U.S.-CANADA RELATIONS

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
The relationship between the United States and Canada is probably the closest and most extensive in the world. It is reflected in the staggering volume of bilateral trade--the equivalent of $1.2 billion a day in goods, services, and investment income--and people, more than 200 million crossings of the U.S.-Canadian border every year. In fields ranging from law enforcement cooperation to environmental cooperation to free trade, the two countries work closely on multiple levels from federal to local. In addition to their close bilateral ties, Canada and the U.S. work closely through multilateral fora.

Canada--a charter signatory to the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)--takes an active role in the United Nations, including peacekeeping operations, and participates in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Canada joined the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1990 and hosted the OAS General Assembly in Windsor in June 2000, and the third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in April 2001. Canada seeks to expand its ties to Pacific Rim economies through membership in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC), and will host the winter Olympic Games in Vancouver-Whistler, British Columbia in 2010.

Although Canada views good relations with the U.S. as crucial to a wide range of interests, it occasionally pursues independent policies at odds with the United States. In 2003, Canada did not participate in the U.S.-led military coalition that liberated Iraq (although it has contributed financially to Iraq’s reconstruction). Other examples are Canada’s leadership in the creation of and on-going support for the UN-created International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes--which the U.S. opposes due to fundamental flaws in the treaty that leave the ICC vulnerable to exploitation and politically motivated prosecutions--and Canada’s decision in early 2005 not to participate directly in the U.S. missile defense program. The United States and Canada also differ on the issue of landmines. Canada is a strong proponent of the Ottawa Convention, which bans the use of anti-personnel mines. The United States, while the world’s leading supporter of demining initiatives, declined to sign the treaty due to unmet concerns regarding the protection of its forces and allies, particularly those serving on the Korean Peninsula, as well as the lack of exemptions for mixed munitions.

U.S. defense arrangements with Canada are more extensive than with any other country. The Permanent Joint Board on Defense, established in 1940, provides policy-level consultation on bilateral defense matters and the United States and Canada share NATO mutual security commitments. In addition, U.S. and Canadian military forces have cooperated since 1958 on continental air defense within the framework of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). The military response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 both tested and strengthened military cooperation between the United States and Canada. In December 2002, the two countries established a Binational Planning Group to develop joint plans for maritime and land defense and for military support to civil authorities in times of emergency. Since 2002, Canada has participated in joint military actions in Afghanistan. Canadian Forces led the NATO International Stabilization Force (ISAF V) there for half of 2004, and in the summer of 2005, Canada deployed a 250-member Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar. It is planning for the deployment of a 1,000-person battle group in early 2006. Canada has also contributed to stabilization efforts in Haiti, including by deploying over 500 Canadian troops.

The U.S. and Canada also work closely to resolve transboundary environmental issues, an area of increasing importance in the bilateral relationship. A principal instrument of this cooperation is the International Joint Commission (IJC), established as part of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to resolve differences and promote international cooperation on boundary waters. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972 is another historic example of joint cooperation in controlling transboundary water pollution. The two governments also consult semiannually on transboundary air pollution. Under the Air Quality Agreement of 1991, both countries have made substantial progress in coordinating and implementing their acid rain control programs and signed an annex on ground level ozone in 2000. In June 2003, Canada and the U.S. announced a new border air quality initiative designed to increase cooperation in combating cross-border air pollution, including particulate matter. Three regional projects have been selected for initial joint action.

Canada ratified the Kyoto Accord at the end of 2002, despite concern among business groups and others that compliance would place Canada’s economy at a lasting competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the United States. Canada’s federal government has committed about U.S. $8 billion over seven years to achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions, plus modest additional funds for research and long-term technology development. Canada participates in the U.S.-led International Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, which researches effective ways to capture and store carbon dioxide. Canada is also a founding member of the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems, both of which are designed to address climate change and are supported by the U.S. In early 2005, Canada joined the U.S.-led Methane to Markets initiative, which focuses on transferring technology to developing countries for the capture and use of methane from pipelines, landfills and other sources. In late 2005, Canada hosted the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal.

While law enforcement cooperation and coordination were excellent prior to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, they have since become even closer through such mechanisms as the Cross Border Crime Forum. Canada, like the United States, has strengthened its laws and realigned resources to fight terrorism. U.S.-Canada bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the fight is exemplary. Canada is a significant source for the United States of marijuana, as well as precursor chemicals and over-the-counter drugs that are used to produce illicit synthetic drugs. Implementation and strengthening of 2003 regulations in Canada and increased U.S.-Canadian law enforcement cooperation have had a substantial impact in reducing trafficking of precursor chemicals and synthetic drugs, but cannabis cultivation, because of its profitability and relatively low risk of penalty, remains a thriving industry.

Canada is a major aid donor and targets its annual assistance of nearly $3 billion toward priority sectors such as good governance; health (including HIV/AIDS; basic education; private-sector development; and environmental sustainability.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Other examples are Canada’s leadership in the creation of and on-going support for the UN-created International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes--which the U.S. opposes due to fundamental flaws in the treaty that leave the ICC vulnerable to exploitation and politically motivated prosecutions--

I've never understood why we support this.

Great article, ITN.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
The americans are scared there Generals and what not will be called by the ICC. Scared of justice, but they don't mind using it as a legitimacy against other nations and leaders however.

Well our relations with the USA should be strong. As it is cheap to trade with them we don't have to spend millions of dollars in shipping across the sea.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Re: U.S.-Canada Relations

I agree with the premise of the International Criminal Court.

In fact, last night, I watched coverage on CPAC of Philippe Kirsch, the Chief Justice of the International Criminal Court addressing and taking questions from members of the House of Commons in committee. Listening to what he had to say (Mr. Kirsch is a judge from the Province of Québec), I was quite impressed with the work and purpose of that institution.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
Indeed finder,

the US wants it both ways.

We benefit from trade with them, but we should distance ourselves from them politically as much as possible (and reduce dependencies on them).
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
My major difficulty with ITN is that he or she actually believes that governments aren't run by business!

Free Trade, all the wonderful stuff that's done for Canada (billions lost wasted and frittered away while lawyers reap the benefits...

We don't live in a world or laws that business either American or Canadian...can live with.

Lip service to environmental issues, erosion of national sovereignity (on both sides of the 49th), and a world spending time and money unheard of during "peace-time" for which the lions share of responsibility for having created this "necessity" lies on Pensylvania Avenue and on the floor of the NYSE.
 

dekhqonbacha

Electoral Member
Apr 30, 2006
985
1
18
CsL, Mtl, Qc, Ca, NA, Er, SS,MW, Un
I think not said:
The relationship between the United States and Canada is probably the closest and most extensive in the world. It is reflected in the staggering volume of bilateral trade--the equivalent of $1.2 billion a day in goods, services, and investment income--and people, more than 200 million crossings of the U.S.-Canadian border every year.

...

If Canada and US have a common currency, the trade might even exceed.
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Re: RE: U.S.-CANADA RELATIONS

the caracal kid said:
Indeed finder,

the US wants it both ways.

We benefit from trade with them, but we should distance ourselves from them politically as much as possible (and reduce dependencies on them).

How? Do you know that the biggest supplier of oil to the US is Canada? Do you know how much the economy of not just the West, but Canada as a whole depends on resource revenue? If not, take a look at the taxes you pay on your gas next trip to the pumps. How do you suggest we distance ourselves from them militarily? Like it or not, we need the US military for protection for North America. Or would you rather depend on our military? No offense to the soldiers, they are great, but years of neglect have left this country vulnerable militarily.

Is the US perfect? Of course not. But I am reminded of the quote about democracy. It may be a flawd process but it is better than anything else out there. Given the choice, I would much prefer to be friends with the US as opposed to having them pissed at us. Can't bring a knife to a gun fight.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
When you've got more dollars in your pocket because you libe in PetoBerta then it makes perfect sense to let the US have its hands in your pockets.

There's no escaping the reality of regionalism and while Albertans tend to be better off than anyone else in Canada, this mickey-mouse government continues (in Ontario at least) to hitch its wagon to the auto industry and WalMart thinking....

Celebrate that the gas and oil that makes Alberta so wonderful is being burned (and polluting the earth) in cars built in Canada to mollify the Buzz Hargroves of the world. A fellow I met on a forum a while ago stood firm on his notion that "Economics Trumps Virtue". And the numbers of folk rolling in dough celebrating NAFTA are no doubt the choir singing that anthem!
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
OH and by the way...

Bananada!

What makes a country a bannana republic is dependence on resource trade....
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Re: RE: U.S.-CANADA RELATIONS

MikeyDB said:
When you've got more dollars in your pocket because you libe in PetoBerta then it makes perfect sense to let the US have its hands in your pockets.

There's no escaping the reality of regionalism and while Albertans tend to be better off than anyone else in Canada, this mickey-mouse government continues (in Ontario at least) to hitch its wagon to the auto industry and WalMart thinking....

Celebrate that the gas and oil that makes Alberta so wonderful is being burned (and polluting the earth) in cars built in Canada to mollify the Buzz Hargroves of the world. A fellow I met on a forum a while ago stood firm on his notion that "Economics Trumps Virtue". And the numbers of folk rolling in dough celebrating NAFTA are no doubt the choir singing that anthem!

I assume your reference to Mickey Mouse is the Ontario provincial government.

As far as Alberta and the oil goes, I must ask: What came first, the car or the oil? Simply put, as long as oil and its byproducts are required for vehicle use, then someone must, and will, provide that supply, so if it is Alberta, great. Like I said, the benefits of this don't just stop at the Alberta borders, the benefits also go country wide. Why, just the other day, I was thinking that the Maritimes should really applaud Alberta for dealing with the unemployment problem in the Maritimes. I wonder when they will thank Alberta for this?? 8) :lol:
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Let's get in touch with reality here shall we!?

The fact that oil exists under Alberta has nothing whatever to do with any politician, it's simply the luck of the toss so to speak...

And I repeat, the reason why Banana Republics are banana republics is because they sell off their natural resources....

You've got the Atlantic and Pacific fisheries that have beaten that horse to death and in the case of the Atlantic provinces all we hear is "Woe is Me..."

While petroleum will in all likelihood given modern technocracies continue to be a commodity of wealth generation for some time to come, the imprudence of resource trade as the principle generator of "prosperity" is just as doomed as the coal industry is/was in Cape Breton and the fishing industry in Newfoundland...

Of course Hibernia might allow some bacon-saving in Nfld, but by the time the oil barons get through with that horse it may prove to be little more than a "pipe-dream.

Dependence on natural resources and single industry economies is the road to ruin....it just takes time.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
And yes Ontario its government its infrastructure and its quality of life SUCKS.

Like I implied before, I envy your Alberta address.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Alberta has , and is giving away it's petroleum resources at bargain basement prices. Alberta's wealth will last no longer than the oil and gas. One would think it prudent to make the oil and gas last as long as possible but the current government of Alberta can't seem to sell it off quick enough. Without the oil and gas, Alberta might just as well be Saskatchewan, and this is not meant to be a jibe against Saskatchewan.

U.S. - Canada relations are good, as long as it is profitable to the U.S.. NAFTA is in force only if it is profitable to the U.S.. Softwood lumber is a prime example of the selective enforcement of NAFTA rules. Canada should not kid herself about the "special" relationship with the U.S. The U.S. buys our goods because they need those goods. So-called "special" relationships are pipe dreams.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
#juan said:
Softwood lumber is a prime example of the selective enforcement of NAFTA rules.

Give us another....nevermind I'll do it for you. Canada refused to comply with beer regulations. 8O Shocking isn't it?
 

EastSideScotian

Stuck in Ontario...bah
Jun 9, 2006
706
3
18
39
Petawawa Ontario
I think if Other nations have to fall under the ICC, The USA should also, but this isnt really a new thing for the States, I mean they dont actully listen to the UN.

The UN has its Flaws, but ignoreing the UN isnt going to help solve the problems it does have. The USA should be a responsable nation, and be an active part of the UN, weather it agrees with them or not.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I think not said:
#juan said:
Softwood lumber is a prime example of the selective enforcement of NAFTA rules.

Give us another....nevermind I'll do it for you. Canada refused to comply with beer regulations. 8O Shocking isn't it?

NAFTA is a tool of multinational corporations. No more, no less.

link
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
Without NAFTA, Canada would be arguing their case in front of US courts.

Let's see, US courts or multinational panel.

What's better?

Hmmmmm.

Let's think about that for a moment.