North American Aerospace Defense Agreement

[FiveParadox]

Je regarde le débat sur les Affaires émanents du gouvernement Nº 6, in relation to the new agreement in terms of the North American Aerospace Defense agreement, and I think that I have heard some good arguments on both sides. It would appear that the New Democratic Party of Canada is the only party which looks as though it is going to vote in opposition to the revised treaty, whereas it appears as though Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and to a lesser extent, the Bloc Québécois, are quite prepared to support the motion.

Given what you know of the agreement to this point, do you support the new agreement? Do you think that it needs changes? Should the Government of Canada reject the agreement, and re-negotiate some sort of accord?

 

[thecdn]

Can't say I've followed this one to much down here in the Sunshine State. What's the Readers Digest version of the differences from the old agreement?

 

[FiveParadox]

In summary (someone assist, please, if I leave out anything important):

• The new agreement would expand the responsibilities of the North American Aerospace Defense Command to include monitoring the oceans for terror attacks; and
• the agreement would become permanent, instead of the current system of renegotiating the terms of the agreement every few years (Canada would need to give the United States of America twelve months' notice in order to remove themselves from the agreement).

That's a very shortened version.

 

[joeph]

This just seems like another reason for countries not to trust North America for not trusting them. Plus a big waste of money and once we're in, we're in unless it gets troublesome

 

[thecdn]

Doesn't seem to be any reason to stop this agreement. It seems Canada gets some big benefits out of it.

 

[BitWhys]

I've been ambivalent about the direction Deep Integration has been taking, more or less learning to enjoy the bemusement I generally feel as I watch our two main parties march us down the road to Fortress NA. Until now I've considered the permanence, which I don't agree with, of the new agreement to be a part of the paper chase that can be adjusted in the long run. I also agree with the NDP that the clauses affording the exchange of information to be in (I now think serious) need of improvement. Assurances on the chamber floor like were given last night mean squat in the long run and best I can figure there's nothing in the new agreement to exclude the establishment of the high-tech radar needed to support BMD taking place on Canadian soil. Despite these shortcomings I was willing to shrug it off since there's no point squawking about it and we're supposed to "give the new government a chance".

Shrug it off, that is, until I read this article

Furthermore, with greater Canadian participation envisioned in the rebuilding of Iraq, we may see Canadian interests in the Middle East attacked as well

wtf?

I missed that memo. :x

There's no reason short of a bunch of public posturing on both sides of the border to prevent the current agreement to be extended by order-in-council until someone finds out what the hell is going on behind the scenes and we at least know exactly what "inevitabilities" our "good government" are signing us on to. All of them.

It looks to me like the rats are running the ship and the captain likes it that way. There's stuff we aren't being told. I'm talking about underlying assumptions and general policy, not stuff that doesn't need to be classified.

Its not going to happen, but our DND/CF needs a time out.

I voted NO.

 

[Jersay]

It makes Canada a deeper part of America, but what the hell, i would vote for it.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think that I would perhaps be in favour of the agreement if it would be amended so as to continue the previous practice of renegotiating the agreement every few years. Circumstances can change, and this agreement may no longer be appropriate for one or both nations a few years down the road — I don't much care for "permanent" agreements.

 

[Jersay]

Come on Five, you are getting too anti-American, or that is what the cons would say.

You have to support permanent steps in our relationship.