This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Anyone know why Greenland isn't included in the plan? 72.194.122.14 John D —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:05, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Last I checked, Greenland was a territory of Denmark. -- Pandora Xero 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Greanland isn't included for the same reason the Virgin Islands aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.92.46 ( talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This article seems very biased towards the plan. I plan on adding the POV template to this article some time in the next day or two unless someone shows it to not be biased. There is little about it, but the Council of Canadians has a page up against it [1].

-- Jpardey 03:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, no reply. From what I have heard, there are many of the same oppositions to this plan as there are to other free trade agreements such as NAFTA. However, there are more concerns, such as the possibility of a continental ID card. Again, see the Council of Canadians site -- Jpardey 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell as of March 30, 2006, the article doesn't appear biased either for or against the plan, but criticisms are important, thus legitimate criticisms should be included in a seperate section. - Rudykog 08:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to second the request for more viewpoints on this matter. This page is ridiculously one-sided and should either be deleted or expanded. P.S. I'm scared. Laikalynx 02:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think its biased, but it is in which side of criticism matters. While it glosses over and dismisses right wing criticism of SPP in the US, it gives great detail and credence to left wing criticism in Canada. 75.68.20.150 01:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been anonimously contribuiting to Wikipedia (small fixes here and there actually) and I honestly think this article is a little unbalanced, but it is our duty to fix it I guess. At least I want to help. I like to get the best information available about anything I'm interested in, so I want to help. Ottawahottie23 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jpardey and also 75.68.20.150 but hopefully the article can be edited into a NPOV state. I've just made a stab at that myself. Mr.grantevans2 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is so biased it seems that the SSP themselves made this page. Of course I am a conspiracy theorist so I am one of those people who can't explain why I lose all the time, like in the stock market-blame it on the Illuminati. In need of a major re write with opposition views. Alot of this information comes right of the SPP website.

Lets act on this - I agree its imbalanced. One would think Mrs. Phyllis Schafly is the only person in North America who is critical of this. It doesn't need a separate section - constructive criticisms should be right along side the info supporting this plan.

If you look at one of the earliest versions and do a search on some of the phrases, it is obviously a direct ripoff of a press release. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The discriptions of the 3 nations, imply that they have 3 Presidents. U.S. & Mexico have that structure, but the Prime Minister of Canada is under the reinging Queen (Elizebeth II). I have ammended the article slightly to reflect that fact. Nativeborncal 07:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada's Prime Minister is not "under" the "reigning" queen of anything. Our Governor General
 is the person who use to report directly to the Queen/King of England. 
Canada is now completely independent and has been since our centennial birthday of 
July 1st, 1967. England has no say in Canadian government or policy. Why the old hag's 
face is still on our money, who knows? 
99.249.223.160 (
talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Fireholder

Maybe I arrived too late, I think this is already fixed. Ottawahottie23 09:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the original: "It is intended to [b]assist[/b], rather than replace, existing bilateral and trilateral institutions like NAFTA" - The word "assist" seems to me to be a very gentle way of saying that the SPP is meant as an amendment to NAFTA or an extension of certain aspects of NAFTA. If so, should we not be more detailed as to what aspect of NAFTA SPP proponents wish to see amended or extended?

Secondly, there should be a bit more on how the SPP compares to its previous manifestations such as the FTAA and the The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).

Thirdly, there should be an acknowledgment concerning the secrecy surrounding the SPP (that only those who attended the meeting know for sure what was and wasn't discussed), a list of who attended the summit in Montebello (as far as I know it was Harper, Bush, Felipe Calderon and 30 nameless CEOs), and separate sections for the official list of topics discussed (ie toys and jelly-beans) and the unofficial list of topics discussed (ie lowering safety standards on the use of pesticides and extending chapter 11). Vaudree

I agree with you, the SPP is not a treaty or agreement, it is just a reunion or series of reunions to dialogue and discuss North American issues. I had to admit that I believed it was an agreement. Ottawahottie23 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Connected the secrecy and dialogue... part of the reason the SPP operates as a dialogue, as opposed to a agreement, is that it can be kept out of legislature, and other similar governing bodies. So it isn't voted on in the individual countries' governments and the citizens have no control over the whole dialogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.84.136 ( talk) 00:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that this article was written by an angry Canadian. Id much like to see some references to how it is perceived in Mexico, and the overall history and list of rules, laws, and Regulations being discussed in the SPPNA.

It would seem that this article was written by an angry Canadian if it at all seemed angry. I agree that the article is lacking a Mexican perspective. But I also agree that the article basically reads like a press release, but for the criticism section. PS. sign your posts -- Laikalynx 00:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely appears biased, also in light of U.S. Constitutional provisions. This appears most definitely to be an 'under the radar' executive 'treaty' without consent of Congress.....and in light of the immigration situation, attempts to gain revenue for Mexico, most of all, while U.S. truckers would be left in the lurch, and our security actually compromised. Needs much more input and research.

211.109.64.120 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)I've never actually been involved in Wikipedia edits, but after reading the wikipedia article on Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, I'm left with the impression that only Americans and Canadians criticize the agreement. There is a paragraph given to both Canadian and American objections, yet none to any Mexican ones. Am I to assume they don't exist?

Hey I'm Canadian and I know Canadians are not generally opposed to this agreement! So please don't say it was written by an "angry Canadian". I rather think it was written by an angry American and a conservative. But yes, it needs some work to erase the bias. Ottawahottie23 09:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am Canadian, and I would violently oppose any of these actions being implemented. The only reason I am not protesting is because I am across the country. This agreement is a threat to Canadian Sovereignity and serves corporate america's interests, not the Canadian public. Where is the media coverage on this? Where is the parliament in this dicussion? Locked out. - Scott P; August 21st, 2007

I'm Canadian as well, and I know that just about everyone I've met that has any knowledge of the SPP, which is an unfortunately small bunch, largely opposes it. Personally, I feel the article's still needs work concerning its neutrality. The should not be a one-sided voice in the majority of the article, and then a small section reserved for those who disagree. Should not the article either remain completely unbiased or show equal voice for both sides? - Jonathan L. C. 142.167.116.52 ( talk) 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

they're meeting in sept 2006 to discuss it? this needs to be updated to reflect current information (which I do not have)-- Crossmr 08:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There has been a hearing in Canada called "The Commons International Trade Committee into the SPP" that was forced by the New Democratic Party, but on May 10, 2007, it was promptly (and apparently illegally) adjourned by chair, Conservative MP Leon Benoit. So, I don't know if this merits paranoia or suspicion in one form or another, but it does seem that there is a bit of sensitivity in regards to questions being brought forward officially. -- J 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The title "Canadian Bias" sort of makes it seem that this one country (ie Canada) is biased and that those who hold nonCanadian opinions as being "unbiased." Maybe it would be best to have categories such as (ie Labour, Environment, Sovreignty, agriculture, trade etc) and show how different groups feel that the SPP with impact each issue. For example, specific proponent groups which say that there will be no effect on Labour standards (or that labour standards are something they see as harmful) and specific opponent groups which say how labour standards and wages would be negatively affected by the SPP. Vaudree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.77.58.47 ( talk) 23:36, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Should the External Links and External Links: Criticism be adjudicated, consolidated, or at least cleaned up to better reflect the nature of the title? J 05:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think at one, if not all, of those things should be done. It's not usual to separate them like that. - BillCJ 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Was it necessary to delete the whole slew of links that were provided for individuals to make an informed opinion? There may have been some erroneous websites that, I aggree, should have been excluded, but I think that there should've been some more discussion as to what should and shouldn't have been included in the links section. J 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed merging two overlapping articles, American currency union and North American monetary union. As of now, there is no opposition to the merger. However, I do not know enough about the subjects to do justice to merging them together, and would like to request help from other editors more familiar with the subject. This is the aftermath of a disruptives user's attempt to rewrite the North American monetary union page into a one-sided criticism of the SPP and the idea of a North American Union. Feel free to weigh in on the subject of the merger till it closes, whatever your view may be. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"The SPP is based on the belief that prosperity is dependent on security, and claims that the three nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions."

Mexico has strong democratic institutions? That's news to me. This sounds like a propaganda piece from Washington looking to sell us out again like they did with NAFTA.

P.S. It's interesting that Wikipedia has us sign our posts with 'tildes', since we'll be speaking Spanish before you know it. Thanks to our treasonous Washington and Establishment elites.

Bruce1314 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you ask a common mexican about the SPP, most certainly he/she will not feel the Mexican sovereingnity threatened at all. Most mexicans who do care about the SPP see it as a good will statement and nothing else.

I think the point of a talk page is to discuss changes to the article ... but, no, it's a serious plan and they haven't put decades of hard work into it just to leave it at a "good will statement". Similar to EU the richer nations were asked to shoulder more of the economic burdens of unification so I think you're right the Mexicans mostly likely think it's a beautiful idea. Hutcher 00:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly, NAFTA screwed up the mexican ecomony more than it did to any other country. This is something thats only benefits with big business and not the mexican people, if anything this agreement will impoverish the mexican people at the expense of those corperations involved in the secret talks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.46.68 ( talk) 18:01, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Other than the lack of a Mexican point of view, what are the other perceived NPOV issues that merit the article being tagged with Template:NPOV? Kurieeto 10:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing I noted, its inappropriately uses the 1st person: "Thanks to [...] we know ...", although that's a tonal problem. I do get the feeling that it was rewritten from an about page. 68.39.174.238 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The description of the SPP reads like a self promotional pamphlet as currently written. Not objective enough. Mr.grantevans2 12:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering if the Canada, Mexican US devision is the right one. Actually, sovereignty is a trickier issue because it corners on various aspects of standardization. There is standardization of immigration policy, pesticide use in agriculture (or a section on agricultural issues generally), environment issues, border issues, military integration, natural resources, health care, human rights, laws, what am I forgetting?! Maybe a section on how the SPP will (or will not) affect labour rights in the three countries - which is something both Canada and Mexico is concerned about. Also, we know that the US wants our water and gas - what do they want as far as Mexico's natural resources go?

The best approach would be the "official position" concerning each section and then the other positions. For example, the official position is that labour will not be affected by SPP. Then the general concern about the 30 CEOs that all the Unions seems to be expressing - and then more specific Union concerns with an emphasis on whatever information they have - with an effort to look into the Mexican labour and union situation. Vaudree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.58.47 ( talk) 05:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

This entire article, with (perhaps) the exception of "Criticism", is in dire need of a cleanup. Morgan695 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary I believe it is full of bias and prejudice against SPP. The whole article needs to be rewritten in a neutral way explaining what the SPP is and nothing more. That's how articles should be, purely neutral. Ottawahottie23 15:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is extremely messy, as well as factually inaccurate. I also recommend removing both links regarding the supposed "NAFTA superhighway" as they have no relation to the actual goals/plans of the SPP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.83.147 ( talk) 16:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the way articles should be because that's not neutrality. Wikipedia articles present a balanced view of entities, including all significant and relevant criticism. This article definitely needs cleanup and rewriting, but it doesn't need whitewashing. FCYTravis 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

When the article begins with "As Americans, we must oppose..." you know it needs to be thrown out. The whole thing is corrupted. Looks like back in January it was the opposite, but the Conspiracy Theorists decided that a neutral point of view wasn't THEIR point of view. Once we get it back to how it should be, it probably should be padlocked. Scharb 03:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scharb ( talk • contribs)

The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway. The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Super Highway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority. There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as "NAFTA Corridors," but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP.[2]

http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp

more bias please. 74.131.225.55 01:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

While the argument against this is something straight off the FAQ of the SPP page, perhaps this idea that a NAFTA highway is in the works somehow still belongs on the page, probably under criticisms. Even if the project is not actually underway, it is still a concern that probably has a good reason for existing, even if only because it's a rumor. What I mean to say is, even if this highway is a product of speculation, it should be mentioned since it seems to be one of the many reasons SPP is criticized, whether it is fair or not. It seems that one of the major projects that involve building a "NAFTA Corridor" would be NASCO, and their project is mentioned through the use of maps on stopspp.com, so this is perhaps one of the sources of the idea. Just one more reason why this should be under close watch for POV. Garonyldas 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This url has a map of the NAFTA Superhighway on the Alberta Canada Infrastructure and Transportation webpage. While the US may not refer to it as the NAFTA Superhighway, its purpose is that.

Hopefully someone can integrate this into the page in the correct place.

http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/2760.htm

Wmb1957 ( talk) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And now it seems as though Canadian municipal governments are in on the deal with Winnipeg, Edmonton, Prince Rupert &  all announcing plans for major infrastructure investing for distribution networks all related to the spp. Inland ports are being set up in Edmonton & Winnipeg, Prince Rupert port is now the fast track trading route for Asian goods coming to North America. Things are being built at insane rate, action is needed immediately to counter this progress on the ground, there has been a time table in place for this for quite some time now, 2010 is the magic number & can anyone tell me what's happennig in 2010 in Canada???????  —Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
69.156.203.204 (
talk) 03:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 

2010 is the year in which the Vancouver Olympics will take place. 24.82.167.159 ( talk) 02:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

These documents from a Judicial Watch FOIA request cover quite a bit of the North American Integration efforts. Included are transportation, migration, border partrol, and a variety of other issues as well as public sentiment. Other mentions in the documents are a CFR Task Force (Council on Foreign Relations Task Force) as something the governments currently have working. Robert Pastor and others attended as noted on the Wikipedia page of the North American Forum. I find it difficult to believe that there would be so much talk if there wasn't a plan

http://www.judicialwatch.org/pentagon-records-north-american-forum-meetings

Wmb1957 ( talk) 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the document I am referring to: http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/ips/ips-overview2-en.aspx Under the "Canada in North America" section of the document in the 4th paragraph it states: "Thus, on March 23, President Bush, President Fox and I signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America that establishes the way forward on our continental agenda for security, prosperity and quality of life."

Shouldn't this be mentioned? I didn't see any mention of this anywhere.

Scholar368 ( talk) 22:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The SPP is not a signed "agreement" in the sense that it is not a binding international agreement. What was signed was only a joint statement.See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2041-7373.2010.00003.x/full

Robert K. Guzman ( talk) 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)