What should Canada give up in new NAFTA
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was brought into force on January 1, 1989 and is superseded by NAFTA, which includes Mexico.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
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.
Why do we need to give anything up?
Why are you so sure that we will "lose" the negotiations and have to surrender anything?
Why are you so sure that we will "lose" the negotiations and have to surrender anything?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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 ...
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.
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.
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
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
"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....
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....
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.
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
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.