One of the particularly worrisome aspects of the SPP is that it links security and economic prosperity. The SPP can be seen in the global context of increased militarization, as the most powerful country on the continent, the United States of America, wages the war against terrorism, with the result that national security trumps the rights of citizens and has become a pretext for increased government control over the people.
In that context, harmonizing Canadian policies with those of our neighbours to the South is particularly frightening in terms of protection for human rights. We have only to think of the passage of Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, following 9/11, or the sharing of terrorist watchlists, which resulted in some significant failures, including the case of Maher Arar.
Furthermore, there is now talk of implementing compatible immigration security measures between the three countries and of integrated police enforcement teams at our borders. Canada, like Mexico, would have to adapt to security threats facing another country by abandoning some of its sovereignty, but without having either the means or the power to verify the content of those threats. We do not want to be the United States' lapdog; we want to maintain our ability to establish our own rules and policies based on our own societal choices.
I know you have already received testimony about concerns with respect to water, natural resources and energy security, but I would like to spend a few moments talking about the example of the tar sands. We know that the United States has an insatiable appetite for oil and that it is increasingly seeking oil sources in more stable countries than its traditional suppliers. With the abundant supply available through the oil sands in Northern Alberta, Canada has become an ideal source of supply.
Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy hosted a meeting in Houston, Texas, on January 24 and 25, 2006. Attending that meeting were executives from the U.S. oil industry and from the major oil sands export projects, as well as representatives of the governments of the United States, Canada and Alberta.
That meeting literally took place the day after Stephen Harper's Conservative government took office, on January 23, 2006. None of the people attending that meeting was elected. From whom had senior officials in attendance received their mandate, given that Paul Martin's Liberal government had just lost the election and Stephen Harper's new government had not yet been sworn in?
The discussions were anything but of a purely technical nature, as the governments involved often claim. The report on the Houston meeting told us that there is now talk of accelerating the rate of development and increasing production from the oil sands four or fivefold, over a relatively short period of time. The debate around extracting oil from the oil sands raises significant environmental issues. That practice produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil extraction, produces tons of toxic waste and ruins thousands of square kilometers of land.
In addition, the report recommends that the Canadian and Alberta governments simplify the environmental approval process for energy projects, because time is of the essence for the United States. It should be noted that this report was co-produced with Natural Resources Canada.
This matter, along with the entire SPP process, has to be subject to public debate. The January, 2006 meeting is one of many examples that illustrate the power the corporations hold in these negotiations on public policy issues that affect all Canadians.
In conclusion, the least that can be said is that we are skeptical about the potential benefits for the people of Canada of a process whose fundamental objective seems to be to create an ideal climate for business, rather than ensuring…