What could possibly go wrong?
Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.Sure, if we were in Britain's or France's position circa 1942, I'd have no problem. But we have no need for such a pact, nor should we for the foreseeable future. Why fix what ain't broke?
Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.
The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation in a civil emergency.
The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.
The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.
I'd hate to suggest that quite a few of our political elite think sovereignty is a symptom and not a virtue, but it's increasingly harder not to do so.
Motivations for some type of North American union is to counter-balance the rise of China, India, the EU, Russia, and ease potential energy instabilities. Foreign policy realists have a monopoly on American foreign relations and generally speaking, Realism has served America better than it's harmed us. Counter-balancing rising powers and threats, including both military and economic competition is something we have excelled at, but the game has changed.
I don't pretend to know all of the answers, but circumventing, or worse, subjecting the Constitution to some supernational North American authority is insane. No proposed constitutional amendment and no treaty to this effect will have the support to be ratified, which is why we will get law after law, pact after pact, blurring the lines of sovereignty. If we really wanted to counter-balance the rising powers, we would deregulate the hell out of our market.