Integrate North America - Or Not

First of all, do we get to choose? Will it be put to some kind of referendum? Will we be fully advised beforehand? Enabling us to make a truly educated selection, yes or no? Or will it indeed be accomplished by stealth? Of course we have the great and good example of the European Union. It works for them. So successfully that Eastern Europe fell all over itself for inclusion. And Turkey is still desperately awaiting word.

Integration/union benefits the weaker at the agreed-upon expense of the stronger with the aim of making for a more robust whole, better able to adjust to world events and economic slow-downs as an integral group rather than a struggling single country. The price of unity and strength equals the power of the collective. Nothing's perfect; member EU states are forever griping and complaining.

But think of the clout: political, foreign, economic, social, justice, defence - hitherto matters of single countries' independent direction related to their social values, and now an integrated whole. A larger, much larger voice, more authoritative and designed to make a undeniable point: together we stand. On the agenda is harmonization of environmental 'crimes', quotas, including admissions to medical schools.

Their laws, administrative-civil and criminal are harmonized, so is food safety, so is cross-border freedom of movement and trade, to name but a few advantages to EU member-states. Integration, after decades of existence remains a hotly debated issue to be resolved and placed within a firm constitution to replace the existing draft charter.

So what's in it for Canada to form an indissoluble link with the United States and Mexico? We already have free trade and it's questionable how much any of these continent-linked countries have gained, despite the hurrahs of corporations. Yet here we have secret meetings where top military brass, corporate executives and diplomats of both countries discuss the options of harmonizing food and drug standards, immigration policies and the pooling of energy resources.

Why do I smell a conspiracy here? At one of the so-called accord's meetings Canadian officials agreed to a proposed five-fold hike in oilsands production in a relatively 'short time-span'. Those very same oil-sands whose extraction exacts a high environmental price-tag in greenhouse gas emissions, while consuming vast amounts of Alberta's groundwaters.

There is something appealing about pooling food- and drug-safety benchmarks, and counter-terrorism measures. But would that mean opening up Canada's dairy herds to the use of hormones we currently don't allow? Would that mean we agree to become an integral part of the already-existing and most unfortunate weaponization of space?

Protecting North America as a single bloc from security threats like terrorism and flu pandemics, along with economic threats from new global market giants is all very well in the abstract. It's when we come down to the nitty-gritty, the devil's details, that the cogs begin to obstruct momentum. Yes, by all means, improve water quality, reduce sulphur in fuels, co-ordinate efforts to fight pandemics.

But while enhanced data-sharing on high-risk travelers, revamping safety and environmental regulations, centralizing the assessment of new chemicals and re-working food safety standards all sound good, I've still got a few niggling reservations. We're the little guys here, haven't all that much potential shove. Somewhat like Mexico, the struggling little brother on the continent.

It's the big boy that worries, the inexaustible hunger for primary resources, for natural resources, for energy, clean water. The impulsive me-first element in the equation. Yes, such a pact relaxing barriers to trade and travel at the border would be nice, but we already have that and it isn't working as well as it should because big brother keeps throwing spanners into the works.

I hesitate to declare outright that I simply do not trust the good will and uprightness of our American brothers...but...I don't. Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians often strikes me as an alarmist but she most certainly has a point. Why are all these meetings taking place in an atmosphere of stealth? If we've so much to gain as a collective of three equals, why isn't this taking place in the open in the clear light of day?

Citizens and independent experts in "social policy, human rights or the environment have had no say in this deal," she says. What's that odour?!