SPP.”

Uh-huh. Does this sound like something you want to get worked up about? Some unnamed people, “linked” in some way to the SPP, talked about bulk water exports. What they talked about is not mentioned. Meanwhile, Harper has said to the Canadian public that “Canada’s water is not for sale.” Cause for concern? I don't think so.

4) The SPP “extends Bush’s War on Terror”

Now this one really takes the rhetoric too far. From a speech by Maude Barlow:

“The SPP extends George Bush’s War on Terror, with its fixation on bombs, mortars and bibles, to Canada and Mexico.”

Strong words. Her evidence? Canada has merged its no-fly list with that of the United States. Yep. That’s it. But no, that's not an overstatement. The day these lists were merged, I can tell you that I felt a strange affinity for bombs, mortars, and bibles. And now I know why. It’s because the SPP extended the War on Terror right to my doorstep. We may as well be in Iraq.

Like, is this lame or what? It’s this kind of laughable overstatement that makes the citizens groups sound goofy, and keeps them from occupying a reasonable, legitimate place at the SPP’s table.

And oh yeah, you’ve probably read about this NAFTA Superhighway, a “road to nowhere” that’s supposedly “four football fields wide” and spans all three countries. Totally untrue of course, but even the Council of Canadians makes mention of something similar.

This year’s outcome? Boooooring

Now, it seems to me that if you want to judge whether or not the SPP is silently and steadily destroying the Canadian nation-state, you should look at what it has actually achieved to that end. So let's briefly look at this year's achievements toward "deep integration." I checked out the 2007 SPP Joint Declaration, and found that this year the good people of North America got:

- a North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza
- a Regulatory Cooperation Framework
- an Intellectual Property Action Strategy
- a Trilateral Agreement for Cooperation in Energy Science and Technology

Wow, is anyone else shaking in their boots? Looking at those wildly ambitious achievements, I can't help but feel compelled to sing the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish. Now that we have a North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza, I'm convinced the Canadian state is not long for this world.

Hardly. So here’s my view on the SPP: it’s bland, it’s bureaucratic, it’s pragmatic, it’s valuable, and it’s very un-scary. I’ve read through the nationalistic talking points. I’m not concerned. And while I sympathize with the fact that these groups should be listened to (which is precisely why I have tried to treat their arguments seriously here), I think they shoot themselves in the foot when they treat the SPP like some mysterious corporate conspiracy. Moderate yourselves, guys, and I promise you’ll be taken more seriously.