-Canadians need to know about potential threats to their sovereignty, health: Julian-

OSOYOOS TIMES-January 23, 2008-

By Paul EverestrnOsoyoos Times

As part of a 24-stop national tour to speak to Canadians about a controversial continental integration plan, Peter Julian, the NDP's federal international trade critic, stopped in to speak to several South Okanagan media outlets.
On his way to a public forum in Nelson on Jan. 18, which Southern Interior MP Alex Atamanenko helped organize, Julian spoke with the Osoyoos Times about some of the concerns his party has with the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership.
The partnership was established in 2005 by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to create greater co-operation between the three countries on security and economic issues.
Proponents of the agreement, including Stephen Harper's Conservative government, argue the partnership will develop ambitious security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade, while allowing for a greater sharing of information and resources between the three countries.
The partnership is backed by large businesses and corporations throughout the continent.
Julian, MP for Burnaby-New Westminster, said his party is concerned that the Canadian public is being kept in the dark about what the partnership really means to this country.
The government's not releasing any information. I think that's why this is becoming a very grassroots response from the Canadian public, he said. The government is refusing to release information through Access to Information and when they do release it, after a hard fight from the NDP, the documents that do come out are strongly censored in many cases.rnAnd, he said, the partnership has not been debated in the House of Commons.
That's why he wants to help inform people about what the partnership is all about. Julian said the idea for the tour came up last summer after many Canadians began voicing their concerns about the partnership to the NDP.
We're finding the other ways that we've been communicating to the people through e-mail, through our Internet site, people have been raising more and more questions and they've been asking us to get out there and speak to them directly.rnJulian said he's optimistic that a growing public backlash against the partnership will eventually force the issue onto the floor of the House of Commons where MPs can debate it.
What it takes is the public expressing their concerns around this, he said. The more the public's informed, the greater the level of citizen concern becomes.
When you have a government saying we're going to go forward with this regardless of the consequences, that's where public pressure¦ is going to have an impact.rnSo far, Julian said, the 11 meetings he's spoken at on the tour have been standing-room only.rnPeople are interested. I would go as far as to say that people of all political stripes are worried about the future of the country, Atamanenko added. The American people, too, a lot of people aren't happy with what's happening because they see this as an erosion of their rights to express themselves through their elected officials.rnThose opposed to the partnership, including a number of unions, government watchdog organizations and human rights groups, say the agreement puts Canada's sovereignty and resources at risk while threatening the health of Canadian families.
Many critics of the partnership have said some of the threats to Canada in the agreement include an extension of the U.S. no-fly list to Canadian citizens, a commitment for Canada to provide energy and possibly bulk-water exports to the U.S. at the risk of its own supplies and a lowering of approval standards on food and drug production.
This last concern is something every Canadian needs to look at, Julian said, adding that Canada's traditionally high standards for making sure the food and drugs consumed here are safe are not being adopted in the U.S. or Mexico.
Instead, our standards are being streamlined to meet theirs.
It is lowering in every single sector, higher Canadian standards to lower American ones, he said. We've not seen one example of a higher standard resulting from this process.rnJulian used the example of bovine growth hormones which were found to be unsafe, yet they were approved for use in the U.S. If the partnership is fully developed, he said, Canada would have to adhere to American standards on similar drugs that could potentially be harmful.
If we accept American standards, that means those drugs are automatically approved in Canada.rnHe also pointed to recent problems with tainted foods and toxic goods such as toys and toothpaste entering the country as reasons why the government should be looking to higher safety standards on products coming into Canada.
That's why we're educating the public as well, so they know what's at stake, Julian said.
Julian said the idea that further integration of Canada's security, environmental and economic policies with the rest of North America and especially the U.S. will not lead to more prosperity for most Canadians. He said the last 20 years of trilateral trade pacts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement have shown that Canada will not prosper with stronger ties to the U.S. and Mexico.
On the bottom line, this whole idea around somehow these trade agreements and this integrationist agenda has brought prosperity to Canada, it has only brought prosperity to the wealthiest Canadians.rn