6

Ex-ambassador wary of border deal

Privacy and sovereignty at risk: Michael Wilson


 

A former Canadian ambassador to Washington has warned against the proposed North American perimeter deal signed by Stephen Harper and Barack Obama earlier this month, saying it will result in a tradeoff between security and national sovereignty. Michael Wilson—who also served as finance minister under Brian Mulroney when the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was negotiated—called for Canada and the U.S. to establish understanding, trust and confidence with each other if it is to work. “This border agreement does raise some very significant issues on sovereignty, on privacy, on the form of collaboration between the both sides,” said Wilson. “Sharing of information is very important to being able to make this agreement work.” The Conservatives maintain the border deal will not compromise sovereignty, saying that either side is on the same page about protecting one another’s constitutional and legal frameworks, civil liberties and human rights.

Canadian Press


 
Filed under:

Ex-ambassador wary of border deal

  1. You gave the sovereignty crap away to the french, so suck it up. We have the cure for that . You fools just get out of the road, Its a North American Union, not another cretin or saharto!

  2. Hey Michael….they're your fellow Cons

    • Emily, just to remind you. This conservative party and the one Michael Wilson worked for under Brian Mulroney are two entirely different parties.

      • Since I was PC for over 30 years, I'm well aware of that.

        However Wilson was happy to join the Reformers, so he can't complain now

  3. Macleans loves the Chicken Littles of the world, provided they are anti-Conservative. There are a million things that raise privacy concerns yet no one seems to care–the internet and some of the social network sites to name but a few. Such is the ugly world wwe live in. Do those who travel to the States want a thicker border for their 'sovereignty', which we've forfeited to the French and indians anyways or improved financial prosperity. I know which one I want.

  4. The only ones getting richer from and of these international deals are the corporations.
    Remember the GATT treaties where North Americans PAID to have their industries moved to China and PAID for them to be profitable until they were profitable on their own?
    They couldn't push for a North American Union overtly because people on both sides of the border DON'T WANT IT, so they are doing it by increments
    This a sellout, pure and simple.
    Why would we want closer economic ties with a country on the verge of bankruptcy is beyond me anyway.

Sign in to comment.