Look at their overall intention. It's in the elites' interest to collapse national boundaries in their drive for "globalisation" and "free trade".
Canada got a free trade agreement with the U.S. way back in 1989. I don't think it got much coverage in the states but it was a major issue here, and the 1988 federal election campaign was waged on the FTA. Some years later the U.S. wanted Mexico to join in, so the FTA was superceded by NAFTA. But at far as Canada was concerned, the deal wanted was achieved in the FTA. The subsequent NAFTA added little.
They don't care a damn about "democracy" or national soveriegnty or anything else except power.
Provinces in Canada have more automomy over their affairs than states do in the U.S. (at least, that's my understanding). That fact alone makes political union unlikely — no government is going to unilaterally give up its power to control its own affairs. Individually, many Canadians would like to see trade barriers reduced between the U.S. and Canada (see: border crossings) but have absolutely no interest in a political union. We like our national health care system, for example, and are not about to give it up. Anything even remotely sounding like privatization gets a strong public backlash (I'll note also that there have been studies which show that U.S. companies like our health care too because in spite of higher tax rates here the costs of health care are so much lower in comparison to the U.S. that it more than offsets any increase in taxes).
There's no border between US and Mexico anyway, so what's a little less?
There most certainly is a border. The U.S. already requires passports for those entering the U.S. from Canada by air — it previously only required two pieces of ID, one with a photo (meaning a drivers license and a birth certificate was sufficient). By June of 2008 land crossings would also require a passport — Canada would like to see that deadline pushed back yet again because of the concerns of the slowdown in cross-border traffic. An average of
one billion (yes, billion with a 'b') dollars of trade crosses the U.S.-Canadian border
every day.
The SPP's chief purpose is to secure Canada's water supply, which it will lose control of under NAFTA rules.
Good luck with that. That position is politically impossible in Canada and will likely remain so for quite some time. Any party advocating such a water policy would go down to defeat in an election. Besides, how can the SPP can access to water without re-opening NAFTA or writing a new trade agreement? Either way involves the political process with proposed legislation and debate in Parliament, and most likely an election campaign fought on the issue.
As it is the U.S. feels free to ignore the terms of NAFTA when it suits it (see: softwood lumber). Given that, it would seem quite unlikely Canada's about to sign any deals which will put anything else under the trade banner when the U.S. has demonstrated the capacity to ignore the trade agreements it has signed.
