Top secret
A journey to an Ottawa teach-in reveals that NAFTA 2.0—the Orwellian-sounding Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)—aims to make sweeping regulatory changes, but without changing any laws. With 300 issues on the table, the SPP could reshape North America. So why do so few know just what Bush, Harper and Calderón are up to?
BY Jessica Johnston
Photography by Reuters: Jason Reed
Seeing the original “three amigos”—Paul Martin, George W. Bush and Vicente Fox— pat each other’s backs for the cameras at the first summit in Waco, Texas, it seemed likely that they were up to no good. Their handshake there two years ago launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), a dialogue aimed at harmonizing regulations between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
There was no shortage of photo opportunities at the meeting, but there was no real media scrutiny. So, while I knew I should care about what was cooking in Texas, I wasn’t sure why. I wondered what was really going on, but the critics’—much quieter— messages didn’t do much for me, either. I can’t help but find talk of secret meetings, corporate agendas and “deep integration” with the United States somewhat offputting. The idea of the U.S. and Canada together at last, ruled by corporations, to the detriment of everything we love and cherish, goes too far; the worstcase scenario rhetoric just made me sleepy.
It’s easy, though, for an issue so all-encompassing to come across as conspiratorial, and this one is a doozey. When, in February, the media officer for citizens’ advocacy group Council of Canadians contacted me with an invitation to participate in a conference call to discuss media strategies for the SPP, I spent most of the time meditating on the configuration of thumbtacks on my bulletin board. When I hung up, I still didn’t know what the SPP was.
When invitations for an SPP teach-in began arriving in my inbox soon after, I still didn’t pay much attention. Three weeks later, though, I’d seen the invite about 20 times, and the power of repetition was getting to me. By the Monday beforehand, I was considering attending, and by 3:30 Friday afternoon, I’d decided to go. Thanks to Greyhound, I arrived in Ottawa just before midnight.
And that’s how I come to be walking—on a cold, sunny Saturday morning in late March—through our capital’s empty downtown core, impressed with myself for being up so early, and wondering how other activist types, not generally known for early rising, would fare with the 9 a.m. start time. Despite my reservations, I know there’s something to this issue, and I have many questions to be answered. How is the SPP related to the trade agreements of the past? What’s all the secrecy about? How do you get people excited about what they don’t know? Are we going to get tear-gassed over this? And most importantly, does the fact that it’s a teach-in mean we’ll have to sing?
This event, which is co-hosted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Canadian Labour Congress, was set for March 30 to April 1. The dates were chosen to correspond, the organizers thought, with the third amigos’ meeting, which was believed to be taking place in Canada at the end of March. This didn’t turn out to be the case, but they decided to proceed, as there was the possibility of an SPP gathering in June. (Which also turned out to be false—such are the hazards of scheduling around secret meetings.)
At Ottawa Tech, the place is filling up fast, and it’s buzzing. Within minutes of arriving, I spot an old college instructor from Victoria and a sleepy Toronto friend in search of coffee. It’s been a few years since I’ve been to this kind of gathering of the left, and I’m reminded of what I like about them. It’s comforting to be surrounded by energy, old friends and the feeling that anything is possible. Council of Canadians events tend to attract a high percentage of grey heads, and while I’ve always liked seeing the olds out to get their revolution on, I am pleased to note, as a woman chases a toddler running full speed toward the stage, that there is a broad age range here.
Avi Lewis takes the auditorium stage at 9:30. “We’re starting on time!” he declares somewhat ironically. “A classic teach-in!” We may be half an hour late beginning, but there are more than 800 people here. Not bad for a chilly Saturday morning. “There’s a geeky thrill to a teach-in,” he proclaims. “This is where it all starts. You’re going to be able to say, ‘I was there.’”
In its own words, the Security and Prosperity Partnership is a “trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing ... premised on our security and our economic prosperity being mutually reinforcing.” Its purpose is to harmonize regulations among the three countries to facilitate trade, but without changing any laws. The SPP is of concern to activists because its implications are broad and the process deliberately secretive. And like the trade agreements that came before, it is being advanced on the flawed premise that to secure access to U.S. markets, Canada needs to adopt a more American style of doing things. There are 19 working groups propelling the SPP—10 for security and nine for prosperity—each charged with “fulfilling the vision of the North American Heads of State,” and their reports are not made public. The sole advisory body to the process, the North American Competitiveness Council, is composed exclusively of CEOs.
The agenda for this weekend, designed to build the will to oppose the SPP process, is ambitious. The first Saturday panel is on “The Big Business of Insecurity,” to be followed by “Commandeering the Continent: Military Integration, Big Oil and the Environment,” “The Democratic Deficit: Parliament and the SPP” and “The North America We Really Want.” In the afternoon, there will be 21 concurrent workshops on everything from “Aboriginal Treaty Rights and Deep Integration” and “Movement, Theatre and Social Change” to “Challenging Empire and its SPP: Mobilizing for Another North America.”
Looking at the list, I am struck by the variety of the titles, as well as their vagueness—which momentarily feeds a conspiracy-theory aversion I have vowed to park for the weekend. Rather than view this approach as scattershot, then, I choose to interpret the list as evidence of the coalition-building needed to make the left a political force worth reckoning with. We may lack the unified purpose of, say, the business lobby, but put us in a room together and we’ve been known to get a thing or two done.
The last teach-in I attended was in Vancouver, in 2001, before the Free Trade Area of the Americas summit in Quebec City. (Remember? The FTAA sought to extend NAFTA across the Western Hemisphere.) I went to Quebec because reading every day about the security measures being put in place to protect the meetings from the public made me angry.
Six years later, fences may no longer be necessary to guard trade talks, but the opposition’s demands are strikingly familiar: transparency, accountability, democracy. “We need rigour, not rhetoric,” Lewis declares, “This is a research project.” Since little is known about the SPP process, he tells the audience, the task ahead is to decode what information is available and to ask specific, enlightened questions to find out what exactly is going on.
During the morning panels, I learn that the SPP has its roots in NAFTA and the FTA, but that this incarnation was born largely of 9/11. By late- 2001, the free-trade agenda was already faltering— the Doha, Qatar, round of WTO talks was successful only because the U.S. was able to frame the issue as a security one. When the Canada-U.S. border was closed temporarily after the planes hit, the Canadian business lobby was alarmed, but found in the U.S.’s security fears a chance to advance a favourite cause: deep integration with the United States.
Within weeks of September 11, Thomas d’Aquino, president of the Business Council on National Issues (now the Canadian Council of Chief Executives), started calling for “more fundamental harmonization and integration” with the U.S. to keep the borders open to trade. He sent then-prime minister Jean Chrétien and U.S. President Bush a letter urging the countries to adopt a “smart border” that would “use technology to enhance both security and the flow of goods and people across the border.” Thus the smart border action plan between Canada and the U.S. was created to share intelligence, including passenger information for flights between the two countries. (We know from Maher Arar’s case how well this worked out.)
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives continued to lobby for further integration between the NAFTA countries, in early 2003 launching a “Security and Prosperity Initiative” that called for a new institutional framework for integration. The following year, a tri-national “Independent Task Force on the Future of North America,” vice-chaired by Thomas d’Aquino and co-chaired by John Manley, then-Canadian finance minister, released a report calling for the creation of a North American economic and security community by 2010. The report’s recommendations included establishing a continental security perimeter, a common external tariff, a common border pass for all North Americans, a North American energy and natural resources strategy and an annual meeting where leaders could chart the progress of these initiatives. One year later, in March 2005, the three North American leaders announced a “Security and Prosperity Partnership” containing almost all the recommendations put forward by the task force.
I have been known, at gatherings of the left, to flee the room before the floor is opened up to questions so as to avoid the nuanced analyses of those who some in attendance refer to as “uncles.” I am relieved to note that here at Ottawa Tech there is no central mic to line up behind; they will instead be brought to audience members, then taken away again. Nevertheless, I’m not in the clear. The first person to stand up begins by declaring, “It’s well known that 9/11 was an inside job.” The second asks, “Is fascism here?”
These kinds of gatherings attract a diverse and quirky lot, each person with his or her own specific passion and idea of where solutions lie. As generally happens in these cases, I find myself supporting the cause, but frustrated by the process, and overwhelmed by the mission. In trying to wrap my head around this “sprawling octopus of a topic,” as Lewis earlier described the SPP, I am torn between two equal impulses: stand up and call for an armed revolt, or head to Starbucks for a soy latte.
SPP proponents publicly claim the process is about advancing shared interests, but, as we are repeatedly told over the weekend, the negotiations are conducted behind closed doors, their contents confidential, raising the obvious question: If what they are discussing is so great, why don’t they let everyone in on it? But leaders have learned from the failure of big-summit trade talks that public scrutiny inhibits the ability to advance a business agenda.
To illustrate that point from the “other side,” Ron Covais, president of Lockheed Martin and member of the North American Competitiveness Council, told Maclean’s last year that the instruction from SPP ministers, who include Canada’s Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, was: “Tell us what we need to do and we’ll make it happen.” He added, “We’ve decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes … because we won’t get anywhere.” A U.S. delegation visiting the Council of Canadians last year also admitted as much, saying they are pursuing back channels to avoid “another bruising NAFTA battle.”
Last September, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor met with U.S. and Mexican officials and business leaders in Banff to discuss North American integration. The details of the meeting, organized by the CCCE, were not made public. The media strategist for the event said it was “private,” rather than “secret,” and it was only through an access to information request filed by the Canadian Labour Congress that it became apparent the silence was part of an elaborate strategy to keep the media and public out.
Media coverage, at this point, is precisely what the SPP’s opponents are lacking. A search of news media turns up gardening stories (“spp” is also a botanic abbreviation of “species”—who knew?), punctuated by the occasional op-ed from council chair Maude Barlow. Still, the teach-in is being filmed by CPAC as well as at least one independent filmmaker. Coming back after the second panel of the day, there is an announcement that there have been complaints about the bright lights. “Welcome to my world,” chides Lewis. You can’t complain about the lack of media attention and the lights, he says. “You have a headache, I have a headache, but we have important matters to discuss.”
Getting the word out is one of the teach-in’s main goals, so, when it comes time for the afternoon workshops, I opt to attend one on media messaging. The session is co-hosted by the council’s media officer, Meera Karunananthan, who acknowledges that a huge obstacle to effectively opposing the SPP is the lack of public debate about it. In previous campaigns, such as the one opposing NAFTA, there were clear “for” and “against” camps, so detractors were considered credible. Since the SPP is not a household name, voicing opposition leaves the group open to conspiracy allegations, and its messages are more easily dismissed.
Another problem Karunananthan identifies is differentiating the Canadian anti-SPP message from those of right-wing critics in the United States, where the SPP is getting much more attention in the press (and legislative bodies) than in Canada. The council’s American “counterparts” are xenophobic groups such as the Minutemen, fighting to expose the SPP because they fear it will lead to a Europeanstyle union and threaten U.S. political sovereignty. Opposition is widespread enough in the United States that the American SPP website has posted a “myths and facts” page addressing allegations that the deal will infringe on U.S. sovereignty, lead to a common currency with Canada and Mexico or result in the creation of “NAFTA Superhighway” linking the three nations.
Close to the end of the first day, I’ve had most of my initial questions answered. Wandering the halls Saturday afternoon foreshadows the answer to my final one. The strains of five-part harmony are only barely audible—I can’t make out all the lyrics, but I’m sure I hear the word “daycare” in there. Thirty minutes later, the Capital City Workers choir takes the stage, and half the room vacates. When the remaining half is invited to join in the chorus, I adopt an expression of intense concentration and scribble madly in my notebook. But even sunk into my chair, trying to look busy and/or invisible, the enthusiasm is contagious and I can’t help but feel moved by this small act of vaguely embarrassing— at least for me—solidarity. By the time a clip from This Is What Democracy Looks Like, the documentary from the 1999 battle in Seattle, is screened, I again feel the stirrings of a desire to lead the march on Parliament Hill. The spell is broken when technical difficulties interrupt the film and its rebellionfuelled Rage Against the Machine soundtrack, but I pretend not to notice the obvious symbolism.
The next day, a morning-only session meant to turn ideas into action attracts a noticeably smaller crowd. The time is largely spent in breakoff groups, each directed to brainstorm around topics like “mobilizing for the election” or “educating peers.” The results are recorded on paper puzzle pieces on which we’re instructed to capture in two or three words the essence of our discussions. When we reassemble in the auditorium, it becomes obvious there has been a small communication breakdown with the instructions: some pieces have only a word or two (“anger and action”), and some contain multi-part strategies conveyed in tiny printing (“Educate selves and peers / talk to people who may not agree, and get five others doing the same thing”). I’m not sure if the 10 puzzle pieces are intended to fit together, but I can’t help but notice that they don’t.
Despite the minor omens, though, when it’s time to go, I feel that it has been a weekend well spent. My head may hurt from all the information, but when Barlow, in her closing comments, says she can tell opposition to the SPP is going to take off, I sincerely hope she is right.
When I stop by the Council of Canadians offices on Monday, the mood is tired but buoyant. Chatting with Karunananthan about how the event went, she shows me two news stories about the teach-in published in the Ottawa Citizen that day. “They picked up our messages exactly,” she happily exclaims, pointing to the headlines.
And, really, this is where it begins. The issues addressed at the teach-in were complex, but its immediate goals were straightforward: learn, find “spark issues” to generate opposition, get the media to care, make this an election issue, mobilize against the next SPP summit meeting. In the three months that have now passed, mainstream media outlets, which had been nearly silent on the issue, have started to take notice. Articles linking energy, water and a host of other SPP priorities to the agreement have started appearing in the pages of our dailies as more information about the SPP and its agenda is uncovered.
In late April, documents leaked to the Council of Canadians showed that bulk water exports are being discussed at closed-door meetings on North American integration, as part of the SPP, under the name “Future of North American Environment 2025.” Water has already been defined as a commodity under NAFTA, whose proportional sharing clause dictates that once we start to export a resource, we cannot stop, nor can we decrease the amount exported—regardless of our own supply. Such is already the case with Canada’s oil. We export 65 percent to the U.S., then import from the Middle East to meet domestic demand.
Environmental advocates are outraged over a recent Ottawa Citizen report that our government is planning to increase allowable levels of pesticides to more easily import produce from the United States. According to the article, “the move is part of an effort to harmonize Canadian pesticide rules with those of the United States, which tends to allow higher residue levels on its food.” The Edmonton Journal also recently came out with an editorial questioning the SPP process: “The Harper government needs to step back from fast-tracked talks with the U.S. on a Security and Prosperity Partnership and convey to the other side that, while harmonizing standards is a good idea, dropping them to the lowest common denominator is not.”
On the legislative front, NDP trade critic Peter Julian, who also participated in the teach-in, won the first-ever parliamentary hearings on the SPP from the Standing Committee on International Trade, after a year-long battle. The witness list for the televised presentations included Bruce Campbell of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Maude Barlow; Teresa Healy from the Canadian Labour Congress; John Foster and Corina Crawley from Common Frontiers; and Gordon Laxer, a University of Alberta professor representing the Parkland Institute—all of whom have been working to expose the SPP process.
All this scrutiny has made the Conservatives nervous. The North American Future 2025 project meeting was scheduled to take place in Calgary at the end of April, but the government pulled its representatives after news of the meeting became public. When Julian raised the issue during question period, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay responded by suggesting he “put away his tinfoil hat and his discussions around black helicopters and get back to the facts.” When Laxer made his presentation to the Trade Committee regarding Canada’s energy security and the SPP, the chair, Conservative MP Leon Benoit adjourned the meeting and stormed out of the room.
The nerves are justifiable. The hard right is on shaky ground. The neo-liberal agenda, as embodied by the trade agreements of the past, has failed. Most Canadians, who are wary of the promises of economic prosperity that unfettered trade and closer integration with the United States are supposed to bring, have greeted free trade with skepticism. In 1988, 60 percent of people voted for parties that opposed signing the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. In 1993, the Chrétien Liberals were elected on the promise of not extending the FTA into a North American Free Trade Agreement, but they signed on anyway. Since then, though, the MAI, WTO and FTAA have all failed to move forward, due in no small part to public outcry.
When Parliament reconvenes in the fall, the House will be debating several anti-SPP motions brought forward by the NDP. (It is interesting to note the relatively seamless transition from Liberals to Conservatives on this issue.)
It is also now known that the third meeting of the SPP leaders is scheduled to take place on August 21. George Bush, Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderón will meet in Montebello, Quebec— midway between Ottawa and Montreal. The location is central, but highly secure. The last time George W. came to Ottawa, 10,000 demonstrators showed up to greet him. The Council of Canadians is busy mobilizing opposition to the meeting, and hopes to get at least as many people out this time. Meetings on alternative trade models are also in the works to coincide with the event.
So, will we get tear-gassed over this? I guess I’ll find out in August. But I still plan to look busy when the singing starts.
