SECTIONS

Vision statement backgrounder

VISION STATEMENT BACKGROUND
To create a new vision statement that reflects the current reality of the political moment, we need to remember the history of the organization. The Council of Canadians has had two distinct phases in its past and has likely entered a third in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001.

Phase One: 1985 - 1993 - National Sovereignty
The Council of Canadians was founded around concerns of national sovereignty - the future of Canada as a nation-state on the North American Continent. Canada has a proud history of progressive Canadian nationalism. The CCF, predecessor of the NDP, was founded on building a different kind of country with different values than those of the United States. Living next to the biggest superpower in the world, our ancestors rejected the American narrative of "survival of the fittest" and instead built a nation-state forged on the Canadian narrative of "sharing for survival." The original mandate of the Council of Canadians was to promote the right of Canadians to continue to have a distinctive and progressive political culture, provide universal social programs and have an independent foreign policy that promoted social justice and peacekeeping.

In 1985, levels of foreign ownership were growing again and Canadians were being inundated with American culture. When Brian Mulroney came to power in 1984, one of his first acts was to go to New York and announce to a blue-chip American business audience that Canada was "open for business." Soon, his government was deep into negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which became law January 1st, 1989.

The Council was a leading voice in Pro-Canada Network, a new coalition of labour unions, churches, women, social justice activists, farmers, cultural workers, First Nations peoples and others who joined forces to fight the FTA. We fought the inclusion of energy and water in the agreement, citing the right of Canadians to determine the future use of their own natural resources. We took a stand as strong cultural nationalists, fighting for an exemption for culture in the deal. And we started to expose the role of the Canadian corporate elite in what we called “the sell-out of Canada” and their pact with American corporate forces in destroying a distinctive Canadian economy based on different values.

The debate was very much characterized as one about the future of Canada on both sides. The big business community claimed that a free trade agreement would act as the "cold shower" Canada needed to toughen up in order to compete in the U.S. and said it would make us stronger as a nation. Our side said that the trade agreement would be the first step to the elimination of our social security, our distinct culture, and our stewardship over our natural resources and would make us infinitely weaker as a nation. We did not have distinct campaigns during these years; our whole team fought the trade deal full time. We did become very involved in the fight against the GST, but this "free trade tax" was clearly a part of the trade fight.

This emphasis on national sovereignty prevailed right up to the fight against NAFTA and our subsequent loss when the Chretien Liberals betrayed their electoral promise and ratified NAFTA, January 1, 1994.

Phase Two: 1994 - 2001 - Popular Sovereignty
With two distinct losses under our belts, the Council was going through an identity crisis by 1994. The Chair actually wrote to every member of the organization asking whether they still believed that there was a place for the Council and what its role should be. Overwhelmingly, the answer came back: yes, we need to exist and yes, we will support you. The most important role, they said, is to fight the fall-out of these trade deals and their impact on social programs, natural resources, culture and health, environmental and safety standards. The Council should act as a watchdog and fight individual campaigns as needed. So we launched campaigns against bovine growth hormones, bank mergers, Conrad Black and media concentration, pension grabs, the MAI, genetically engineered foods, and others. Slowly, we formalized this campaign strategy into the current structure, giving each campaign its own staff person and budget.

But the organization was shifting in some other important ways. For one thing, we were becoming a grassroots movement instead of a collection of well-known individuals. We launched our “Citizens’ Agenda” process at the 1994 AGM . We said the Citizens’ Agenda was: a declaration of citizens rights in a global economy; a tool to help individuals and groups form their own positions as they faced governments and corporations; an alternative set of assumptions to counter the dominant ideology of the new economy; and a process to help people rethink their notions of democracy and start to build the kind of political vehicles we need to reclaim control of our lives, community and environment. We were clear that these were not just rights of Canadian citizens, but of all the peoples of the earth.

As well, in anticipation of NAFTA, we had reached out to Mexicans, most notably at a Canadian-Mexican "Encuentro" in Mexico City in 1991, and to Americans who had ignored the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement but were now mobilizing against NAFTA. In 1993, the International Forum on Globalization was formed to join the anti-corporate globalization forces from different countries together and the Council played a prominent role in this process. And the Pro-Canada Network changed it name to the Action Canada Network out of concern for our Quebec colleagues, putting us all through a major re-think of the concept of nationalism.

Meanwhile, our international perspective was quickly developing. When we launched the Canadian campaign against the WTO in time for the Seattle Ministerial, we had already become part of a global civil society movement. Subsequently, our GATS and FTAA campaigns have been built through coalitions with allies in other countries. With each passing day during these important years, our focus shifted from one of national sovereignty to one of popular sovereignty - that is, of democracy for all the peoples of the planet. It had become abundantly clear that Canada was no longer a victim of American aggression but a key ally of the United States in promoting the "Washington Consensus" around the world. Our governments were now part of the problem, not the potential solution.

In building continental and international alliances, we realized that we had more in common with one another than with our own leaders and that to fight for health care or cultural diversity in Canada necessitated fighting for those rights everywhere. Our campaigns were increasingly based on international solidarity and a critique of global corporate rule. And we no longer saw U.S. imperialism as the only place where this corporate tyranny existed.

Another important development during this period was the analysis of the global assault on “the commons” – food, water, social security, human and animal life. Suddenly, everything everywhere was for sale and it was clear that no one would be safe unless everyone was safe from such theft. This sense of fighting for the shared commons gave great impetus to our international work and fighting these trade agreements in partnership with others around the world became as natural as breathing.

Phase Three: 2001 - 2010 – Global Social Justice
Then came the September 11, 2001, attack on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington and our world changed. A mass mobilization that had been planned in Washington for the upcoming World Bank meetings had to be cancelled, and no such mobilization has occurred in the U.S. since. As a result of the events of that day, and under the current U.S. administration, much has happened that impacts and challenges the work of the Council of Canadians.

Under George Bush, the United States has rejected the international rule of law and unilaterally declared itself the arbiter of good and evil in the world. Nation-states, cultures and societies that do not meet the U.S. Administration's definition of a "free democracy" are by definition, potential enemies of the U.S. and its interests. Trade agreements, like the WTO and the FTAA, are an extension of U.S. foreign policy; any country that questions the basic precepts of these deals is suspect in other ways. American security and trade interests alone will set the political tone of these negotiations.

American authorities have demanded, and got, strict new anti-terrorism legislation in Canada that mirrors U.S. laws and that gives authorities new powers to crack down on legal dissent. American authorities have demanded, and got, strict new legislation in Canada on refugees and immigrants, essentially giving the American military total control of the border. Now they are seeking a common security agenda and a common market for energy, including electricity. The White House is still clearly angry that Canada did not support its war in Iraq. Any positive effects of this decision will likely be more than offset when the Liberals under a new leader buy into the American missile defence program to make up to the U.S. for Canada’s independent stand on war.

All of this has given new impetus to those who have long wanted closer ties with the U.S. are using this situation to press their case with great haste. The Fraser and C.D. Howe Institutes are promoting "deep integration" of the two countries. Wendy Dobson of C.D. Howe actually suggests offering up Canada' water and energy as a bargaining chip. The Alliance Party has taken off the gloves and is pressing for full military integration of the two countries. And a winter, 2003 leaked House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report sounds distressingly like the C.D. Howe Institute, even calling for eventual economic union and a common dollar. This report was leaked the day that the U.S electorate put the Republicans in full charge of the House and Senate.

So now the question of "the border" question is upon us again, much as it was in 1985 when the Council was created. There is some pressure for us to return to our nationalist "roots" and launch a campaign to stop the threat of the Americanization of Canada and defend the sovereignty of our country before it is too late. Jim Laxer has written a tough article for Canadian Dimension in which he says that the Right has its act together on this question while our side, instead of confronting the reality of American imperialism directly, has "turned the telescope around to gaze much more distantly at the problem, which it calls globalization." He says it is time to return to the real question at hand – Canadian sovereignty.

Board statements