Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
To all Canadians
- Thread starter bluepeter
- Start date
hamstershaver
New member
ok
bluepeter
New member
WODIN said:
Indeed. A private US corporation can sue the Canadian government such as in the case of Ethol Corp.
Back in 1993, our then Prime Minister correctly categorized MMT as a dangerous neurotoxin and banned it (as had several US states at that time). Ethol Corp. in the US said wait a second, that's going to cut our profit margin pretty heavily and sued the Canadian government for $350 million. Our lawyers checked the 'Free Trade' agreements and realized that Ethol was perfectly within their rights. Our government gave Ethol $20 million to say sorry and MMT is polluting our roadways as we speak. WTF!?!?!
Other nefarious items include the provision that the US is entitled to 60% of our energy on an ongoing basis regardless of the need/demand in Canada.
Under the old WTO, the US was not allowed to slap outrageous tariffs on our exports. Under 'free trade' they are able to do this with impunity such as in the case of the current 27% tariff slapped on our softwood lumber.
I could go on but I'm in the midst of writing a very angry letter to Paul Martin.
bluepeter
New member
The Bigdawg said:I have written so many letters to my MP I think he banned me
Write another one and then write a few to Martin. This is fucking outrageous.
I'm appalled at my own ignorance on this issue as I should have seen some of this years ago. Once I started researching it, I couldn't believe what I was reading.
bluepeter
New member
Excellent article written by David Orchard:
The Canadian Labour Congress chief is rethinking his opposition to free trade with the U.S. and suggests we should be "thinking about industrial strategies in a North American rather than purely Canadian context."
Ken Georgetti says he was misquoted and that the free trade agreements cost Canada 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs only to see them replaced by lower-paying ones.
In fact, in the first three years of the 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Canada lost a quarter of its manufacturing base. Hundreds of industrial plants closed their doors or relocated to the U.S. By 1992, Canada's number of unemployed hit a historic high.
However, lost in this exchange is the fact that jobs are only one part of the free-trade equation. The central issue, as Sir John A. Macdonald put it during the free-trade election of 1891, is our sovereignty. How, he asked, could Canada keep its political independence after it had thrown away its economic independence?
Instead of the promised "secure access" to the U.S. market, we have had more trade harassment than before 1989: on steel, wheat, lumber, beef, hogs, fish, lobster, blueberries and more.
The much heralded recent NAFTA "victory" on softwood lumber — after the industry spent tens of millions of dollars on Washington lawyers — will (if accepted by the U.S., which is far from certain) only return us to the situation that existed before the free-trade agreement.
Before the FTA negotiations began in 1986, Canada, trading with the U.S. under the GATT framework, had free trade in softwood lumber. Nor had the Americans been able to challenge our national institutions, block our exports or put tariffs on our wheat.
However, the FTA gave the U.S. unlimited rights to use its trade laws against Canada. The result: an unending series of actions taken against not only our exports, but also the very way we govern ourselves.
Laws passed by Parliament are challenged and overturned by U.S. corporations. The U.S. openly declares it will see the Canadian Wheat Board dismantled and has mounted 10 actions against the board since 1989 with more on the way. One remaining protection for western farmers, the CWB is the world's largest marketer of wheat and barley and Canada's biggest net earner of foreign currency. Without it, Canada's grain industry would move overnight into the hands of the U.S. agriculture giants.
An Ontario NDP government promise of public auto insurance was abandoned in the face of U.S. industry threats of retaliation under the FTA.
After 15 years of "free trade" with the United States, fewer than a dozen major, widely held Canadian companies are left listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. More than 10,000 Canadian companies have been taken over by U.S. owners. Even the Hudson's Bay Company, part of the country's very foundation in 1670, is apparently to be absorbed by a U.S. retail chain, while the Molson "I am Canadian" brewery is merging with an American conglomerate.
Free trade would be wonderful for the beef industry, the promise went in 1988. Instead, the border has been blocked to our exports of cattle, bison, sheep and other livestock for more than a year, while 90 per cent of the packing industry is now in U.S. hands and enjoying sky-high profits.
One energy company after another has gone to U.S. owners: B.C.'s Westcoast Transmission to Duke Energy, even Bob Blair's Nova is now based in Pittsburgh. Canadians' remaining shares in Petro-Canada are about to be dumped into the market in a short term (and shortsighted) cash grab by the government. Shoppers searching to buy Canadian hunt in vain, from farm machinery depots to stationery stores.
Evidence of the "ever-tightening economic ties" from a free-trade agreement that Sir John A. Macdonald warned of in 1891 is everywhere.
As America attacked Iraq last year, prominent Canadians urged that, even though such an invasion was clearly illegal, we should help bomb that little country, because our close trade ties made it important that we not irritate the U.S.
If Nova Scotia wishes to give drivers the cheap, effective public insurance coverage Saskatchewan enjoys, the FTA says no. If New Brunswick wants some offshore Canadian gas, too bad. A Canadian ship building industry? A Canadian automobile? A Canadian environmental policy? All run smack up against FTA provisions.
Without a vision, a nation and a people die. While shipping raw resources out of the country at a completely unsustainable and even accelerating rate, we assemble machines designed and manufactured elsewhere and dream other people's dreams.
Yet Canada has the potential to be a proud industrial power using its abundant natural resources to create all the industries of a modern nation, including a shipbuilding industry, a pollution-free automobile, a world class motion picture industry, a farm machinery industry (as recently as 1968, a Canadian company was the largest tractor maker in the world) and more.
Instead of learning to live within the straitjacket imposed by the free-trade agreements, we need to open the doors to a comprehensive examination of what we have signed and how it is impacting our economic, political and social well-being.
A full inquiry into the effects of the FTA and NAFTA, undertaken without ideological blinkers, would blow the dust off stale perceptions of what Canada could be and inject a sense of hope and optimism into a country now often lacking both.
The Canadian Labour Congress chief is rethinking his opposition to free trade with the U.S. and suggests we should be "thinking about industrial strategies in a North American rather than purely Canadian context."
Ken Georgetti says he was misquoted and that the free trade agreements cost Canada 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs only to see them replaced by lower-paying ones.
In fact, in the first three years of the 1989 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Canada lost a quarter of its manufacturing base. Hundreds of industrial plants closed their doors or relocated to the U.S. By 1992, Canada's number of unemployed hit a historic high.
However, lost in this exchange is the fact that jobs are only one part of the free-trade equation. The central issue, as Sir John A. Macdonald put it during the free-trade election of 1891, is our sovereignty. How, he asked, could Canada keep its political independence after it had thrown away its economic independence?
Instead of the promised "secure access" to the U.S. market, we have had more trade harassment than before 1989: on steel, wheat, lumber, beef, hogs, fish, lobster, blueberries and more.
The much heralded recent NAFTA "victory" on softwood lumber — after the industry spent tens of millions of dollars on Washington lawyers — will (if accepted by the U.S., which is far from certain) only return us to the situation that existed before the free-trade agreement.
Before the FTA negotiations began in 1986, Canada, trading with the U.S. under the GATT framework, had free trade in softwood lumber. Nor had the Americans been able to challenge our national institutions, block our exports or put tariffs on our wheat.
However, the FTA gave the U.S. unlimited rights to use its trade laws against Canada. The result: an unending series of actions taken against not only our exports, but also the very way we govern ourselves.
Laws passed by Parliament are challenged and overturned by U.S. corporations. The U.S. openly declares it will see the Canadian Wheat Board dismantled and has mounted 10 actions against the board since 1989 with more on the way. One remaining protection for western farmers, the CWB is the world's largest marketer of wheat and barley and Canada's biggest net earner of foreign currency. Without it, Canada's grain industry would move overnight into the hands of the U.S. agriculture giants.
An Ontario NDP government promise of public auto insurance was abandoned in the face of U.S. industry threats of retaliation under the FTA.
After 15 years of "free trade" with the United States, fewer than a dozen major, widely held Canadian companies are left listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. More than 10,000 Canadian companies have been taken over by U.S. owners. Even the Hudson's Bay Company, part of the country's very foundation in 1670, is apparently to be absorbed by a U.S. retail chain, while the Molson "I am Canadian" brewery is merging with an American conglomerate.
Free trade would be wonderful for the beef industry, the promise went in 1988. Instead, the border has been blocked to our exports of cattle, bison, sheep and other livestock for more than a year, while 90 per cent of the packing industry is now in U.S. hands and enjoying sky-high profits.
One energy company after another has gone to U.S. owners: B.C.'s Westcoast Transmission to Duke Energy, even Bob Blair's Nova is now based in Pittsburgh. Canadians' remaining shares in Petro-Canada are about to be dumped into the market in a short term (and shortsighted) cash grab by the government. Shoppers searching to buy Canadian hunt in vain, from farm machinery depots to stationery stores.
Evidence of the "ever-tightening economic ties" from a free-trade agreement that Sir John A. Macdonald warned of in 1891 is everywhere.
As America attacked Iraq last year, prominent Canadians urged that, even though such an invasion was clearly illegal, we should help bomb that little country, because our close trade ties made it important that we not irritate the U.S.
If Nova Scotia wishes to give drivers the cheap, effective public insurance coverage Saskatchewan enjoys, the FTA says no. If New Brunswick wants some offshore Canadian gas, too bad. A Canadian ship building industry? A Canadian automobile? A Canadian environmental policy? All run smack up against FTA provisions.
Without a vision, a nation and a people die. While shipping raw resources out of the country at a completely unsustainable and even accelerating rate, we assemble machines designed and manufactured elsewhere and dream other people's dreams.
Yet Canada has the potential to be a proud industrial power using its abundant natural resources to create all the industries of a modern nation, including a shipbuilding industry, a pollution-free automobile, a world class motion picture industry, a farm machinery industry (as recently as 1968, a Canadian company was the largest tractor maker in the world) and more.
Instead of learning to live within the straitjacket imposed by the free-trade agreements, we need to open the doors to a comprehensive examination of what we have signed and how it is impacting our economic, political and social well-being.
A full inquiry into the effects of the FTA and NAFTA, undertaken without ideological blinkers, would blow the dust off stale perceptions of what Canada could be and inject a sense of hope and optimism into a country now often lacking both.
bluepeter
New member
JerseyArt said:
Under the current constraints of Free Trade, you are quite correct.
However, for you to say that Americans have no interest in NAFTA is just nonsense. You have no interest in controlling a very large economical market? You have no interest in the billion dollars a day that flows over the border? Bullshit.
bluepeter said:
The benefits are slighted in your favor. Canada last I checked ran a pretty good surplus with the US, and your market is tiny in comparison.
It would be of far more material benefit for us to close the border since Canada insists on making it such an easy transit point for terrorists to enter the US
Your writting a letter to your MPs staff you think they actually look at those letters?
bluepeter said:
Technically, our economy is better now than 20 years ago. The agreement is far from being perfect and far from reflecting free trade but that's a good start. The CND govt. could have passed a law against MMT, forbiding them from sueing. They didnt. Blame your MP...
bluepeter
New member
manny78 said:
Uh, no they can't. The provision in the agreement allows a private US corporation to sue our government. The provision allows the overturning of passed legislation that may run counter to a US corporations interests at their request. If the Canadian government had passed a law banning MMT, the situation would not have changed except we would have had OUR legislation overturned at the behest of an American company.
As for our economy being better? I beg to differ.
Anyway, you think it's a good idea to have Americans slapping huge tarriffs on our goods that weren't allowed pre-NAFTA? You think it's a good thing they are openly attempting to disband the CWB? You think it's a good thing private American corporations can sue our government when even Canadian ones can't? You think it's a good thing we have less than a dozen Canadian owned companies left on the TSX? You think it's a coincidence we lost a quarter of our entire manufacturing base within 3 years of this shit being signed?
Come on Manny, I know you tend to be American in your ideology which is fine but selling out to them is not an option and that is what this agreement is doing to us.
bluepeter
New member
superqt4u2nv said:
That's fine but if enough interest is shown, it doesn't matter who looks at the actual letters. I've talked to numerous MP's who if their staff receive 5 letters on one subject, they think a Federal catastrophe has occurred.
Do it people, this shit is crippling us. We are allowed to back out of this agreement, we only need to give the parties involved 6 months notice.
Razorguns
Well-known member
In a world of freer increasing global trade -- close oneself off. Great policy.
All that cheap mexican labour and imports. Who needs all that right?
Billions in exports to the US. Canada could easily do w/o that and export to Zimbabwe instead of course.
Who needs NAFTA, when we can instead have tons of red tape and bureacracy to get in the way of everything to make sure _nothing_ gets done.
All that cheap mexican labour and imports. Who needs all that right?
Billions in exports to the US. Canada could easily do w/o that and export to Zimbabwe instead of course.
Who needs NAFTA, when we can instead have tons of red tape and bureacracy to get in the way of everything to make sure _nothing_ gets done.
bluepeter
New member
Razorguns said:
You have no clue. Read the posts on the thread before commenting please. I bet you don't have a clue what Canada signed away with the FT agreements. Nobody is saying close oneself off. We traded heavily with the US prior to these agreements and would continue to do so afterward.
wutangnomo
New member
Though I agree with everything you're saying Bluepeter, unfortunately no system is perfect.
We need the US a whole lot more then they need us. We get screwed royally in some cases and lose a lot of leverage in dealing with economic policies, but knowing the US has our backs and is basically our defense is a decent tradeoff. Less money allocated to our own defense allows us to divert it to other areas of importance.
Do I think it's good that our softwood lumber incurs a 27% tariff? Definitely not. Do I think it's good that we are "selling out" to American entities? Of course not. However, we have, in a way, shot ourselves in the foot for depending and relying so heavily on exporting to the US. Unless we can find other markets to which we can export and other coutries to form heavy trade relations with (which is a catch-22 because exporting to other countries is more costly for us) we are in a no win situation.
We need the US a whole lot more then they need us. We get screwed royally in some cases and lose a lot of leverage in dealing with economic policies, but knowing the US has our backs and is basically our defense is a decent tradeoff. Less money allocated to our own defense allows us to divert it to other areas of importance.
Do I think it's good that our softwood lumber incurs a 27% tariff? Definitely not. Do I think it's good that we are "selling out" to American entities? Of course not. However, we have, in a way, shot ourselves in the foot for depending and relying so heavily on exporting to the US. Unless we can find other markets to which we can export and other coutries to form heavy trade relations with (which is a catch-22 because exporting to other countries is more costly for us) we are in a no win situation.
bluepeter
New member
wutangnomo said:
Why? We had free trade with the US before these agreements. We were the world's biggest trading partners before these agreements. There was and is absolutely no need to be assraped like this.
We had free trade before and now that it is called free trade, we don't have free trade. It's ridiculous.
Razorguns
Well-known member
bluepeter said:
What's there to read? If you're against FREE trade, that infers you're for RESTRICTED trade. Whenever in any history of business was government restrictions on business ever profitable to any party? Now i'm not talking about specific details and paragraphs and subsections and either trivial stuff. I'm talking about the big picture of what the purpose is.
It's the same type of mentality that forces companies to hire overpaid labour in the US when they can save money by hiring cheaper labour overseas or on the street corner. The purpose of companies is to LOWER COSTS and INCREASE PROFITS not provide jobs or do "good for the nation". Any hands-off government policies which helps facilitate that goal is a welcome proposition. Ask any serious experienced economist.
wutangnomo
New member
bluepeter said:
I agree bro and I'm not trying to support what is going on, I'm simply being realistic. Sure I would like for free trade to be exactly that.... FREE trade. That would be ideal for us Canadians, but for Americans it is not (and we all know who wears the pants in the relationship) because it all comes down to the ultimate sin... money.
Canada and the US are still the world's biggest trading partners and will continue to be. Realistically though, the US is a free market in every sense of the imagination and they are assraping us simply because they can in order to increase their own prosperity (ie money). That is capitalism at its finest. The whole cattle issue and BSE excuse is a prime example of this. We've shown that our cattle are more then safe and that the mad cow incident was an isolated one, but the US is pushing it simply because they know they can. SARS sure as hell didn't help our position. The US knows they can play every excuse in the book (ie Bush in yesterday's speech saying they have a "bureaucracy" bullshit). PM Martin was obviously pissed and said the decision should go in our favour and the issue has been studied to death, but what on earth can he or Canada do?? The answer is nothing because we are at a stranglehold by the Americans. They know it, we know it, and we simply have to kiss ass.
Lets face it, the US is governed by a dog eat dog dogma. They are not in the business to be morally or ethically correct. If they have an opportunity to assrape us or anyone else in the name of money (or maintaining a positional stronghold), they will. In fact, Canada is pretty lucky because the US can assrape us ten times moreso then they already are. At least they are being nice with us.
bluepeter said:
Why is it that when some idiot doesnt understand the topic, they preempt by claiming the other doesnt instead.
Sorry blue, reading a few left wing opinion peaces from some anti global clap trap org doesnt make you any more educated on this topic than any number of others youve demonstrated ignorance in before.
You have no idea what NAFTA is bor.
Easy part first. The free trade agreement is far more in Canandas favor as your friend has already stated. Canada is a minor trading partner to the US relative to our GNP. We conversely would crush you in any kind of trade war.
If you understood NAFTA, you would understand that it should be opposed not for the silly reasons you enumerated, but because it violates both nations soveriegn rights by having created some elxtra legal "trade disupute" commission which essentially trumps both our governments. Moreover it was intended as a blueprint for the entire western hemisphere.
Free trade isnt the problem. This one world government nonsense is a problem. And if you wish to discuss relative benefit where the fuck is the benefit ofd the worlds lone superpower being hand cuffed and forced to obey decisions by Canadians and Mexicans.
So write your MP, and tell all your friends to do the same. This agremeent is worthless to the US, worhtless to us economically or otherwise. Worst then worthless when it comprimisies our national soveriegnty to piss ant canadian leftist regimes
bluepeter said:
It would be unconstitutional for a governement to give out its prerogative of making/passing laws. They just can't. When the Helms Burton law was passed, they had a law declaring illegal and void any judgement made against a canadian company through this bill. You should realize your liberals sold out their soul. The same morons who were crying about the GST and the NAFTA. Such bill against MMt would have been against the NAFTA, the US would have probably gave us a shitload of whatever you want but it was still possible.
We lost this and that because we weren't competitive. Period. Manufacturing was lost in part due to the NAFTA but also to Asia. When you have folks working in some clothing dump, making 12$/hour, you know it can't last forever.
bluepeter
New member
JerseyArt said:
Ironic you saying I do not know what I'm talking about. The 'left wing' piece you speak of was written by a Conservative. He ran for the leadership of the Conservative party in 1998 and 2003. He's not some fringe guy either, he placed a close second both times.
