Stéphane Dion may not think you are an idiot, but he sure is hoping you are.Dion and Friends know that wherever people are angry with Harper, they have to be there -- even when the former Liberal government had been doing the exact same thing as Harper.
Which is what explains yesterday’s Liberal Party press release on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). In it, Liberals blithely mimic NDP demands that Harper should open up the SPP process to transparency, and oppose bulk export of water.
But the Liberals are talking into a tin can.
There’s absolutely no difference between the SPP agenda that Harper is pursuing than what was begun by Dion’s then-boss Paul Martin.
On transparency: It was Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin who BEGAN the SPP talks with the US and Mexico back in 2005, which, as the Council of Canadians notes, had no transparency whatsoever:
"In March 2005, Paul Martin, George W. Bush and Vicente Fox met in Waco, Texas to ratify the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which integrates recommendations from both the CCCE’s Security and Prosperity Initiative and Manley’s Task Force on the Future of North America. Despite a lack of public awareness or input, the three leaders agreed to take steps toward regulatory harmonization, a continental resource pact, and a North American security perimeter. Working groups were formed to put this “partnership” into action, and to date only industry “stakeholders” have been consulted."
On bulk water exports: it was the Manley task force which said “no item including Canadian water . . . is off the table.”
People who are concerned about the anti-democratic aspects of the SPP know that Jack Layton and the NDP have been raising alarm bells about the SPP and “North American Union” for years. It’s yet another file where Stéphane Dion can only offer mimicry of the NDP -- not leadership.
1 comment:
Dion is hoping that no one noticed that they began this partnership, and Dion being in cabinet would have been 'on board' with this plan. Just like when they campaign, when in opposition, they try to show they are progressive, not we all know the truth.
Reminds me of the 1993 redbook promises, and prior in the house, as they said they would fix nafta and sign the final document - and as soon as they won that huge election - they signed lickety-split.
I note 2 of his demands are not about security and partnership, but related to afghanistan. They are just asking for the troops to be moved from south to north and not end the mission, unless the polls have moved them more. And when Kdar (?) was put in Gitmo Bay when they were in power, they did nothing. Not one liberal spoke out.
My bottom line here, liberals no matter what scarf they wear or dog name they give, are not progressive, and really don't give a fig's leaf about any of this. It's all dress-up.
Post a Comment