Thursday, June 02, 2011

Daily Digest June 2, 2011



>>>>>>>>>> INFOS <<<<<<<<<<
JEUDI 02 JUIN 2011



Overwhelmingly individuals responding both on the Digest and Facebook were unaware,

Wish I was able to send this to the respondents to the CBC Qustion of the Day

There always seem to be funds for advertising. It will be interesting to ask just
how much was spent informing citizens about being able to give opinion on this.

Several thoughts as to what might be included have been provided by Sandra
take the opportunity to add yours to them when you send in your views.

There are still over 22 hours when this is being sent.  If you get it in time don't
really concern yourself with filling in the on line forms.

Write your flow of mind thoughts on Canada and the 'States getting this close to
the following address - with a Cc: to the Digest

Beyond the Border Working Group
235 Queen Street, Office 1020C
Ottawa ON K1A 0H5
E-mail: border@ic.gc. ca

Will Canada lose too much sovereignty if it creates a coordinated security perimeter with the U.S.?

Yes 84.47% (2,323 votes)
No 12.98% (357 votes)
Not sure 2.55% (70 votes)
Total Votes: 2,750
Comments (31)   Share This


I almost never visit the Canadian government website and so was unaware of this group.


More proof that the media focus too much on local weather and assorted jibbah-jabbah rather than on stuff that's actually interesting.


Unaware   .....   Who is paying and how were the people doing the study selected ,,,   What is the cost????

Thank you Joe, I sent in my comment to the so-called working group. (I was not aware of this consultation, if that's what it is; a consultation that doesn't want to hear from Canadians).

Grant Orchard

Subject: unaware

Guess they wanted to keep it secret so only those favoured few who knew about it could give a thumbs up for this scam?
I have written to them in all three categories.  Will probably end up in jail but so be it.

Is this the way the 'law' will be enacted once we dovetail our laws  with the US?

Where are our rights against search and seizure?

Michael wrote: "I'd heard about the English version of this survey a few days ago and responded to it. Not much advanced warning about it so they won't get much response I shouldn't think. Of course, they probably don't want any response..."

Steve wrote: "Another actinscam ???"

Ash  Does anybody believe this government will take our views seriously? This is just smoke & mirrors. They will do what they want no matter what.
10 hours ago · Like ·  2 people

Faith  I'm in agreement with Ash's comments...this online discussion is only being done so that they can go ahead with their initial plans anyways and then when Canadiians vocally object they'll be able to come back and say well we held an online open discussion and no one objected to the plans we laid out to them at the time...also notice how there has been no advertising or television commericials or announcements of any kind through media outlets to inform Canadians of this opportunity...strategic planning at it's best yet once again on behalf of Stephen Harper and his CON party!
9 hours ago · Like ·  2 people

Ash This is the big picture - now that the 39%ers gave the Cons a majority.
8 hours ago · Like

Sylvia See... the thing is they haven't told us of any of their plans. Well machinations actually.
8 hours ago · Like ·  2 people

Jasmine  the discussion (???) will end on June 3rd anyway
8 hours ago · Like ·  2 people

Jamie  He's just going to do the republican thing!He dosen't care what canadians think.If you didn't vote for him he wants you in jail!
7 hours ago · Like

Joe Hueglin ?"the discussion (???) will end on June 3rd anyway" Maybe, maybe not To this point no one has told me they were aware. Was there any advertising? Should there be/have been? PUTTING THEM ON THE SPOT is practical politics, n'est ce pas?
6 hours ago · Like ·  1 person

Jamie harper is doing his best to kill Canada's identity.We will soon( if not all ready) become known as little satan in the eyes of the world.
6 hours ago · Like ·  1 person

Andy  This seems to be the purpose and intent of the so called NAI: "the focus is on improving the economic welfare of the continent. It suggests one of the main benefits to Canada would be easier access across the U.S. border, calling it a "top motive" for this country."

Hi Joe,
This was sent out by the Council of Canadians a couple of days ago.
I read it.  I think my brain is fried  - - I entirely forgot it, although I had intended to follow-up on it.

Though the questionnaire on the government's Border Action Plan website is designed to exclude criticism of deep security and economic integration with the U.S., we encourage you to voice your opposition anyway using the options provided.

The "Beyond the Border" declaration, announced jointly by Prime Minister Harper and U.S. President Obama at a February 4, 2011 press conference in Washington, D.C., commits both governments to "pursue a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people, goods, and services between our two countries."

We've been here before. The " Beyond the Border Action Plan" that Harper and Obama are drafting behind closed doors, based almost entirely on corporate input, simply rehashes the hopelessly flawed and publicly rejected Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America ( The only difference is that Mexico is not a part of the discussion (though the explosion of drug-related murders in Mexico offers proof where security integration across borders can go terribly wrong).

No one can know for sure what 'perimeter security' will mean until the details of the Canada-U.S. action plan are announced later this summer. But if it means wrapping North America in a high tech security blanket under U.S. control, increasing surveillance of everyday people across the continent, and harmonizing health, environmental and intellectual property laws, then the scheme cannot truly make any of us safer or more prosperous.


Send the Harper government your thoughts on its post-SPP perimeter security plan with the U.S., and make sure to send us a copy, too, at . We've provided a few talking points below to help you draft your response. You can use the government's online form here. Or you can send your submission by mail or e-mail to the addresses below:

Beyond the Border Working Group
235 Queen Street, Office 1020C
Ottawa ON K1A 0H5


1 - An online consultation is not sufficient public consultation for a plan that is being dubbed as the biggest North American deal since NAFTA. It is also difficult to comment on a perimeter plan when we don't have the details yet. There should be open public consultations and lengthy parliamentary scrutiny, with the ability to make changes to the plan, once those details are released later this summer. And there should be no special access to the process for Canadian and U.S. business lobby groups, as there was for the 30 CEOs of the North American Competitiveness Council during the publicly rejected Security and Prosperity Partnership discussions.

2 - The links between economic prosperity and a U.S. version of security are not obvious. If the financial crisis and current environmental crisis have taught us anything, it's that ecological and economic security are much more important priorities for people and governments around the world. NAFTA has increased trade between Canada and the U.S. but not prosperity for the majority of Canadians or Americans. Regulatory cooperation measures announced in a side-statement to the Beyond the Border perimeter security plan may undermine efforts in the United States and Canada to set stronger environmental and public health policies and regulations than currently exist.

3 – There is little evidence of a major problem with the flow of goods and people across the Canada-U.S. border. Where is the independent impact assessment of U.S. security demands since 2001 on border flows? David Wilkins, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada, recently claimed that stories of a "thicker" border are exaggerated. What problem is perimeter security looking to solve if not border flows? There is also a question of cost. Canada has spent $10 billion beefing up border security since September 2001, which is dwarfed by an estimated $1 trillion spent in the U.S. on new security measures. A new study by Ohio State University national security professor John Mueller and engineering professor Mark Stewart of Australia's University of Newcastle suggests we may have hit the point where additional security spending produces no new benefits in terms of real security.

4 - A common understanding of the 'threat environment' and how to respond to it, as proposed in the February 4 joint declaration, really means a U.S. understanding. Canada will be asked to fear the same thing the U.S. government fears, and to respond in a similar way. A perimeter security approach will mean a jointly patrolled outer perimeter under de facto U.S. control. Canada will end up with a U.S.-patrolled external border and a U.S-controlled internal border.

5 - Recommendations from the Arar Commission following Maher Arar's deportation to Syria from the U.S. stated that Canada should more carefully monitor the operations of its numerous security agencies, and put filters on the information it shares with U.S. and other foreign security agencies. These recommendations have gone unanswered by the Harper government. More information sharing across the border without proper checks and balances may undermine the civil liberties of Canadians and Americans alike.