End of Nations: Canada, the US and the "Security Perimeter"

See video
James Corbett
Paul Hellyer
December 17, 2011
12:43

Description

End of Nations: Canada, the US and the "Security Perimeter"
by grtv

American President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Harper have unveiled a new border security agreement that has received scant attention in the American media. However, far from being a new arrangement, what this accord represents is only the latest in a chain of usurpations of national sovereignty.

Find out more about the path toward the North American Union on this week's GRTV Backgrounder.

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=3502

When Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and US President Barack Obama announced the much-anticipated border agreement between the two countries at a press conference in Washington last week, those mainstream media outlets that bothered to cover the story at all compensated for the lack of details about what specifically is going to be accomplished by this accord by focusing on issues of no practical significance.

The Globe and Mail, for example, ran an entire article about how Harper and Obama’s personal “friendship” allegedly effected the deal, which was in reality and admittedly struck by bureaucrats in months of closed-door negotiations.

A variety of trade magazines and corporate websites released vague laudatory statements about the “streamlining” of the border.

But the story itself, which generated few headlines at all in the American media, was not about what specifically will change at the border so much as the border is increasingly being redefined as just one part of a broader security perimeter that in fact encompasses both the US and Canada.

The agreement in fact comprises two so-called “action plans,” one entitled Beyond The Border and the other the Regulatory Cooperation Council. The former plan focuses on border security with the explicit aim of creating a security perimeter that encompasses both countries. The latter is meant to harmonize regulations for business, facilitating cross-border trade.

The security agreement uses the threat of terrorism, crime and health securities to announce an increasing merger of the two countries’ border security, including an integrated entry-exit system that will involve full sharing of individuals’ biometric details between the two governments by 2014 and even the creation of integrated cross-border law enforcement teams with authority to collect intelligence and conduct criminal investigations on either side of the border.

The regulatory plan, meanwhile, aims to standardize agricultural regulations on such items as maximum pesticide residue limits as well as develop standards and regulations for potential future products and industries like nanotechnology.

Although the plans detail certain steps that can be or are being taken, the majority of the information is about agreed-upon shared values and the possibility of cooperation.

In light of the relative paucity of detail about these “action plans,” media outlets chose to illustrate the general points of the agreement with seemingly random examples, such as this one about breakfast cereals.

Keen-eyed observers of this trivial example of the effects might have noted a striking similarity to the way that Prime Minister Harper tried to deflect criticism of the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement that sought to merge the governments, security forces and regulatory framework of the US, Mexico and Canada, back in 2007 by talking about jellybean regulations.

On one level, reducing these agreements to regulations on cereals and jelly beans marginalizes the legitimate criticism and fears about the erosion of national sovereignty implicit in these talks. It also serves to keep the public disinterested in the issues by painting them as dry and unimportant talks about bureaucratic affairs.

What this similarity in rhetoric unwittingly reveals, however, is how this latest agreement is in fact nothing new, and can only be properly understood as the latest point in a continuing process of merging the bureaucratic, regulatory and military functions of Canada and the US that has in fact been taking place for a decade.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the two countries began work on reshaping the nature of the world’s longest undefended border. This resulted in the Canada-US Smart Border Declaration, an agreement signed in December 2001 that contained much of the same rhetoric as the recent agreement, including vows to coordinate security and law enforcement efforts in the name of facilitating the flow of people and goods between Canada and the States.

This led into the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a trilateral framework between the governments of the US, Canada and Mexico that began a process of regulatory integration. Formally launched in 2005, the SPP quickly caught the attention of the public on both sides of the border, and as freedom of information requests shed more light on the process, including the almost total domination of the partnership in closed-door meetings by big business, the SPP’s annual summit quickly became a flashpoint for political activism.

In the light of public scrutiny, the SPP was shelved in 2009, but many of its initiatives and recommendations continue on behind the scenes. SPP documents, for example, show how Canada’s controversial no-fly list was in fact part of a trilateral agreement, with the 2006 report to leaders in fact mandating the program’s June 2007 launch date.

Meanwhile, the military merger of Canada and the US has proceeded in its own series of mutual agreements, beginning with the creation of NORTHCOM, the United States Northern Command, in 2002, which charged the US military with the protection of the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Mexico and Canada.

In February of 2008, the Canadian and American militaries signed an agreement allowing troops of either country to cross the border and carry out operations in the other country in the event of an emergency, such as civil unrest.

In 2010, the two countries signed the shiprider agreement, allowing the operation of specially designated vessels to patrol the shared waterways of the two countries by joint crew, consisting of both Canadian and American law enforcement. This agreement is cited in the new border proposal as an example of how cross-border policing can be implemented.

Now, with increasing “cooperation” between cross-border law enforcement, Canadians will be expected to allow American officials to pursue their investigations of suspected criminals on Canadian soil. And the process of harmonization means that Canada may even be expected to allow the use of drone surveillance, an idea presently being used by the US to patrol the Canadian border and even to pursue criminal investigations of American citizens far away from the border.

Although there are many individual aspects of this latest accord that are worrying, from the militarization of the border to the harmonization of regulatory frameworks to allow for the lowest common denominator in food standards and other areas, to the increasing sharing of information about citizens between the two countries, perhaps the most worrying aspect is the project itself. As many have warned, these seemingly bland border proposals, a story so dull that it has barely been covered at all by the American press, may in fact be used to slip in a North American Union through the gradual merging of the two countries’ bureaucratic systems.

The most insidious part of this process is that it is not subject to legislative oversight of any kind, and is taking place in behind-the-scenes discussions between high-level bureaucrats outside of the glare of public scrutiny, a point that is readily conceded by the proposals’ proponents.

Last week I had the chance to talk to Paul Hellyer, the former deputy Prime Minister of Canada, about this agreement, and whether the border security threat that the US is using to justify the process is in fact a ploy to obscure an underlying agenda, the drive to merge Canada and US in a de facto union.

Regardless of whether this particular agreement bears fruit for those seeking to bring the two countries into a closer union, or whether it is just another waypoint on the road of a much longer and more detailed process, the very real concerns about the erosion of national sovereignty implicit in this deal is one that those in power are eager to see avoided. So far, they are being aided in that quest by a media that chooses to avoid the hard questions about this series of agreements to the extent that they cover them at all.

As always, the power belongs in the hands of the people. Without significant pushback from the public, however, the momentum of these border agreements might be enough to make the North American Union an inevitability. Alternatively, the public can fight back by making this into a key political issue and informing others of the potential threat to the survival of both the US and Canada as sovereign nations.

Comments

 
2011 / 12 / 18
Mr. Blair M. Phillips says:

In 1999, I listened to David Orchard speak in St. Catharines about The American Governments "Fight For Canada". From the talk and his book," The Fight For Canada - Four Centuries of Resistence to American Expansionism",
I learned that the United States Government has attacked Canada three times in the last 400 years because American businessmwn/Senators beleive it is "Manifest Destiny" that Canada become apart of the United States of America. I beleive, after reading William Blums 2004 book," Killing Hope - U.S. Military And CIA Interventions Since World War 2" that Capitalism is behind this AND pushing this agenda. Read the books and decide for yourself - Max

2011 / 12 / 19
IM Loos says:

Of course the expansion of Empire knows no limit, and it is driven by capitalism. Capitalisms ideology is perpetual growth and consumption, and the Empire will gladly take a world completely radioactive if it meant it owned it all. Greed is good, remember?

2011 / 12 / 19
Ambricourt says:

American global colonization promotes the covert erosion of sovereignty in subject countries. In European countries independence evaporates as they become more tightly welded into a single European union under US financial and military oversight. In Canada and Australia career-making and profit-seeking executives in business and government generally seek closer attachments to the United States. The people of Canada and Australia know little of this and live under-informed and far removed from their executives' decision-making.

2011 / 12 / 20
USAma Bin Laden says:

"Alternatively, the public can fight back by making this into a key political issue and informing others of the potential threat to the survival of both the US and Canada as sovereign nations."

Actually, this idea that American sovereignty is somehow threatened is duplicitous nonsense and obscures the fact that the USA will be the dominant power in any North American Union.

Moreoever, the USA wants to use the North American union /security perimeter as a pretext for the slow-motion conquest of Canada and Mexico.

I guess some people have a hard time admitting that America, the self-proclaimed Land of the Free, is not quite the benevolent power that it masquerades as.

Believe it or not, America had military plans to invade Canada in the early 20th Century.

The Invasion of Canada
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1691

Now, decades later, some people still haven't learned.

2011 / 12 / 22
Mike Corbeil says:

This video provides a good update and reminder, and I greatly appreciate the part for the interview with Paul Hellyer. I don't know if there's any realistic hope for beating this SPP, NAU, US power grabbing, etc., for present reality doesn't leave to base real hope on. But, it's also not time to fall asleep or for activists to just give up trying to gain some desirable grounds.

Giving up would seal the fate of all of this, to our permanent doom.

Voters :

The ones who've been repeatedly voting for unvettable candidates for political offices have been a huge problem for decades. I'm not absolutely sure of how much of a difference all of this rotten voting in both the US and Ca has really made; but, such voting must no longer be treated as excusable. Ignorance mustn't be an acceptable excuse any longer. It can happen once or twice, but not endlessly, and that's what we've had for several decades.

Voters who repeat such incredibly rotten voting next year will be non-excusable and complicit with the evils they elect to "represent" electors.

2011 / 12 / 28
Kathleen Moore, Habeas Corpus Canada says:

I received an email from Connie Fogal several years ago in which she disclosed that PAUL HELLYER, himself, had admitted he had NOT READ NAFTA.

As for Mr. Hellyer, he founded a FAKE political party to pretend that high treason is a political debate at the polls. He'd have done better to invest his $800,000 party start-up funds in appropriate legal proceedings to remove the perpetrators and disclose the treason.

However, like his friend Trudeau before him, who also helped to found a FAKE political party while participating in a secret committee of Power Corporation (a node in the Rhodes Secret Society world-government network) PRECISELY to set up fake referendums to "secede" in Quebec, whose real goal was to initiate the very same continental union that Mr. Hellyer so languishly discusses today.

Moreover, Mr. Hellyer was both a Trudeau man and a Pearson man. Shortly before his death, President John F. Kennedy became convinced that Lester B. Pearson was a Soviet agent. Much earlier than that, Pearson was exposed by a Soviet GRU, Elizabeth Bentley as in fact running in leftist circles in Canada and using his highly placed diplomatic post to leak state secrets to her through another Soviet spy, Hazen Size.

I have put a part of the FBI file on Soviet agent Pearson online: http://www.calameo.com/books/0001117902fdc6e3ba9ff

I find it hard to imagine that Mr. Hellyer would have been entrusted with Canada's national security when Pearson was Prime Minister, unless that Soviet agent was entirely certain that Mr. Hellyer could lie with the best of them.

John English's biography of Pierre Elliott Trudeau discloses that Trudeau bragged he was a communist while he was involved in Canada's federal offices. He was told to be quiet about it.

Moreover, it was Soviet agent Pearson who shortly after the communist FLQ bombings began in Montreal, recruited "Three Wise Men" to "fight" "separatism": Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Jean Marchand, and Gerard Pelletier. All three sat on the secret committee of Power Corporation in at least 1967 where plans were drawn up for the creation of a "separatist" party which Trudeau could "fight" in a referendum to "secede". However, Pearson's Trio were not "fighting" "separatism". They were using the pretext of it to trick Quebecers into voting to replace the Constitution of Canada with the globalist system, the exemplary of which was then the European Economic Community, which has become the European Union.

Even Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, in a 2007 video at Stetsun law school, slipped and admitted the truth: Quebec was not voting to "secede". It was voting for "Sovereignty Association". She pretended, however, not to know what "Sovereignty Association" is. However, "Sovereignty Association" was the deceptive ballot in 1980, the name was changed to "Sovereignty Partnership" for the 1995 phony referendum to "secede". Which only goes to prove that the Chief Justice merely mistook one pea for the other.

An open admission was made that the goal was identical in both the 1980 and 1995 fake referendums to "secede" by Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc Quebecois -- a provincial political party illegally functioning at the federal level. He said so in his 10 June 2010 letter to 1600 international dignities when he announced an upcoming referendum to "secede" and declared:

"In both 1980 and 1995, Quebec showed a willingness to negotiate ... an association or partnership agreement with Canada once it became a sovereign state so that people, goods and capital could circulate freely between the two countries."

Source: "Brace for Referendum" - Letter to 1600 world leaders by GILLES DUCEPPE, Leader of the Bloc Québécois federal political party (Ottawa, 9 June 2010) http://en.calameo.com/books/000111790f2e34849cf5b
It is, in fact, the SAME system imposed after 9/11 under the SPP, which is acknowledged as a "much needed extension of NAFTA".

"Sovereignty Association" of 1980 is not only identical with "Sovereignty Partnership" of 1995, it is indistinguishable from another attempt made in 1992 called the "Charlottetown Accord"; and it is identical to the 2005 "Security and Prosperity Partnership" of North America, which is the "deepening" of NAFTA towards the North American Union. For more on this, see my post:

http://canadian-state-of-the-union.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-501-is-bindin...

All this being said, I would therefore find it really odd that a former National Defense Minister reporting directly to Soviet Pearson -- who had engaged communist Trudeau to set up fake referendums to start the merger of North America, is merely an arms'-length observer of events now which are leading to the completion of that merger. In particular, since Mr, Hellyer had no qualms about recruiting a known Stalinist communist to lead his own fake party to help buy time to complete the union by lying to Canadians that this is merely a political issue to be fought at the polls; the same way Trudeau trivialized "politicized" FLQ terrorism to convert it into a fake political debate so he could use it to help impose the basis of North American Union.

Why, Hellyer's chosen party leader even used the same old trick as Trudeau: she has marched the streets demanding a BINDING referendum to annex Canada to the USA -- when in fact, to do so is high treason, subject to appropriate legal proceedings:

http://northamericansovietunion.blogspot.com/2010/09/ripleys-canadian-be...

Please note that upon the death of her husband in 2002, Hellyer's Fogal who he recruited to lead the Canadian Action Party to "save" Canada, hired a choir to sing at his funeral -- not O Canada, but the communist anthem, the "International":

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc143/montrealchristmas/hosted%20file...

The goal of communism is world government is world government. The means of communism are regionalism, continental unions. And there she marched, demanding a referendum, just like her commie pal, Jack Layton, in Parliament, who repeatedly attended meetings on merging North America while pretending to his Danforth constituents to "oppose" "deep integration".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o50PnrXKMng

END OF NATIONS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zoYizuw24A

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union
www.habeascorpuscanada.com

Blog: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com

2011 / 12 / 28
Kathleen Moore, Habeas Corpus Canada says:

CORRECTIONS:
[1] "Mr. Hellyer so languidly discusses today."
[2] "1600 international dignitaries"
[3] "the same way Trudeau "politicized" FLQ terrorism to convert it into a fake political debate"
[4] "The goal of communism is world government. The means of communism is regionalism, continental unions."

2012 / 01 / 15
docellis124 says:

Greetings

Shared

Thank you for writing this essay

Doc Ellis 124
http://docellis124.blog.com/

2012 / 04 / 12
bob bobson says:

obama is an evil man who like 90 percent of Americas presidents is part of a cult system of illuminaty and free masonry, the plan is to create a new world order were all who rebel will be executed publcily, there are actually secret concentration camps being opened and soldiers are being trained to do public executions by unspeackable means. I highly suggest leaving Canada within the next 10 years i knoow i am

2012 / 05 / 12
Michael Pengue says:

My Reply to Kathleen Moore:

As a 9/11 truth activist and former member and executive member of Paul Hellyer's Canadian Action Party your comments have certainly sparked my attention.

Judging from your comments it appears that you have never met nor had a conversation with Paul Hellyer or Connie Fogal as I have.

I really can't say much about the book IN THE EYE OF THE EAGLE by Jean Francois Lizee because I have never read it, nor have I come across anyone with great integrity comment about it.

Yes, a friend and former CAP member did tell me that Hellyer had once supported free trade, but later vehemently opposed it. Probably because he eventually learned what it really entailed.

I learned indirectly from a former CAP executive that when Hellyer was Defence Minister he was kept in the dark on matters pertaining to his dept. (Probably because he wasn't the dubious character that those who operate in the shadows appreciate).

CAP/Hellyer had been very vocal about getting to the bottom of 9/11, repealing FTA/NAFTA and about the truth on money creation (stop handing power to the private banksters to create money with interest.But use the Bank of Canada/BOC at no interest). This could help explain why CAP got very very little mainstream news exposure, unlike the Bloc, NDP, the Lib, and Cons who all supported NAFTA/FTA & silent on BOC and of course 9/11.
Similarly, Jean-Francois Lizee regularly appears on mainstream media.

From my personal experience with Paul he's a very honest and a fine gentleman who created no 'fake' party. From what I know, Paul is well close to 90 now, no longer in the spotlight,has left politics & thus nothing really to gain from it anymore , no backroom deals,no financial gain but continues to speak-out cause he's concerned about our future.

2012 / 05 / 12
Michael Pengue says:

continued; reply to Kathleen Moore

There's more to be said but I will end with a quote from the late Catholic Bishop Helder Camara:
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."

2012 / 05 / 12
Michael Pengue says:

continued; reply to Kathleeen Moore

Pearson a communist,Soviet agent?? Haven't read through the files you've posted but you'd also have to take it in the context of the time. America was never really an ally of Canada, but really a threat to our sovereignty since at least 1776. Maybe Pearson was playing power politics with the other superpower to scare the Yanks. Afterall, isn't that what Hugo Chavez has been doing with Russia. Smaller countries opposing US/NATO aggression can't do it alone. As the saying goes: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

2012 / 05 / 12
Michael Pengue says:

continued; reply to Kathleen Moore

So what Trudeau was flirting with communism (at least in his early years). Let's not forget the era he lived in. Practically anyone at the time questioning American dominance was labelled the same: Martin Luther King, JFK/RFK, Gandhi,Tommy Douglas/NDP,John Lennon......This was the McCarthy witch-hunt era.

2012 / 05 / 14
Michael Pengue says:

Continued; Reply to Kathleen Moore

I 'm an admirer of all those above including Tecumseh, Sitting B ull, Big Bear, Black Hawk, Canada's 1st Indian Affairs chief/William Johnson,late Arch Bishop . Romero, Mexican Bishop S. Ruiz,Hugo Chavez,Fidel Castro and Che Guevara but that doesn't necessarily make me a communist. Also that word has probably been the most abused word in recent history that it has been connected to anything despicable. The Yanks are quick to judge Castro, Guevara in the most despicable terms, but their Founding Fathers were no better but actually racist, Indian haters and killers,condoned violence against us Canadian Loyalists and I will argue that they were more ruthless in their revolution than the Cuban one.
And so what Connie Fogal's late husband was a communist.

What do you mean by a communist?? Afterall,
Gandhi was an advocate for socialism and communism, but warned that it was not the same as that imagined by the Europeans and Americans. He (Gandhi)believed that communism could be built without abolishing the cla ss-structure of society.

My reading of Trudeau was that he wasn't malleable to American expansionism and that is why they put in place Mulroney ,their puppet. Trudeau's economic policies were probably the most pro-Canadian out of all past PM(Read Hurtig's Vanishing Country;;Yankee Doodle Dandy by Marci McDonald,a former Macleans writer & Washington correspondent)
Also, allegedly when Hellyer was under Trudeau the latter
was suspicious of the former of working with the Yanks. Knowing what of know of Hellyer this is false. His work for the past 20 years or so proves that for me and countless of his supporters and admirers.

Connie Fogal a " Stalinist." Have you ever met her and sat down with her ? She has publicly been very vocal against US usurping power & undermining the UN. (The One World Govt Rhetoric by right wing anti-NWO see the USA as a victim of this while others, like myself, and others, mostly from the left, see the US elites and their military being the key culprits through their corps. and banking/IMF/WB). Your loose rhetoric of communist name calling undermines whatever truth you're trying to reveal. It comes off as those 55% of Americans who believe that Obama is a socialist, which indicates how effective the political 'right' has been in depicting an extremely pro-capitalist president as the opposite of what he is.

There's more to be said but I will end with a quote from the late Catholic Bishop Helder Camara:
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Related videos

Our newsletter