Police State Canada 2010 and the Olympic Crackdown

By Dana Gabriel


(image by CasaZaza)

In advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics, critics of the Games have been subjected to surveillance, harassment, along with other intimidation tactics. Voicing opposition to the Olympics appears to be all that is needed for one to be labeled as a security threat. There are concerns over the negative impacts associated with holding the Games, as well as concerted efforts to stifle anti-Olympic expression. As the Coca-Cola/RBC corporate torch relay nears its final destination, the opening ceremonies in Vancouver on February 12, 2010, more protests are expected. The Olympics are providing the perfect cover for many police state measures with ramifications that could leave a lasting legacy.

In a recent report, the Civil Liberties Advisory Committee (CLAC), an Olympic watchdog group issued a series of recommendations aimed at ensuring that rights and freedoms are respected during the Winter Games. The group strongly believes that protesters have a right to gather anywhere on public property, provided that they do not break the law. In regards to safe protest zones, CLAC favors that they be defined by painted lines on sidewalks or streets and not by fences or security barriers. This gives the perception that protesters are a threat. The watchdog group proposed that the Vancouver Police Department (VDP) be given the lead role in dealing with Olympic protests. This is due to concerns over mistrust of the RCMP in the province of BC as well as out of town police officers being, “unfamiliar with the groups and practices associated with peaceful protests here." CLAC also recommended that, “the Integrated Security Unit issue a public assurance that plain-clothes police officers or other plain-clothes agents will not actively participate in protests during the Olympics.” There are fears that police could infiltrate anti-Olympic groups, in order to stage events which would justify a crackdown during the 2010 Winter Games.

At the Vancouver International Security Conference held from November 30 - December 1, 2009, Victoria police Chief Jamie Graham described how an undercover police officer posing as a bus driver, infiltrated a group of anti-Olympic activists. The group was on its way to Victoria to protest the start of the Olympic torch relay in late October of this year. In his article Police spying demands explanation, Paul Willcocks lays out the scenario, “based on what Graham told the conference, police secretly found out what bus company a group from the Lower Mainland was going to use. Then they approached the company and convinced the manager to pull the regular driver and let an undercover officer drive.” He goes on to say, “And then the officer drove the bus, keeping watch on the passengers in the rearview mirror, presumably eavesdropping and making notes on peoples' names and what they said.” Graham has so far refused to further elaborate on his comments, and it is unclear if the operation was approved by the police board or another agency. Willcocks also emphasized that, “These aren't terrorists. They hadn't done anything wrong. (And there were no arrests at the protests that day.) No court had approved surveillance. They were Canadian citizens on a bus going to a legitimate public protest.” Apparently, not everyone saw the protesters as people exercising their rights as Liberal MLA Harry Bloy labeled them as terrorists with a limited intellect. This sort of thinking is part of a dangerous pattern of equating free speech and protests with terrorism.

Another recent disturbing incident occurred when Marla Renn, a member of the Olympic Resistance Network was en route to Portland, Oregon to give a speech on the negative impacts of the 2010 Games. She was interrogated by U.S. border guards regarding her anti-Olympic activities and was denied entry. Later, she faced more questions from Canadian officials. This further illustrates the level of coordination of shared intelligence by American and Canadian agencies and how Olympic critics are being targeted as potential security threats on both sides of the border. Renn stated that, “Continued harassment of peaceful organizers and speakers by the police and border guards show that their real objective is to silence dissent and not to protect the public.” This dovetails with award-winning journalist Amy Goodman being detained and interrogated at the Canadian border. This was over concerns that while on her trip to promote her new book, she might criticize the 2010 Winter Games. Border guards repeatedly asked if she planned to discuss the Olympics and demanded that she provide notes on topics she would cover. It is becoming increasingly clear that this type of behavior is not the work of border agents or police officers acting alone, but part of directives coming form the top with the purpose to intimidate and curb any perceived anti-Olympic sentiments.

Just in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics, the VDP has purchased a Long Range Acoustic Device. Better known as LRAD, it can be used as a loudspeaker to communicate with large crowds, but it is also capable of emitting painfully loud blasts of sound. The LRAD sonic weapon was turned against protesters at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh several months back. VDP officials insist that it will only be used as a public address system. Constable Lindsey Houghton said that the LRAD’s high-decibel tone function will be disabled until clear guidelines are established and he did not expect any policy to be in place before the start of the Olympics. As far as using the LRAD as a weapon, Houghton noted that, “If we’re going to be using it for the function of moving away people in a riot-type situation, the riot proclamation has to be read.” The precedent has already been set with the LRAD being used against protesters in North America and it is not hard to imagine a scenario whereby it could be employed in the same capacity in Vancouver during the Olympics.

Some anti-poverty groups have raised concerns over the Assistance to Shelter Act. They believe that during the Olympics, it could be used to roundup homeless people off the streets, under the guise of protecting them from extreme weather. Vancouver human-rights activist and writer Tom Sandborn said, “This legislation turns our homeless shelters into jails, with shelter employees as the guards.” He also added that, “Forcing someone to move out of a tent into a pew at First United or some other half measure shelter only makes sense in the context of clearing the streets for the Olympics.” The city of Vancouver has been subjected to frequent criticism for its lack of adequate shelters and affordable housing. Many believe that the high costs associated with holding the Olympics is money that would have been better spent on housing, social programs and other critical infrastructure. Much of the security surrounding the Olympics in Vancouver appears to be aimed directly at the homeless as well as protesters.

In a bit of good news, due to intense public pressure, a controversial sign bylaw has been rewritten. Olympic critics charged that it would have infringed on the right to free expression by giving police the power to enter homes without consent or a court order and seize protest signs. This did not stop the city of Vancouver from ordering the removal of an anti-Olympic mural under its graffiti bylaw. The picture was hanging outside a Downtown Eastside gallery and characterized a set of black Olympic rings, four as sad faces and one with a smile. The rights and freedoms of those who wish to celebrate the Olympics should be no different than those who choose to dissent. The giant security apparatus being assembled for the Games has translated into many police state measures which are being used to suppress free speech. There is no doubt that the 2010 Vancouver Winter Games must provide a safe and secure environment for athletes, spectators, officials, local residents and all others involved. This should not be at the expense of those who seek to engage in anti-Olympic protests or other forms of peaceful activism and they should be free to do so without intimidation and fear.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact:beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Building Blocks Towards an Asia-Pacific Union

By Dana Gabriel

Although some may have viewed President Barack Obama’s recent Asian trip as uneventful and perhaps unsuccessful, he appears to have recommitted to the principles of globalization as the answer to the world’s economic woes. Obama declared his intentions for the U.S. to be fully engaged in Asia economically, politically, and in areas of security. He announced that America would join negotiations for a Trans-Pacific deal. This could be used as an opportunity for the U.S. to reassert its leadership in regards to trade initiatives and might also serve as a stepping stone for a larger free trade agreement.
　
The recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit was held in Singapore and marked its 20th anniversary. It brought together world leaders, foreign, finance and trade ministers, along with other delegates from its 21 member nations. APEC was founded to promote greater trade and integration in the region, but its scope has expanded to include environmental, climate change, energy, as well as other issues. In a Statement by APEC Leaders, they agreed to a new growth paradigm for the Asia-Pacific region, endorsed the goals of the G20 Framework and rejected protectionism. The Leaders, “launched a pathfinder initiative led by Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States to practice self-certification of origin so that businesses can better take advantage of free trade agreements in the region.” This is in an effort to cut costs for exporters and further boost trade. APEC Leaders also agreed to, “continue to explore building blocks towards a possible Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific in the future.”
　
While on his eight-day Asian tour, which included stops in Japan, Singapore, China, as well as South Korea, President Obama recommitted to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It was President George W. Bush who first pledged U.S. participation in the TPP. The trade deal was put on hold pending a review of U.S. trade policy. A government fact sheet describes the TPP as a, “potential platform for economic integration across the Asia Pacific region. The United States will engage with an initial group of seven like-minded countries, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei, Australia, Peru, and Vietnam, to craft a platform for a high-standard, comprehensive agreement - one that reflects U.S. priorities and values - with these and additional Asia-Pacific partners.” Australia will host TPP negotiation sessions in March of next year and a trade treaty could be in place by 2011. Many nations in the region are already bound by various regional and bilateral trade agreements. Expanding the TPP would further distinguish it as the only regional free trade agreement that spans both sides of the Pacific, linking Asia with the Americas. It could also gradually evolve into an Asia-Pacific free trade zone and include APEC members, as well as other nations. Such an undertaking is seen as years away, but U.S. participation in the TPP could speed up such plans.
　
The United States Trade Representative website reported that after the APEC Summit, “USTR staff and their TPP country counterparts met to discuss work that would need to be done to develop proposals to fill gaps in previous trade agreements and to shape a 21st century trade agreement. These discussions will inform consultations with Congress and with stakeholders about how best to move forward on TPP.” A recent article by Jim Capo raised some important questions concerning TPP negotiations. He stated that, “For the US to undertake negotiations for a trade agreement Congress has first to grant approval to start specific negotiations, and has also to grant Trade Promotion Authority to enable the Executive to conclude the negotiations and put an agreement to Congress with a yes or no vote, without amendments.” He goes on to say that, “There has been no formal Congress approval of TPPA negotiation, President Bush’s Trade Promotion Authority has also expired in March 2007. This means the current US administration has no approval to start negotiation and no authority to conclude them.”
　
Ahead of the APEC Summit, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd proposed an Asia-Pacific Community by 2020. The regional group would be based on the European Union-style model. It would go beyond APEC and encompass not only economic, but political and security issues. In October of this year, Republican Senator Richard Lugar announced his intentions to introduce legislation aimed at negotiating a free trade agreement with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The first ASEAN-U.S. Leaders meeting was held in Singapore on November 15. In a Joint Statement the U.S., “welcomed ASEAN's plans to achieve an ASEAN Community by 2015 based on the ASEAN Charter, and reaffirmed its commitment to support those plans.” ASEAN and the U.S. also agreed to hold a second Leaders meeting in 2010.
　
On his Asian trip, Obama emphasized the need to strengthen old alliances as well as build new partnerships in the region. He said, "the growth of multilateral organizations can advance the security and prosperity of the region." He also added, "As an Asia-Pacific nation the United States expects to be involved in the discussions that shape the future of this region and to participate fully in appropriate organizations as they are established and evolve." In his article above referenced, Jim Capo noted that, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is the sister agreement to the Trans-Atlantic Agenda. Together with NAFTA and the North American Leaders Summit (new name for the discredited SPP), these deals are building blocks for an integrated system of global governance managed by Western financial interests and their collaborators around the world.”
　
Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Passing on the Mantle of Deep North American Integration

By Dana Gabriel

With the demise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America and the restructuring of many of its key priorities under the banner of the North American Leaders Summit, other trilateral initiatives are also passing on the mantle of deep continental integration.

The Fifth Annual North American Forum was held in Ottawa on October 4-6, 2009. In a news release the group describes itself as, “a community of Canadian, Mexican and American thought leaders whose purpose is to advance a shared vision of North America, and to contribute to improved relations among the three countries.” It goes on to say that, “They come together annually to explore linkages among the mutually reinforcing goals of security, prosperity and enhanced quality of life.” Meetings are co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State, George Schultz, former Premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed, as well as former Mexican Finance Minister Pedro Aspe. The North American Forum has no business office and no business address. It consists of the three co-chairs, along with their extensive network of contacts in government, business and the military, meeting privately to champion North American integration. The news release also stated that, “This year’s meeting of the North American Forum focused on the need for Canada, Mexico and the United States to work together in responding to the global economic crisis and promoting a quick return to strong and sustainable growth. In addition, the Forum included special sessions on two critical issues: one on energy and the environment, and the other on transnational crime, arms smuggling and drug trafficking.” The North American Forum has been described as a parallel structure to the SPP.

The Standing Commission on North American Prosperity is an initiative of the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce and directly relates to the ongoing efforts to further merge North America. The group characterizes itself as “an united effort of distinguished individuals from Mexico, Canada and the USA to provide sound economic and social policy guidance to the political leaders of the three countries for the future prosperity of all peoples of North America.” It notes that, “In the aftermath of NAFTA and the SPP initiatives, a vacuum presently exists in developing a vision for North American prosperity. The lack of such a vision jeopardizes previous achievements in building strong economic ties across North America made during the past 15 years.” It also states that, “The Commission will meet 3 times a year and will provide ‘A North American Prosperity’ White paper to the leaders of the three countries upon conclusion of each session.” The group’s inaugural Summit was held at Georgia’s Kennesaw State University on May 12-13, 2009.

The Future of North America Summit presented by the Standing Commission on North American Prosperity was scheduled to take place on November 2-3 of this year in Toronto, Canada. It was reported that the Summit was cancelled, but there is no indication if it will take place at a later date. The meetings would have included the participation of past political heavyweights such as former Mexican President Vicente Fox, former U.S. President George H.W. Bush, former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, as well as former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos Escobar. The agenda would have dealt with economic, environmental and climate change, energy, trade, transportation, along with other issues and how they relate to North America. In a recent article Manuel Pérez-Rocha, director of the NAFTA Plus and the SPP Advocacy Project, raised some valid questions concerning the meetings. He stated, “Are we going back to the future? Why are these former leaders ‘representing’ countries they don’t run any more? Is their purpose to dictate to our actual presidents what to do to build North America? Why was ex president Lagos from Chile invited at all?” What is clear is that with the SPP no longer the vehicle being used to create a North American Union, other groups and initiatives are further advancing deep continental integration.

The 2009 meeting of the NAFTA Free Trade Commission was held in Dallas, Texas on October 19 of this year and brought together top trade officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The meeting was used as an opportunity to celebrate NAFTA’s achievements and to plot a course for the future. Manuel Pérez-Rocha stated, “What the three governments are really doing is incorporating the already-buried, George W. Bush-led Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agenda into NAFTA. While current presidents are stripping the SPP label, which has garnered much negative publicity, they’re keeping its principles to armor NAFTA as an instrument for further deregulation.” He also said that, “the merging of the SPP prosperity agenda into NAFTA is evident, especially after the recent Dallas meeting. In their declaration, the trade officials stated that since 2007, the three countries have worked together to protect and enforce intellectual property rights. This was one of the SPP’s plans, together with a ‘framework for regulatory cooperation,’ a ‘North American plan for avian and pandemic influenza,’ and an ‘agreement for cooperation on energy science and technology,’ which are also well under way.” Mexico is scheduled to host the next NAFTA Commission meeting in 2010. Despite the demise of the SPP, many of its key objectives have already been implemented or continue to move forward through other initiatives.

Speaking at the annual policy forum of the Canadian American Business Council held in Montreal on October 21, U.S. ambassador to Canada David Jacobson said that there are no immediate plans to reopen NAFTA. He also echoed Washington’s sentiments that the trade agreement is working well for all sides. This could not be further from the truth as NAFTA is badly flawed. Minus a few cosmetic changes that the Obama administration might make regarding side deals related to labor and the environment, the reality is that NAFTA will remain intact. The NAFTA structure is also being used to advance SPP objectives. All the talk of renegotiating the agreement appears to have revived the 15 year old trade accord and renewed the push for North American integration. This could lead to NAFTA’s expansion into a North American Union and might serve to further spread its failed model to other parts of the Western Hemisphere.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Lawsuit Would Further Expose Secretive SPP Agenda

By Dana Gabriel

It is as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests and other previous legal proceedings that thousands of documents have already been forced into the public eye, shedding some light into the secretive nature of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America agenda. The SPP appears to be dead in name only as many of its key priorities continue under the North American Leaders Summit. If a lawsuit brought forth by a U.S. public interest firm is successful, it would further expose the SPP and show how some groups relate inside the whole trilateral process.

In a press release from October 15, 2009, Judicial Watch announced, “that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has overturned the district court and ruled that Judicial Watch has standing to bring a lawsuit against the Department of Commerce related to the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), which was set up under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America. Judicial Watch argues the NACC is subject to the open meetings law known as Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and must make its meetings open to the public and must release records relating to those meetings.” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated, “Our objective with this lawsuit is simple: to bring as much transparency as possible to the proceedings of this government-private program. In the spirit of President Obama's promise to provide 'unprecedented' levels of transparency to the inner-workings of government, the Commerce Department should stop stonewalling and open these meetings and documents up to the American people as soon as possible." As well as attempting to gain access to documents concerning the NACC meetings and activities, Judicial Watch also wishes to become a member of the group.

The NACC was formed in 2006 to ensure that corporate interests were being addressed inside the SPP framework. It is made up of top Canadian, U.S. and Mexican business executives from some of the largest corporations in North America. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with the Council of the Americas, serve as the NACC secretariat in the United States. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) serves as its secretariat in Canada and the Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad (Mexican Institute for Competitiveness) serves as its secretariat in Mexico. The NACC was the only formal advisory board inside the SPP and much has been made about its influence in formulating policy. The group first met with Canadian Prime Minister Harper, Mexican President Calderon and U.S. President Bush during the North American Leaders Summit in Montebello, Quebec in August of 2007. They also met with the three national leaders at the Summit in New Orleans in 2008.

Despite not being invited to participate in the North American Leaders Summit which took place in Guadalajara, Mexico on August 9-10, 2009, the NACC still prepared a document to advise the leaders before they met. In a Statement to the Leaders in Advance of the 2009 North American Leaders’ Summit it says, "Trilateral cooperation on borders, regulations, energy, and other important issues is essential to the prosperity and security of North America. We and the business communities we represent trust that our advice to date has assisted Leaders in choosing priorities and driving progress. Going forward, the NACC stands ready to offer our ideas and expertise, and we hope the three governments will continue with the NACC." Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians concluded that, “The NACC may continue to exist. It might even meet every now and then to dream up new priorities for the three North American governments. But we have successfully robbed these CEOs of their privileged spot inside North American summits.” Last month, Jerome Corsi reported that the NACC continues to operate under the North American Leaders Summit structure, along with more than 20 trilateral working groups. They are further concentrating in areas of North American citizen security, economic competitiveness, energy policy and climate change.

In a recent interview, outgoing CEO and President of the CCCE Thomas d’Aquino stated that, “When President Obama came to power, he faced a lot of pressure to shelve the SPP and not follow through with the NACC because his advisors were looking for an institution that would also involve environmentalists, union leaders, et al. But at the North American Leaders' Summit in Guadalajara this summer, President Calderon and Prime Minister Harper both told President Obama that the NACC was very useful. In fact, the Canadian NACC group met with our prime minister and his key ministers for an hour and a half on the eve of his departure for the Guadalajara summit. He said that, regardless of whether the NACC continues formally on a trilateral basis, he welcomes our advice on trilateral issues.” It still remains unclear if NACC will be invited to meet with the national leaders at the 2010 North American Leaders Summit which is expected to take place in Canada.

Top trade officials from all three NAFTA countries are set to meet in Dallas, Texas on October 19 of this year. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk will play host to Canadian Minister of International Trade Stockwell Day and Mexico’s Secretary of the Economy Gerardo Ruiz Mateos. The trilateral meeting is expected to focus on trade, North American business competitiveness, curbing protectionism, and other issues. Despite the demise of the SPP, many of its key components have already been implemented or continue to move forward under the North American Leaders Summit, as well as through other initiatives. It remains to be seen whether the NACC will regain the influence they once had, but regardless, you can be sure that big business will continue to push for deep North American integration. The SPP, along with NAFTA have already laid much of the groundwork for a North American Union.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

UPDATE/FLASHBACK: Bill C-51, Codex and the SPP‏

UPDATE:

Many will recall the intense opposition voiced against Bill C-51 which proposed sweeping changes to the Food and Drugs Act. There was also much contention surrounding Bill C-52, the Consumer Products Safety Act. Both Bills would have expanded the powers of Health Canada in areas of seizure and detention. After the last federal election in October 2008, the Harper government essentially reintroduced Bill C-52 as Bill C-6. It has now been passed in the House of Commons and is being debated in the Senate. The Conservatives contend that Bill C-6 has nothing to do with natural health products. There are still concerns that it contains elements of Bill C-51 and could threaten health choices. Part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) agenda, includes harmonizing regulations. Codex Alimentarius is about implementing a global food code and has the potential to further endanger health freedoms. It has been reported that Codex worldwide implementation is slated for December 31, 2009. Many initiatives such as Bill C-6 are moving forward under the guise of public safety and would further expand governmental powers which could be used to violate civil liberties.

Resource links:
Bill-C-6
Farewell Canada- Bill C-6
Codex Alimentarius

FLASHBACK:

Bill C-51, Codex and the SPP
(Originally Published on June 20, 2008)

By Dana Gabriel

On April 8, 2008, Canada's Health Minister introduced Bill C-51 which proposed sweeping changes to the Food and Drugs Act. The Canadian government has since been forced to make amendments because of intense grassroots pressure. There are fears that this Bill could lead to some vitamins, herbs, minerals, and dietary supplements no longer being available in the country. Through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are already busy harmonizing food and drug regulations into a North American Union structure. Some have suggested that this Bill would also bring Canadian law into compliance with the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Bill C-51 has the potential to take away the rights of people to freely choose natural medicine as an alternative to expensive drug-based products and treatments.

Bill C-51 will further encroach on civil liberties and increase police state measures. There is reason for concern because of the Bills ambiguous language in regards to raids and seizures. It has been referred to as a police state bill masquerading as a health bill. It will make it easier for Canadian officials to seize natural health products and remove them from store shelves. It grants inspectors the power to raid homes and businesses without a warrant and the power to seize bank accounts and property. Some might recall that in the early 90's, the FDA engaged in paramilitary raids on American health food stores, holistic treatment centers, and other nutritional supplement businesses. This behavior created such a public outcry and backlash, leading Congress to pass the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to protect the right of American consumers to purchase and use nutritional supplements.

If the Harper Conservative government thought that they were going to quietly pass Bill C-51, were they ever wrong. When word hit the Internet and blogosphere that up to 60% of natural health products currently sold in Canada could be outlawed, it sparked a swift and strong public reaction. In Bill C-51, the word drug has been replaced with "therapeutic products" and gives the government broad reaching powers to further regulate their sale. Health Minister Tony Clement has vowed to change the parts that lumped natural medicines in with pharmaceutical drugs. This includes a clearer definition of natural health products into the Food and Drugs Act. There have been other amendments made, but there are still many concerns surrounding Bill C-51. It might be safer to do away with it in its entirety and start from scratch.

It is the SPP working groups that are harmonizing regulations and laws, writing out policy initiatives and recommendations. They are the real power, laying the foundation for a North American Union. Part of the SPP calls for the "Identification and appropriate adoption of best practices in maintaining the safety, efficacy and quality of pharmaceutical products." NDP MP Peter Julian said in the House of Commons that, "Bill C-51 would limit access to many health products and allow the fast-tracking of new drugs that have not been proven safe. Bill C-51 blends in with the SPP agenda, which is about harmonizing regulations across the board with the United States, resulting in lower standards." There are fears that Bill C-51 will bring about a more U.S. style approach to food, drugs, and consumer product safety. This includes turning more power over to the drug companies with increased reliance on their testing and research. These same drug manufacturers would themselves be more responsible in fast-tracking the drug approval process and further looking after any safety concerns once the drug has hit the market. Under the Trilateral Cooperation Charter, the FDA is also working with Canada and Mexico in further harmonizing regulations between the three countries.

It is not just through the SPP and the Trilateral Cooperation Charter that the harmonizing of food and drugs is being achieved. The Codex Alimentarius Commission which is part of the United Nations is setting international guidelines for food products including dietary supplements. They are using muscle provided by the World Trade Organization to undermine and bypass domestic laws. Section Six of CAFTA talks about using the Codex codes as the regulatory standard for all signing nations. It is through the Codex guidelines that vitamins, minerals, and other natural supplements could become limited and even banned. Some fear that Bill C-51 is an attempt to place Canada under Codex control.

Many argue that Bill C-51 is unnecessary, and that there are already laws in place to protect consumers from natural health products. It's not about keeping Canadians safe, it's about further harmonizing our health and safety regulations into a North American Union. How can fast-tracking potentially dangerous new drugs and at the same time outlawing some beneficial natural medicines be good for anyone? One must understand that it is also about ensuring huge profits for Big Pharma. Bill C-51 should be rejected on the grounds that it threatens the ability of Canadians to choose alternative health products and treatments.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Police State Canada 2010 and the Dark Side of the Olympics

By Dana Gabriel

The 2010 Winter Olympic Games will be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, from February 12-28. It will be the largest security operation in Canadian history. Military planners will undoubtedly use it as a template for securing future high profile events. Canadian security officials continue to work closely with their American counterparts in preparation for the test that the Games will pose to the security of its shared border. Integration of Canada’s security and military structures with the U.S. have already been advanced through the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), NORTHCOM, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the Bi-National Planning Group, the Civil Assistance Plan, as well as other initiatives. Training and security provisions for the Olympics might be used to further accelerate the merging of U.S-Canada command structures and the militarization of North America. The 2010 Olympics will be a hellhole of police state measures with far-reaching effects that could remain in place long after the Games are finished.

Security planners have followed a graduated process in preparation for the 2010 Olympic Games. This includes the Olympic Integrated Exercise Program which “is designed to ensure coordinated responses are sufficiently tested in preparation for incidents that might arise during the 2010 Winter Games. The program has three key components.” Exercise Bronze was held in November 2008. It brought together all agencies involved with security for the games and examined security structures. Exercise Silver was held in February of 2009 and “focused on information-sharing across government and non-governmental agencies” as well as providing “safety and security participants with hands-on experience.” Exercise Gold is scheduled for November of this year and will confirm readiness for the Games. There has been questions whether Exercise Gold would involve American forces. The Canadian Defense Department has responded, “Yes. NORAD is a bi-national command that includes both Canadian and American personnel and equipment. NORAD will be participating in exercise Gold. Various US military headquarters and operations centres will be exercising with Canada Command during exercise Gold, through exercise Determined Dragon (a Canadian Forces exercise) and exercise Vigilant Shield (a US military exercise). In addition, a small number of US military liaison officers will be participating with Joint Task Force Games.”

In September of 2008, the 2010 Winter Olympics security preparations spending bill was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. This included funding for construction of the Olympic Coordination Center in Bellingham, Washington. Members of the 2010 Olympic Security Planning Committee have stated that, “The 2010 Olympics Security Coordination Center will coordinate the security efforts for over 40 federal, state and local agencies on the U.S. side of the U.S. – Canadian border. This facility will provide a strategic response platform to facilitate critical response efforts during the Olympic Games and beyond”. In September of this year, NORAD conducted Exercise Fabric Virgo, which involved CF-18 fighter jets flying at low altitudes and escorting civilian-looking aircraft. This exercise was designed to familiarize NORAD personnel with operations in the Vancouver area. There are numerous other drills and exercises which are planned before the Games begin or have already taken place. Some have not been made public. Training for the Olympics and the actual security operation could be used as a pretext for the further militarization of North America. It could also advance the merging of U.S.-Canada military and security structures. As part of the SPP, there were calls for a North American security perimeter.

The entire security operation for 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games is being overseen by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). This will include over 5000 RCMP officers, along with an additional 1800 other police from municipal, regional and provincial units from across the country. Canadian Forces will provide maritime security, logistical support and surveillance. This could include the use of unmanned drones which are now being used along the U.S.-Canada border. Some 4500 Canadian soldiers will also be deployed for various security purposes. This is twice the number of troops that Canada has in Afghanistan. The U.S. is set to contribute Coast Guard and Navy vessels. NORAD will be a key player in Games security. They will patrol the skies and monitor the airspace over the Olympics. In addition to police and military, there will be up to 5000 private security personnel. Olympic venues will be designated as special security zones. This will include electronically monitored fencing and other measures similar to security screening at airports. Surveillance cameras will also monitor venues and public areas using face-recognition technology. Some residents of Whistler, B.C., which will host skiing and other events, have complained that it feels like they are already living in a security zone. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) is working with the RCMP and other federal agencies in evaluating and monitoring security threats and have warned of the potential for violence by anti-Olympic activists.

In advance of the 2010 Games, anti-Olympic groups have been subjected to surveillance and harassment by police and intelligence agencies. There is a concerted effort to curb any protests during the Olympics and restrict the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. City of Vancouver 2010 Winter Games By-laws will limit protesters to specific free speech zones. They will prevent anyone who is not licensed to do so, from carrying signs or handing out materials on or near Olympic venues and other designated city property. Violators could face huge fines or jail time. A lawsuit has been filed which challenges the Olympic sign law. It was filed by Chris Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia and student Alissa Westergard-Thorpe. Shaw is an outspoken critic of the Olympics and author of the book Five Ring Circus. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, he plans to criticize the Games with signs and the distribution of leaflets at prohibited sites. Under another by-law possession of any voice, amplification equipment on city property is prohibited for the duration of the Games. Many of the by-laws are an attempt to quell dissent and give the illusion that everyone supports the Olympics. They can only be described as unconstitutional. It will be interesting to see if any LRAD sound cannon weapons, which were used against protesters at the recent G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, will be deployed at the Olympics. Some of the police state measures being enacted for the Vancouver Olympics are temporary, but others including infrastructure, will remain in place long after the Games are over.

There are rising costs associated with holding the Olympics which will leave taxpayers on the hook for millions. The security bill alone is expected to top $900-million, which is almost five times higher than original estimates. Like previous Olympics, Vancouver will be left with a huge deficit. This has left some local residents less then enthusiastic about hosting the Games. Anti-poverty and housing rights groups also point to the negative impact the Olympics have on the homeless. They are being used to impose greater social control and rid the Vancouver city core of its poor. According to some estimates over the last 20 years, the Olympic Games have displaced over two million people around the world. In many ways, the Olympics have become a political tool, a corporate driven agenda that goes far beyond the athletes and sporting events. Much of the security surrounding the Olympics in Vancouver seems aimed more at protesters and other so called undesirables.

Security measures at the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games will be an indication of what to expect at other upcoming events. In June of the same year, Canada will host the G8 as well as the G20 Summits. Both will attract their share of protests. Canada is also expected to host the 2010 North American Leaders Summit where security measures could dwarf what was witnessed at the 2007 Summit in Montebello, Quebec. Some will recall that anarchist protesters were identified as police provocateurs. There are fears that police could infiltrate anti-Olympic groups, in order to stage events which would justify a crackdown during the 2010 Winter Games. It is important to be aware of those who not only seek to demonize peaceful protesters, but also incite angry and violent responses by police. In some cases, police do not need an excuse as was evident at the recent G20 Summit in Pittsburgh and this could be a prelude of what to expect in the coming year. Welcome to police state Canada 2010!

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

U.S.-Canada Regional Economic and Energy Integration

By Dana Gabriel

Trilateral initiatives, such as NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) have further advanced North American integration. It is also at a state and provincial level that regional integration is being achieved in areas of trade, the environment and energy.

The 33rd Annual Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers was held in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada on September 14-15 and was co-chaired by host Premier Shawn Graham and Maine Governor John Baldacci. Throughout the years, the governors and premiers have forged a partnership and expanded economic ties, including cooperation on energy and environmental issues. At each conference, policy resolutions are enacted which call on actions by the state and provincial governments, as well as by the two national governments. The current global financial crisis has placed more focus on finding collaborative regional approaches to economic and energy issues. The recent conference included resolutions concerning the green economy, renewable energy, climate change, energy efficiency, pandemic preparedness and open and secure trade. Regional leaders endorsed a blueprint for the region’s energy future.

In March of this year, Premier Graham and Governor Baldacci announced support for a Northeast Energy Corridor. This would position New Brunswick and Maine as energy hubs and link their resources to energy stressed East Coast states. It would also expand U.S.-Canada shared strategic objectives in energy supply and energy security. There are calls for such an energy corridor to be flexible and able to handle power lines, natural gas and other energy supplies, depending on future demand. In an open letter to the Eastern Canadian premiers, the Council of Canadians cautioned, “against adopting a regional energy vision that includes large energy project 'corridors' directed at export-oriented trade. These projects create negative local impacts and undermine energy security in Eastern Canada.” My article Towards a North American Energy Corridor details plans to develop a cross-border Western Energy Corridor. It is through the SPP, that the North American Energy Working Group has further integrated a continental energy strategy.

The 29th Annual Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in 2005 produced a Resolution Concerning the Security and Prosperity of North America. It stated that the governors and premiers, “inform the governments of Canada and the United States that it supports the objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, and note to the two federal governments the importance of involving the states and provinces in the preparation of measures to support the Partnership.” Part of the resolution also included, “preparing a draft action plan aimed at strengthening cooperation between the members of the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in areas targeted by the Security and Security Partnership of North America.”

A recent article by Jerome Corsi reported that, “President Obama is continuing President George W. Bush's effort to advance North American integration with a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty.” According to confidential sources in the U.S. Department of Commerce and State Department. “The Obama administration has ‘rebranded’ and ‘refocused’ the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to advance the Bush administration's agenda of North American integration under the rubric of the ‘North American Leaders Summit,’ a less controversial banner.” Corsi also reported that the North American Competitiveness Council which is made up of business executives from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will continue to operate under the new structure, along with more than 20 trilateral working groups. They will further concentrate in areas of North American citizen security, economic competitiveness, energy policy and climate change.

North American integration continues on many different fronts and this includes at a state and provincial level. It appears as if the SPP may be dead in name only. Many of its key priorities were part of the agenda at the recent North American Leaders Summit held in Mexico. The push for a North American Union continues as it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama embraces globalization and has no intention of upholding the Constitution or protecting American sovereignty.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com