How Canada could thrive without NAFTA


tay
+1
#1
For months now, the prospect of the United States pulling out of NAFTA has seemed like a bad dream.

President Donald Trump made the menace much more real this week, warning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the White House that the deal may be "terminated" if the U.S. doesn't get what it wants.

This is the nightmare scenario long feared by many Canadians after almost three decades of free trade with our southern neighbour.

Or is it?

Obviously, the end of the North American free-trade agreement – the foundation of Canada's relationship with the U.S. and Mexico – is not this country's preferred option. There would be economic pain and dislocation, at least initially. Untold numbers of jobs would be lost and investments delayed or cancelled if the world no longer perceived Canada as a gateway to the vast U.S. market. Complex supply chains, particularly in the auto sector, would be disrupted.

But it wouldn't have to be an economic catastrophe. If Canada plays its cards right, the death of NAFTA could become a catalyst for making the Canadian economy stronger, more outward-looking and less tethered to an increasingly unreliable partner.

"If NAFTA were to cease, I don't think it would be a complete disaster. And in some respects, it actually has a silver lining," argues David Emerson, a former lumber executive and federal minister of both foreign affairs and trade.

The troubled NAFTA talks are a "wake-up call" for Canada, says Mr. Emerson, who insists he's speaking for himself and not the numerous corporate boards and advisory groups he sits on. Among other things, he says, Canada should use this time to forge closer ties with China, Japan and other Asian nations, ease the regulatory burden at home and invest heavily in the kind of infrastructure that will make trade easier – all to hedge against the risk of an increasingly protectionist and inward-looking U.S.

"If it isn't Trump, it will be somebody else," Mr. Emerson warns. "There is a strong protectionist, self-serving sentiment that runs deep through the American legislative and regulatory process. Ultimately, we're going to have to diversify our economic linkages in ways that ensure our whole economy is not dangerously vulnerable to those protectionist, Make America Great Again actions."

more


https://archive.fo/X0ru9
 
Hoid
#2
Under NAFTA Canadian agriculture has a $400 million deficit with America.

How could it get any worse?
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#3
Scrap it. It was and is a bad deal. Find new trading partners lest we go down with the Yanky ship.
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
+1
#4
Screw NAFTA. Lets go on our own. Our natural resources can net us better revenue.
 
MHz
#5
Where?? Mexico need more items than we currently make, time to get a wish list from them and let the US do their own laundry.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#6
Hmm, a pipeline east sort of makes sense now.
 
Murphy
Conservative
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier View Post

Hmm, a pipeline east sort of makes sense now.

It does. With the bad blood between both Trudeaus and the Liberal party in the past, perhaps Alberta will deal with Eastern Canada and get some oil moving here. It's win-win.

In time, the cycle will swing back to the US wanting to mend fences, but in the meantime, let's make hay while the sun shines, and recirculate Canadian oil.

PS. Justin, since you like to spend taxpayer's money, you should spend some on building oil refineries. A few in BC and some in Onterrible. That way, we can pump, refine and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Just a thought. Feel free to claim it as your own idea. We won't mind.
 
Legalist
No Party Affiliation
#8
The latest proposal from the U.S. are absolutely unacceptable and Canada should tell the U.S. we cannot and will not accept a sunset clause, we will not accept their auto proposal in fact I would counter propose with a more favourable auto pact than at present. Same goes for agriculture. And let Trump rip up the deal.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...cid=spartandhp
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
+2
#9
I remember the world before the Free Trade Agreement and it wasn't such a bad place (excepting an out-of-control, spendthrift government and incredibly high interest rates ... nought to do with US trade)
 
tay
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

I remember the world before the Free Trade Agreement and it wasn't such a bad place (excepting an out-of-control, spendthrift government and incredibly high interest rates ... nought to do with US trade)

I too recall those days and they were indeed the 'good old days'........


How desperate is Justin Trudeau to keep NAFTA?

Ask the Mexicans, now peering out from under the proverbial bus – where, you know, Trudeau pushed them.
Pretty desperate.

As they welcomed the Canadian Prime Minister to Mexico City on Thursday – and as they gamely extracted the Canadian-made stainless steel that had slipped between their shoulder blades – the Mexicans likely marveled about this once or twice. “¡Tan encantador! ¡Muy guapo! ¡Tan despiadado!” they must have said, to themselves. Rough translation: “So charming! So handsome! So ruthless!”

It wasn’t always thus. As recently as June, Trudeau was welcoming Enrique Pena Nieto to Ottawa, even bestowing one of those Trudeauesque both-hands-and-almost-a-full-hug things on the beaming Mexican president. (It almost went as far as those vaguely-unsettling, nose-to-nose eye couplings Trudeau also favours – but those mano-a-mano moments are apparently saved for swearings-in of new cabinet ministers at Rideau Hall.)

Still, it was pretty cuddly, back in June. Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland had previously ruled out throwing Mexico under the bus. On the record, no less. Said she: “I’ve always been clear, and the Prime Minister has always been clear, about the importance of our relationship with Mexico.” At the time, that unctuous windbag Brian Mulroney even chimed in, solemnly wheezing: “Throwing friends and neighbours and allies under the bus is a position for a weak leader. This is not the Canadian tradition.”

Resulting CBC headline: “Canada isn’t about to ‘throw Mexico under the bus,’ foreign ministers say.”

When he was still getting all grippy with Enrique Pena Nieto in June, Justin Trudeau continued to proclaim the same sort of stuff. “I think it’s important that allies and partners like Mexico and Canada work together to address the challenges we’re facing together,” Trudeau declared, and the Mexicans smiled and nodded a lot.

Well, that was then, and this is now.

more

Column: desperate politicians do desperate things | Warren Kinsella
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#11
Just one of the many positives about abandoning NAFTA we would no longer have this constant battle about softwood lumber. They can buy our lumber at the price we ask. Or not. Another would be bulk water. Simply wouldn't be available.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+2
#12
World order faces major threats: Freeland

Quote:

OTTAWA - With the winds of a potential China-U.S. trade war gaining strength, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland says the global trading order that Canada helped create faces its greatest threat since 1945.
"I think that in some ways this is the most fraught moment since the end of the Second World War. And that's a big thing to say," Freeland said during a panel discussion in Winnipeg on Wednesday. Freeland said the global trading order is now facing its most challenging moment since Canada helped establish it after the war, a development that laid the foundation for the peace and prosperity that much of the Western world currently enjoys.
She didn't name the Trump administration, but it is at the epicentre of economic uncertainty that has thrust world markets into downward spiral in recent days.
In the face of that, the U.S. now wants an agreement in principle on the North American Free Trade Agreement in the coming weeks as it swaps escalating punitive tariff measures with China.
Canadians watched record gains in the market evaporate as President Donald Trump tweeted Wednesday that the U.S. lost its trade war with China a long time ago because of the incompetence of his political predecessors.
Freeland will be in Washington on Thursday to meet U.S. trade czar Robert Lighthizer as part of the ongoing efforts to complete a renegotiation of the NAFTA.
Freeland and Lighthizer met last month in Washington and the minister said they made good progress.
"NAFTA is my biggest, most immediate, most constant challenge. It's part of this bigger issue because the rules-based international order is also about rules-based international trade," Freeland explained at a meeting of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce.

Quote:

The broad international implications of the U.S.-China dispute are deeply disturbing, said Paul Evans, a professor of international relations at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia.
"Global supply and value chains are going to be disrupted, the norms and rules of the global trading system eroded further and a whole new level of uncertainty built into the global economic system," said Evans.
"Add to this the Trump administration framing of China as a strategic competitor and the powder train is being laid for a major confrontation."
Joseph Pickerill, spokesman for International Trade Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne, said the government is closely monitoring the U.S.-China situation.
"We believe, first and foremost, in free trade, in the rules-based institutions and norms that govern it and in protecting the integrity and reputation of our market in the process."
David MacNaughton, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., told The Canadian Press on Wednesday that while Canada's trade focus is on making progress with NAFTA, it is mindful of the impact of the China dispute.
"The U.S. has got issues with China. We've got some issues with China," the envoy said.
MacNaughton said the fact that Trump, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto will all be in Peru next week for the Summit of the Americas could break the NAFTA logjam.
"There is a good chance with the three leaders getting together in Peru, it provides a focus for us to work really hard to try and get as far as we can. I'm not going to predict where this is all going to end up except for the fact we've done our homework."

Quote:

A well-placed source with first-hand knowledge of Canada's NAFTA stance said the Peru meeting represents the best chance for the three leaders to make progress towards an agreement in principle. The source said centrepiece of any deal will be a resolution on autos.
Kelly Craft, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, said in a speech Wednesday that she has "every confidence" that the three countries can "fix NAFTA so that it can work for the next 25 years."
But she said obstacles remain, including resistance to the American proposal to raise the duty-free limit on Canadians visiting the U.S. for 24 hours.
"The lineup of cars driving back into Canada every weekend that has to stop and declare any purchase when travelling just for the day — think of the carbon footprint of those traffic jams spread across our border," she told an Empire Club of Canada luncheon in Toronto.
"Now, a lot of Canadians might not agree on what the U.S. suggests — $800 a day — but come on — $200?"

I don't see the problem with raising the daily limit
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#13
I agree.

Canada has to stop being so cheap
 
White_Unifier
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Under NAFTA Canadian agriculture has a $400 million deficit with America.

How could it get any worse?

Canada has harsher winters too.

Make no mistake about it. Just as the UK sacrificed the advantage of low transportation costs in trade between it and the EU, so Canada would sacrifice low-cost transportation in trade between it and the US. Geographical proximity alone makes it such that trade with the rest of the world cannot fully compensate for trade with the US.

That said, I do agree with the OP that we cannot force Trump to act rationally even in the best interests of the US itself let alone other countries. We cannot force the US to trade with us and so absolutely need to promote freer trade with the rest of the world as a fall-back plan.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I agree.

Canada has to stop being so cheap

Unfortunately this has a negative effect on those of us that do not have quick access to boarder towns. Even in taxes alone we get stung by greedy governments that look for ways to make up for the lost revenue in gas taxes from people crossing over just to buy gas and milk.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#16
Apparently NAFTA talks are going great without Canada's involvement according to Freeland

Freeland 'very encouraged' by NAFTA progress

Quote:

OTTAWA - Canada's foreign affairs minister says she's "very encouraged" by signals from Washington that the United States and Mexico are close to figuring out their bilateral issues within the three-country North American Free Trade Agreement.
Chrystia Freeland said Wednesday that she's been in close contact — including this week — with her U.S. and Mexican counterparts throughout their two-way NAFTA talks, which are now in their fifth week. The issue of rules of origin on autos has been central to the summertime U.S.-Mexico discussions, she added.
"We are very encouraged by what we're hearing from our NAFTA partners," Freeland told reporters in Nanaimo, B.C., where she's participating in a retreat with colleagues from the Trudeau government cabinet.
"What we've agreed with the U.S. and Mexico is, once the work on those bilateral issues is done, then Canada is looking forward to joining the negotiation and a swift conclusion of the NAFTA negotiations."
There's optimism that U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo could conclude their face-to-face negotiations as early as this week — and open the door for Canada to re-enter the talks.
A report by Politico, based on information from unidentified sources, said the White House is expected to announce a "handshake" deal between the U.S. and Mexico on Thursday. U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to attend the announcement, the report said.
Guajardo told reporters in Washington on Wednesday that he hoped to have a solution in "the next couple of hours, or couple of days." However, on the possibility of a handshake deal, Guajardo said it would have to involve all three countries.

Want more click the link
 
White_Unifier
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

For months now, the prospect of the United States pulling out of NAFTA has seemed like a bad dream.

President Donald Trump made the menace much more real this week, warning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the White House that the deal may be "terminated" if the U.S. doesn't get what it wants.

This is the nightmare scenario long feared by many Canadians after almost three decades of free trade with our southern neighbour.

Or is it?

Obviously, the end of the North American free-trade agreement – the foundation of Canada's relationship with the U.S. and Mexico – is not this country's preferred option. There would be economic pain and dislocation, at least initially. Untold numbers of jobs would be lost and investments delayed or cancelled if the world no longer perceived Canada as a gateway to the vast U.S. market. Complex supply chains, particularly in the auto sector, would be disrupted.

But it wouldn't have to be an economic catastrophe. If Canada plays its cards right, the death of NAFTA could become a catalyst for making the Canadian economy stronger, more outward-looking and less tethered to an increasingly unreliable partner.

"If NAFTA were to cease, I don't think it would be a complete disaster. And in some respects, it actually has a silver lining," argues David Emerson, a former lumber executive and federal minister of both foreign affairs and trade.

The troubled NAFTA talks are a "wake-up call" for Canada, says Mr. Emerson, who insists he's speaking for himself and not the numerous corporate boards and advisory groups he sits on. Among other things, he says, Canada should use this time to forge closer ties with China, Japan and other Asian nations, ease the regulatory burden at home and invest heavily in the kind of infrastructure that will make trade easier – all to hedge against the risk of an increasingly protectionist and inward-looking U.S.

"If it isn't Trump, it will be somebody else," Mr. Emerson warns. "There is a strong protectionist, self-serving sentiment that runs deep through the American legislative and regulatory process. Ultimately, we're going to have to diversify our economic linkages in ways that ensure our whole economy is not dangerously vulnerable to those protectionist, Make America Great Again actions."

more


https://archive.fo/X0ru9

Unilateral global free trade? Bring it on!
 
CaptainTrips
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Angstrom View Post

Screw NAFTA. Lets go on our own. Our natural resources can net us better revenue.

If we can get pipeline to tidewater built.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Just one of the many positives about abandoning NAFTA we would no longer have this constant battle about softwood lumber. They can buy our lumber at the price we ask. Or not. Another would be bulk water. Simply wouldn't be available.

The battle over softwood would remain. They tariff it regardless of NAFTA or WTO and will continue to do so.

There is no problem with bulk water.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Unilateral global free trade? Bring it on!

We can't even have multilateral free trade agreements within Unilateral Canada good luck with the rest of the world
 
CaptainTrips
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Murphy View Post

It does. With the bad blood between both Trudeaus and the Liberal party in the past, perhaps Alberta will deal with Eastern Canada and get some oil moving here. It's win-win.

In time, the cycle will swing back to the US wanting to mend fences, but in the meantime, let's make hay while the sun shines, and recirculate Canadian oil.

PS. Justin, since you like to spend taxpayer's money, you should spend some on building oil refineries. A few in BC and some in Onterrible. That way, we can pump, refine and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Just a thought. Feel free to claim it as your own idea. We won't mind.

A few refineries in BC and some more on Ontario?? At 20 to 30 billion apiece you're talkin real money. No way any government is going to do that, nor should they.
 
White_Unifier
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

We can't even have multilateral free trade agreements within Unilateral Canada good luck with the rest of the world

I'd like to see one province set the example and unilaterally drop all intentional trade barriers against other provinces.
 
spilledthebeer
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

I'd like to see one province set the example and unilaterally drop all intentional trade barriers against other provinces.


Poor LIE-berals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Trying so VERY HARD to distract us from so many ugly realities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The old NAFTA deal partly protected Cdn farmers from Yankee competition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Our dairy farmers benefited most!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And our health benefited as well since our dairy products were not laced with Yankee bovine growth hormones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And some people considered that protecting and maintaining Cdn farm industry was a good idea since California is running out of water for famr irrigation and when they run out - the supply of vegetables to Canada will run out as well!


AS for LIE-berals whining about bulk water shipments- it was LIE-berals like Chretien and Pierre Trudeau how thought that was a nice money maker for Cdns!


AS for autos.......well- we KNOW LIE-berals want to kill off all makers of gas powered cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Its just too bad about the hundreds of millions of dollars Wynne-bag LIE-berals gave to Japanese auto makers operating here in Ontari-owe- it may be tough getting that money repaid in the LIE-beral economic climate they are building for us!
 
MHz
+1
#23
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/2...in-nafta-talks
As the fourth and final day of negotiations got underway between Canada's Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Canada's managed dairy market remained a roadblock.


http://www.scoopyweb.com/2018/09/tru...nada-from.html
Washington (AFP) - US President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened to exclude Canada from a new NAFTA agreement after negotiations to rewrite the pact ended without an agreement the night before.
"There is no political necessity to keep Canada in the new NAFTA deal. If we don't make a fair deal for the U.S. after decades of abuse, Canada will be out," he tweeted.
"Congress should not interfere with these negotiations or I will simply terminate NAFTA entirely & we will be far better off."
US-Canadian trade talks are set to resume on Wednesday, and Ottawa and Washington still have time to reach an agreement that would keep Canada in the 25-year-old trade pact with Mexico.
But Trump's tweet seemed designed to ramp up pressure on Canadian negotiators.
 
Hoid
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

I'd like to see one province set the example and unilaterally drop all intentional trade barriers against other provinces.

that isn't going to happen.

every province must protect its economy.
 
White_Unifier
+2
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Under NAFTA Canadian agriculture has a $400 million deficit with America.
How could it get any worse?

No kidding. It's time for Canada to cultivate its own oranges and then encourage our orange farmers to compete with the world.
 
White_Unifier
-1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

that isn't going to happen.
every province must protect its economy.

It's economy or its manufacturers? Manufacturing is but one part of a healthy economy. Consumers need to become better organized.
 
Hoid
#27
You don't seem to really have any background in economics at all.
 
White_Unifier
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

You don't seem to really have any background in economics at all.

How so? Do you suggest that consumption does not represent part of the economy? Did you know that even manufacturers consume, be it machinery, power, and raw materials to produce what they manufacture, and if you raise tariffs on what they consume, they'll need to pass those tariffs on to consumers?

Not only that, but because it raises their overhead costs, import tariffs could make it harder for them to then export their products too. I thought you knew that.
 
MHz
#29
Consumers tend to support local businesses and on-line shopping may change that a bit the delivery services are still local businesses.
Who determines what is on the shelves, the Merchants or the Consumers? I tend to think it is the men with the money as all Merchants are in business because the banks were willing to float a loan, on their terms.

Own 51% is all that is needed to call the shots while having a different name on the door and that is for public consumption. Let's say the parent company that owns the coal mines in the US also owns the coal in Argentina. The coal the US imports from there is said to be needed as US coal does not burn clean by itself and the care and welfare of the locals is first on the list even though they now take home less money while the parent company takes more profit in the country where people are at slave wages and that is a demand placed by the bankers rather that people with a few shares.

Company Farms run the same way Company Towns do. Colonies support the motherland rather that it being the other way around where the Queen sends money to Canada and the UK picks up the bill. Company Nation is now a possibility with everybody being under one umbrella, the banks that tend to have tight purse strings rather than loose ones.

6% flat rate for banking fees and Merchants pay interest on their loans as 99% of the transactions are theirs, the other 94% stays in permanent circulation. Making banking an essential service would make it a '.org' so it runs at cost unlike the Clingon Foundation.


If Business Owners got protection from the wanton massacres the Royals inflicted in them from time to time through the Magna Carta perhaps it is time Consumers demanded the same protection and Merchants would have to start delivering heritage items rather than goods with a terminal lifespan builtin so there was always a demand. Today Merchants serve 15% of the global population, that would change to 100% so it isn't like they would be going out of business, profits would take a big hit. 3% max per year.
The US/World Bank is unwilling to take that path so the countries that would prefer that other path are taking it and with another option being available nations can no longer be forced to stay in the US system of suffer like Cuba has as well as a host of other places.
Consumers might demand they have one authority over them, Merchants or Royals and having both is being double billed for the same service, one has to go.
 
Gilgamesh
+1
#30
A-frigging-mazing!

So many here foolishly boasting that we don't need NAFTA.

Such ill informed silliness doesnt deserve comment.
 

Similar Threads

428
16
49
Should Canada KILL NAFTA?
by B00Mer | May 14th, 2017
10