Depending on who you talk to, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America is either beneficial for Canada or will result in assimilation with the United States to such an extent that Canada's sovereignty will become a thing of the past.
Agreed upon in March 2005 by U.S. President George Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox, the SPP seeks to harmonize standards between the three countries in order to facilitate trade and enhance security.
According to the SPP website, the three countries will "coordinate" in the areas of border security, energy and environment, economic and trade policy, emergency management and preparedness and food product safety, among others.
However, critics say the SPP has an agenda of "deep integration" with the U.S, is over-represented by big business and operates in a secretive way without provision for public input.
Described as a "dialogue," the SPP is not a treaty and doesn't require formal legislation.
"Part of the reason for that is that proponents of continental integration have realized that the public in Canada and the U.S. would not support a new treaty," says Michael Byers, Canada research chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia.
"This is essentially designed to do an end-run around the kind of political opposition that would be generated by a transparent and formal process. It's quite clever actually."
The SPP appeared on the radar screen of many Canadians for the first time last August when a summit was held in Montebelloo, Quebec. Protesters turned out in force, railing against integration, the SPP's corporate agenda and the fact that the summit made no room for public participation.
But it isn't the annual SPP summits that are the problem, says Byers.
"It's the meetings between unelected bureaucrats — American, Canadian and Mexican trans-national committees that are given the job of harmonizing the regulations and standards that govern the way things occur in the three countries, and are doing so without the scrutiny of Parliament."
SPP opponents say Canada's high standards for food and worker safety could be relaxed to match those of the U.S. and Mexico where standards tend to be lower.
A key component of the SPP is the North American Competitiveness Council, consisting of 30 CEOs and corporate chairmen, 10 from each country, charged with directing the partnership process.
"One of our biggest beefs is that this permanent, official SPP advisory group, comprised solely of CEOs from all three countries from some of the richest companies, is the only group that our government is willing to listen to when it comes to this North American partnership," says Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians, a citizens advocacy group.
In discussions between the U.S. Embassy and the Council of Canadians, says Trew, the council was informed that the debate on the SPP would not be extended in order to avoid "another bruising NAFTA battle."
Michael Hart, Simon Reisman chair in trade policy at Carleton University's Norman Patterson School of International Affairs, is thoroughly in favour of the SPP and deep integration with the U.S.
"It will get rid of the kinds of things that prevent our economies from functioning better by moving towards solving some of the border problems," he says. "And secondly it's beginning to identify some of the regulatory impediments to better performance in the two economies."
Hart sees the border as an obstacle to Canada-U.S. interaction and integration. In a recent National Post op-ed piece, he said the September 11 terrorist attacks provided a perfect opportunity to "re-imagine the border," but Canada failed to grasp it.
"If we each have a set of regulations which are trying to do largely the same thing but in a slightly different way, it makes sense to look at other ways in which we can do it so that we're compatible," he says. "That's it, that's the SPP, that's what all this worrying is about."
Hart is dismissive of accusations of a lack of transparency in the SPP. He says the only people who have concerns about it in Canada "are those on the left who think that anything done with the Americans is something to worry about."
However, some people south of the border are not too happy about it either.
Howard Phillips, chair of the Conservative Caucus, a Virginia-based public policy advocacy group, says that while most Americans are "vastly ignorant" about the SPP, a coalition of several dozen organizations is planning to protest the next summit, to be held in New Orleans on April 21 and 22.
These organizations say the SPP has an agenda to merge the three countries into a North American Union (NAU), with a common currency and virtually no borders. Among other concerns, they fear this will jeopardize American sovereignty.
"The SPP in our view is the first step in a long series of developments," says Phillips. "It would lead to the creation of a bureaucratic super-structure, merging governing authorities of the three North American countries."
Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia has introduced a House resolution calling on President Bush to abandon the SPP. The preamble of Goode's resolution refers to the Trans-Texas Corridor currently under construction in Texas, noting "a NAFTA Super Highway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union to facilitate trade between the SPP countries."
However, on its SPP website the U.S. government says there's no plan afoot to build a NAFTA Superhighway or to form an NAU.
In Mexico, the SPP has been dubbed NAFTA Plus since President Fox announced in 2003 that Mexico, the U.S. and Canada would embark on negotiations toward "a new phase of NAFTA."
According to Laura Carlsen, director of the America's Policy Program at the Centre for International Policy in Mexico City, the SPP is an extension of NAFTA and is being pushed on the Mexican people at a time when civil society groups are looking to downscale NAFTA.
On January 31, 200,000 farmers and their supporters took to the streets demanding that the agricultural clause in NAFTA be renegotiated. This came in reaction to the January 1 removal of tariffs from beans and corn, staples in the Mexican diet.
The farmers worry that this will open the way to massive imports, displacing them in their own markets.
"The countryside is in such dire straits since NAFTA went into effect in Mexico that these farmers have come to the point where they recognize the relationship between what they're suffering and NAFTA," says Carlsen
SPP opponents in Canada and Mexico fear that deep integration means that the U.S., being by far the most powerful partner, will be the country that gets to call the shots.
"This is an integration that, instead of being an even process of integration between the three countries, looks much more like a process of subordination of Canada and Mexico to the U.S. agenda. And that, with this administration, is downright dangerous," says Carlsen.
But according to Hart that's not how it works. "Most of the agreements that we have require both of us to agree to things. It's not that the U.S. dictates to us, we work things out together."
In Canada, the NDP continues to press the government on SPP secrecy, and Green Party leader Elizabeth May has said that deep integration will be the core of her party's platform in the next election.
The Council of Canadians has called for a public debate, a Parliamentary debate and a Parliamentary vote on the issue.
Feeds