What should Canada give up in new NAFTA


Cliffy
Free Thinker
+3
#31
Give up the US. Why go down with a sinking ship? Anybody who thinks Trump is going to make anybody but his billionaire friends great again are delusional.
 
petros
#32
He isn't Illuminaughty.
 
B00Mer
No Party Affiliation
#33
Well there won't be an African American Harriet Tubman on the $20 anymore.. Trump signs Executive Orders passing legislation this week to put his face on the $20.



FAKE NEWS!
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#34
"In Don we trust"
 
tay
#35
Trump’s trade pick urged by U.S. Senate to get tough with Canada


“I agree with President Trump that we should have an ‘America First’ trade policy.”

In a possible preview of upcoming NAFTA negotiations, U.S. lawmakers Tuesday urged a get-tough approach with Canada in several areas, including the supply-management systems that limit imports of poultry and dairy.

Lawmakers who will be involved in the negotiating process made clear at a confirmation hearing for Donald Trump’s trade czar that they envision more substantive changes than the minor “tweaking” the president recently spoke of regarding Canada.

Senators from both parties pressed trade nominee Robert Lighthizer on softwood lumber, intellectual-property protection and, with respect to the NAFTA negotiations, for freer trade in dairy and poultry.

What was notable about Tuesday’s event was that it was a rare public exchange between actors with a legal role in trade negotiations: American law says the U.S. trade representative must consult the Senate finance committee — before, during, and after trade talks.

https://www.thestar.com/business/201...th-canada.html
 
White_Unifier
#36
Getting rid of supply management would help the poorest Canadians. That ought to be a no-brainer.

Canada should not retaliate against US softwood tariffs or quotas. It helps to protect our lumber anyway.
 
tay
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Getting rid of supply management would help the poorest Canadians. That ought to be a no-brainer.

Canada should not retaliate against US softwood tariffs or quotas. It helps to protect our lumber anyway.

You need to explain your reasoning on how ditching the 'supply quotas' would help the poor.........

Make American Dairy Farms Great Again

So his problem with the “very unfair things” supposedly going on in Canadian agriculture’s supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg sectors may be that they offer a good, very good example to U.S. farmers that the agri-food lobby and its friends in Washington would very much like to eliminate forever.

On the other hand, speaking of desperate straits, with the end of his shambolic first 100 days in office fast approaching, President Trump may want desperately to look as if he’s doing something for the schmucks who voted for him when, despite his big talk, he hasn’t really done anything much at all since he was sworn in on Jan. 20.

Because when farmers are left to themselves, they can usually be counted on to produce themselves into poverty, it’s good to have something to blame for the problems you’ve created. As Wisconsin farmer Chris Holman observed in a recent blog post, “Sorry Canada, this time that thing is you!”

“Scapegoating Canadian trade policy is a brilliant move as morally flexible politics goes, but as is often the case with finger-pointing, anyone doing it in a situation like this looks suspiciously like a guilty four-year-old,” Mr. Holman wrote.

Since the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates about 163 million litres of heavily subsidized American milk were dumped in fields, manure ponds or otherwise went down the drain in the first eight months of 2016, U.S. farmers in financial trouble would dearly love the opportunity to dump it in Canada instead. Supply-managed Canadian dairy farmers, by the way, receive zero subsidies from our taxes.

And lots of American dairy farms are in big financial trouble. According to the USDA, and state agencies quoted by Mr. Holman, about 500 Wisconsin farms close every year as the dairy industry there grows ever more concentrated. And, believe me, this has nothing to do with Canada.

Of course, bad neoliberal economic policies have the same kind of friends on both sides of the Medicine Line, which may be why the Canadian supply management system, which supplies high-quality product to Canadians at a fair price while ensuring dairy, poultry and egg farmers earn a living wage, has been under attack by the same types in Canada.

This explains why the Usual Suspects, like the neoliberal propagandists in Thinktankistan and their publicity auxiliary in Canadian media where Postmedia and the Globe and Mail compete to outdo one another with hysterical denunciations of supply management, are positively gleeful at President Trump’s bombastic attacks on Canada.

As National Farmers Union President Jan Slomp cheekily advised Mr. Trump a few days ago, if he really wants to make American dairy farms great again, he should adopt supply management.

Alberta PoliticsMake American Dairy Farms Great Again! Adopt supply management - Alberta Politics
 
B00Mer
No Party Affiliation
#38
U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA is back on table: Wilbur Ross

So today Trump wants to scrap NAFTA again..

 
tay
#39
Scott Sinclair writes that there's no reason for any party to NAFTA to see itself as being stuck with the existing agreement (or worse), while also mentioning a few ways to substantially improve the rules governing North American trade:
Canada should call Trump’s bluff by championing a fairer distribution of the benefits of trade — presumably the idea behind the Trudeau government’s ambitions to usher in a new generation of “progressive trade” agreements.

Anxiety about trade and globalization runs deep and goes beyond Trump’s core supporters.

Canada’s negotiating agenda will need to reflect that reality. It just so happens there are ways to redo or replace NAFTA to make it a better deal for workers in all three countries.

An obvious first step is to include strong, fully enforceable labour standards. Mexican workers, whose real wages have stagnated under NAFTA, and who are rarely free to join independent unions, would be the primary beneficiaries. But rising wages and improved working conditions in Mexico and many Southern U.S. states would provide support for the same in the rest of North America.
...
The Trump administration intends to bolster Buy American purchasing policies, which could side-swipe Canadian suppliers. But the government’s standard response — to seek an exemption for Canadian goods — has fallen short before and will fare much worse today.

Canada could instead propose reciprocal “Buy North American” policies for new public infrastructure spending. If this is rejected, Canada should maximize national economic spinoffs on its own planned public investments through Buy Canadian policies.
 
tay
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

It's the wrong approach to ask.. "what should Canada give up".

Canada has been as industrially eviscerated as the U.S. has been by NAFTA, FTA, the WTO and the myriad of smaller regional Free Trade Agreements that the pathetic globalist shill governments of Mulroney, Chretien, Harper and J. Trudeau have brought in. Free Trade never has and never will work.

That existed prior the descent of Canada into the Free Market maelstrom of the last 50 years, which is failing catastrophically.

Yes I was being facetious when I posed that question. I have absolutely no confidence in the Liberals protecting Canadians. Let's not forget they were all for the TPP. Trudeau is surrounded by big money people such as Morneau who is infamous for "Young people are right to be angry about Morneau's acceptance of 'job churn' "

Young people are right to be angry about Morneau's acceptance of 'job churn' - The Globe and Mail


And the big money guys get what they want....... http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...-new-post.html
 
petros
#41
What about the FTA? NAFTA is just an add on.
 
tay
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

What about the FTA? NAFTA is just an add on.

The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was brought into force on January 1, 1989 and is superseded by NAFTA, which includes Mexico.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Canada mustn't roll over on trade for America's bully-in-chief

"NAFTA … was so one-sided. Both from the Canada standpoint and from the Mexico standpoint. So one-sided. Wilbur [Ross, the secretary of commerce] will tell you that, you know, like, at the court in Canada, we always lose. Well, the judges are three Canadians and two Americans. We always lose. But we're not going to lose any more. And so it's very, very unfair."

The speaker: President Donald Trump, bloviating last week to the editorial board of The Economist.

Seeking an expert evaluation, I called Gordon Ritchie, who helped negotiate the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

"That is one big lie. Everything in it is false."

First of all, there are no "courts in Canada" composed of three Canadian and two American judges.

Trump is actually talking about the dispute settlement panels that adjudicate claims such as the eternal and fatuous American insistence that Canadian lumber exporters are unfairly subsidized by government.

It is true that the settlement panels have mostly ruled against the Americans on that question. But the panels always comprise two trade experts from each side, who then get together and choose a fifth. The Americans have absolutely equal representation; they would never participate in any system where they didn't.

Ritchie says it was the Americans themselves who demanded that disputes be settled by ad hoc panels, and those panels are meant to ensure "you can apply your unfair trade law, but you have to apply it fairly, and they have failed that test every goddamned time."

If Ritchie sounds irritated, remember he has spent his life in the world of trade law, which by its very nature is usually unfair and self-serving, particularly when a superpower is involved.

Few other policy areas are so nakedly political. No wonder Trump is so comfortable with it.

In 2016, the last year for which figures are available, the website states that the "U.S. goods and services trade surplus (my emphasis) with Canada was $12.5 billion," meaning Canada bought more from the United States than the Americans bought from Canada, precisely the opposite of what Trump said.

Broken down, the Americans sold us $24.6 billion more in services, and we sold them $12.1 billion more in goods, but most of that was energy, and part of the reason for that, as Ritchie points out, was America's absolute insistence on unrestricted and assured access to Canadian energy.

Canada mustn't roll over on trade for America's bully-in-chief: Neil Macdonald - CBC News | Opinion
 
tay
#43
 
White_Unifier
+1
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

"The U.S. government hopes to take the first formal step in renegotiating NAFTA within the next couple of weeks, setting the stage for actual negotiations with Canada and Mexico later this year. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says he hopes to advise Congress within two weeks of the Trump administration's intention to renegotiate the quarter-century-old agreement."

"That would begin a pre-negotiating consultation process of at least 90 days. U.S. law says that if the administration wants lawmakers to agree to a simple yes-or-no vote on a trade deal, it must consult with Congress throughout the process — before negotiations start; during negotiations; and before signing the deal."

Presumably this means we could be hearing from the Trump administration, the Senate and the House of Representatives with respect to their objectives, priorities and red lines in the upcoming talks.

Earlier this week, Ross stated that Canada knows it will have to make "concessions" and that "the only question is what's the magnitude, and what's the form of the concessions." And in January, Ross stated he had informed Canada that the US wants to negotiate on the rules of origin and the investor-state dispute settlement provision (which he feels gives too much power to Canada).

The Canadian Press also notes, "In Canada, there are guidelines requiring ministers to present memorandums to cabinet before trade talks. The government is also consulting with the private sector."

While the Trudeau government is consulting with corporations, it is not consulting with the broader public or with First Nations. Maybe that's because David MacNaughton, the Canadian ambassador to the US, has said he already has "a good sense of what would be in Canada's interest".

To tell Prime Minister Trudeau that his government needs to hold meaningful hearings with the public and First Nations -- and not just with the private sector -- please go to our online action alert, NAFTA renegotiations cannot be another backroom deal .

More than 10,000 people have already sent this message to Trudeau, but more pressure is needed for him to be open, transparent and accountable in these talks.

Trudeau consults corporations, but not the public or First Nations, on upcoming NAFTA talks | The Council of Canadians

What Canada should happily give up:

1. Canadian-content rules.

2. Supply-management.

What Canada should absolutely fight against to the very end with no compromise:

Country-of origin rules. While we want to freely trade with the US, we want to freely trade with the rest of the world too. If the US tries to force us into a fortress America, we should turn our backs on it and transform ourselves into a Singapore North.

Why not give poorer consumers more choice in the produce market?

We can't tie their hands behind their backs with protectionism and then blame them when they can't fend for themselves in the market.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#45
Why do we need to give anything up?

Why are you so sure that we will "lose" the negotiations and have to surrender anything?
 
Durry
+3
#46
Is there anyway we could give them selfie boy,,,maybe we could throw in some maple syrup, a few frenchies and anything they might find useful,,,nothing in return is required!!
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

You need to explain your reasoning on how ditching the 'supply quotas' would help the poor.........

Make American Dairy Farms Great Again

So his problem with the “very unfair things” supposedly going on in Canadian agriculture’s supply-managed dairy, poultry and egg sectors may be that they offer a good, very good example to U.S. farmers that the agri-food lobby and its friends in Washington would very much like to eliminate forever.

On the other hand, speaking of desperate straits, with the end of his shambolic first 100 days in office fast approaching, President Trump may want desperately to look as if he’s doing something for the schmucks who voted for him when, despite his big talk, he hasn’t really done anything much at all since he was sworn in on Jan. 20.

Because when farmers are left to themselves, they can usually be counted on to produce themselves into poverty, it’s good to have something to blame for the problems you’ve created. As Wisconsin farmer Chris Holman observed in a recent blog post, “Sorry Canada, this time that thing is you!”

“Scapegoating Canadian trade policy is a brilliant move as morally flexible politics goes, but as is often the case with finger-pointing, anyone doing it in a situation like this looks suspiciously like a guilty four-year-old,” Mr. Holman wrote.

Since the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates about 163 million litres of heavily subsidized American milk were dumped in fields, manure ponds or otherwise went down the drain in the first eight months of 2016, U.S. farmers in financial trouble would dearly love the opportunity to dump it in Canada instead. Supply-managed Canadian dairy farmers, by the way, receive zero subsidies from our taxes.

And lots of American dairy farms are in big financial trouble. According to the USDA, and state agencies quoted by Mr. Holman, about 500 Wisconsin farms close every year as the dairy industry there grows ever more concentrated. And, believe me, this has nothing to do with Canada.

Of course, bad neoliberal economic policies have the same kind of friends on both sides of the Medicine Line, which may be why the Canadian supply management system, which supplies high-quality product to Canadians at a fair price while ensuring dairy, poultry and egg farmers earn a living wage, has been under attack by the same types in Canada.

This explains why the Usual Suspects, like the neoliberal propagandists in Thinktankistan and their publicity auxiliary in Canadian media where Postmedia and the Globe and Mail compete to outdo one another with hysterical denunciations of supply management, are positively gleeful at President Trump’s bombastic attacks on Canada.

As National Farmers Union President Jan Slomp cheekily advised Mr. Trump a few days ago, if he really wants to make American dairy farms great again, he should adopt supply management.

Alberta PoliticsMake American Dairy Farms Great Again! Adopt supply management - Alberta Politics

Supply management makes million are out of inefficient farmers and needlessly costs consumers big time while producers without quota are forced to dump milk on the ground. Can't even give it to the poor.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Why do we need to give anything up?

Why are you so sure that we will "lose" the negotiations and have to surrender anything?

Because we have trudOWE instead of a leader that cares about Canada.
 
White_Unifier
#48
Honestly, if the US taxpayer subsidizes its agricultural industry, the smartest thing Canada could do is to welcome those subsidized products.

What an educated economist understands is that a subsidy must come from somewhere. In other words, every other American pays higher taxes to subsidize their agriculture. So while the US farmer would have the upper hand over the Canadian farmer, every other Canadian would enjoy the upper hand against every other American. Only a non-economist can.t see that.

Economics aside, some might argue that agricultural self-sufficiency is an extension of military if other security as a strategic resource. While I don't dispute that, drugs, vegetables, grains, and legumes are the only essential strategic agricultural resources. Milk and such are luxuries and so have no military or other strategic value that would warrant protectionism.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Supply management makes million are out of inefficient farmers and needlessly costs consumers big time while producers without quota are forced to dump milk on the ground. Can't even give it to the poor.



Because we have trudOWE instead of a leader that cares about Canada.

The Trudeau argument does not hold water unless YIU criticize Harper too. He too defended supply management. The differences between Trudeau and Harper are not as great as many seen to think. Harper too defended the CBC and Canadian content for example.
 
Sons of Liberty
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

We need to develop new trade partnerships, and fast. We are locked into almost all of our trade with a declining and unstable partner.

GO ahead, what's stopping you? Oh yeah, yourselves.

Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

You can trade whatever with whoever you want . What is stopping you ?

Canadas protectionist policies, nobody else tolerates them except the US.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Typical Canadian asked question. The question should be what progress
can we make in the relationship. The world has changed. Canada has a
lot of new opportunities to find new partners to trade with. American is a
protectionist country now and we can fill a big gap in the trade world

Kind of sucks when the show is on the other foot, eh? You can't sell a condom across provincial lines with your protectionism, you are all so absorbed with the US you keep missing the target, then again, you prefer it that way.
 
tay
#50
In the coming NAFTA re-negotiations we should focus on Article 605


NAFTA has always been a potential firecracker of an issue, if only the public knew what was in the deal.

But for more than 20 years, Canadian politicians have largely managed to keep the focus on lumber and cows, distracting us from the truly outrageous aspects of NAFTA: the surrender of Canadian sovereignty in a couple of key areas.

Now that Trump is forcing us to renegotiate NAFTA, there's lots of talk here about how Canada must be tough, and even demand some changes we want. A big spread in The Globe and Mail last week identified two -- and only two -- "contentious issues" for Canada: lumber and cows.

Left out, as usual, is the notion we should be trying to renegotiate sections of the deal that erode our sovereignty.

One of those sections, the investor-state clause, which gives corporations the power to sue governments over laws threatening their profits, has received some attention, although less than it deserves.

But there's been virtually no attention to another section, Article 605, which effectively relinquishes control over our energy resources to Washington.

Article 605 was considered such an extreme infringement of national sovereignty that Mexico refused to accept it. Instead, Mexico demanded and was granted an exemption to that clause when it joined NAFTA in 1994.

Let's shine a little light then on this mostly darkened corner of NAFTA: Article 605 limits the power of governments to cut back energy exports. So, for instance, Canada must continue to make available to Americans the same proportion of our energy as in the previous three years.

If there were a global oil shortage -- like the ones in the 1970s -- we couldn't cut back our oil exports to the U.S. in order to redirect the oil to Canadians.

While section 605 has always offended those who care about sovereignty, it poses huge new problems in the age of global warming.

If we're serious about fighting climate change, we're going to have to phase out dirty oilsands production and rely on our remaining reserves of conventional oil (we have about 11 years left, at current rates) while we transition to clean energy, argues Gordon Laxer, founding director of the University of Alberta's Parkland Institute and author of After the Sands: Energy and Ecological Security for Canadians.

But if we reduce our consumption like this, the Big Oil companies operating in Canada will just export more of our oil to the U.S. And, under Article 605, that will increase our future oil export obligations to the U.S., explains Laxer.

It's not hard to see why the erosion of energy sovereignty in Article 605 -- apparently unique to NAFTA among all global treaties -- was rejected by Mexico, a country that celebrates an annual Energy Independence Day to commemorate its 1938 nationalization of foreign-owned oil companies.

Mexico's fierce defence of its sovereignty stands in sharp contrast to the easy submission to Washington's energy demands by Canadian politicians, led by then Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney.

Mulroney happily agreed to U.S. demands that NAFTA provide guaranteed access to our energy, which U.S. leaders have always regarded as rightfully theirs.

Mulroney and the Alberta government were actually keen to limit Ottawa's control over our energy. They saw this as a way to prevent future Canadian federal governments from following the lead of Pierre Trudeau who introduced the controversial National Energy Program in 1980 to increase Canadian ownership of our energy sector.

Whatever happens in the upcoming NAFTA talks, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's team will insist they fought hard for Canada's interests. And that will be true -- when it comes to lumber and cows. Just don't expect them to fight for our right to control our own energy reserves.

After all, in an age when control over energy shapes global politics and the fate of the world, why wouldn't Canadians be happy to leave our energy in the hands of Trump's Washington and Big Oil?

How NAFTA surrenders Canadian energy sovereignty -- and gives the U.S. control over our oil | rabble.ca
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by Sons of Liberty View Post

GO ahead, what's stopping you? Oh yeah, yourselves.



Canadas protectionist policies, nobody else tolerates them except the US.



Kind of sucks when the show is on the other foot, eh? You can't sell a condom across provincial lines with your protectionism, you are all so absorbed with the US you keep missing the target, then again, you prefer it that way.

People like you are a prime example of what is wrong with the United States and why we have to row as far away from your sinking ship as we can possibly get.

Arrogant azzholes ...
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

People like you are a prime example of what is wrong with the United States and why we have to row as far away from your sinking ship as we can possibly get.

Arrogant azzholes ...

Kind of sucks that he is right.
 
MHz
#53
Drop the US and deal directly with Mexico and all points south of there as out trading partners. Trump already said America first so what is left except table scraps.

Perhaps Mexico would be interested in some spruce fence posts to keep the project alive forever. Tamarack posts would mean no repairs would be needed for decades.
 
tay
#54
Well let's hope this doesn't go the way of Electoral Reform and get ignored...


The Canadian Government is seeking input on NAFTA renegotiation


The Government of Canada is listening to Canadians from across the country and from all sectors and backgrounds about trade. This includes conversations with the provinces and territories, industry, unions, civil society, think tanks, academics, Indigenous peoples, women, youth and the general public.

We recognize that trade policies need to respond and contribute meaningfully to Canadians’ economic, social, and environmental priorities. This is a key element of the Progressive Trade Agenda, which supports the Canadian middle class and those working hard to join it.

NAFTA's track record is one of economic growth and middle class job creation in Canada and across North America. As we prepare for discussions with the United States and Mexico on the renegotiation of NAFTA, we are seeking your views. Are there areas of the agreement that could be clarified? Are there parts that should be updated? Are there any new sections that should be part of a modernized agreement?

Any changes to NAFTA would need to support our goals of providing stable, rewarding, and well-paying jobs for Canadians and helping grow our middle class.

Consulting Canadians on the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

The Canadian Government is seeking input on NAFTA renegotiation


Fresh water would be a good bargaining chip
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#56
"What should Canada give up in new NAFTA?"

I'd say the whole concept - except for the fact the plant machinery has been moved and factory sites are now subdivisions and golf courses - sort of like how the armed forces went. We trusted Big Brother....
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#57
Sunny Ways
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Fresh water would be a good bargaining chip

Except Canada has wisely refused to put water on the table. The last thing we want is the Yanks building pipelines and canals to transport water to their poorly managed irrigation systems.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#59
We have seen how well NAFTA has worked in the past... Have a beef?.. No problem, break the agreement and allow the 10 year process to come up with a ruling... Appeal it there after all the while blackmail your trade partner9s) with taxes, duties, anti dumping fines and whatnot
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Except Canada has wisely refused to put water on the table. The last thing we want is the Yanks building pipelines and canals to transport water to their poorly managed irrigation systems.


The last thing you want is to have an heavily armed and very aggressive country that has a long history of taking unilateral action against other countries whenever it suits them become too reliant on any one of your resources, especially your water.
 

Similar Threads

10
27
Canada being sued under NAFTA by US firm
by Tonington | Feb 13th, 2008