quote:OTTAWA — Americans' privileged access to Canada's massive oil and gas reserves could be disrupted if Washington cancels the NAFTA accord as Democratic presidential candidates threaten, Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson warned yesterday.
"There's no doubt if NAFTA were to be reopened we would want to have our list of priorities," he said.
...
Canada and the United States have free trade in energy because the accord effectively prohibits discriminatory export controls on oil and gas. Mr. Emerson's comments come after Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton promised Tuesday to withdraw the United States from the North American free-trade agreement after taking office, unless the deal was completely renegotiated.
The pact has become a target for criticism by U.S. unions, which blame it for the disappearance of thousands of jobs, but studies have repeatedly shown that trade has thrived and all three NAFTA signatories have benefited since the deal took effect in 1994.
...
But Mr. Emerson said reopening the deal would open a can of worms, with new demands for changes from all countries. He said one beef Canada would have is the deal's dispute-resolution mechanism, which failed to solve the long-running softwood trade war between Ottawa and Washington.
"If you reopen [NAFTA] for one or two issues, you cannot avoid reopening it across a range of issues," he said.
He scoffed at Democratic suggestions that they want to toughen labour and environmental provisions, saying: "I don't think the United States has got anything to teach Canada about labour and the environment."
So my first thought is, could this a greater focus on more environmentally friendly technology? Emerson is correct in that this is more than a simple matter of resolving a few issues in favour of the States. It isn't like there is nothing we'd like to see adjusted North of the line. And if they are so keen on improving labour and environment, making oil and gas more expensive would certainly force the hand of industries to find ways of using less of it more affordably, which, if we sincerely believe in global warming, you would think would be happening more quickly.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I would love for it to be renegotiated, there are too many stories on how NAFTA provisions harm Canadian sovereignty, one oft cited example is that. One we start to export a product we cannot cease to export that product, say for example water.
There also the example that NAFTA seems to protect American industries even if they violate our laws, one example is a US company polluting one of our water sources, we stopped them but they sued us saying we violated NAFTA and were forced if I recall to let them continue to violate our laws.
I don`t mind the idea of NAFTA, if sources say that NAFTA has been an overall benefit then it has been a benefit, but if NAFTA is unfair to people regardless on which side of the border they are then NAFTA should be studied and looked over to make sure its balanced if its not balanced then revisions are then in order.
:NOTE: these are examples I`ve heard of in conversation.
IP: Logged |
posted
Reposted from the "Accomplishments of Barack Obama" thread, thought this was curious:
quote: Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."
Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.
"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.
posted
If it's renegotiated we absolutely need to get water on the list of vital resources. Right now there's some dispute as to whether it can be exported in bulk under NAFTA as a commodity or whether it's protected against private bulk export as a vital resource.
Under NAFTA, the Canadian government is also not permitted to intervene in the market in ways that would reduce the percentage of our oil exports that go to the United States. This isn't a major issue since it doesn't stop Canadian producers from selling wherever they like and changing the percentage of our exports that go to the U.S., but in a future oil crunch scenario where Canadian consumers are priced out of the market, it could be an issue if the government were unable to intervene in the market.
I completely agree about dispute resolution.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to see not just sale of water addressed, but also bi-national protection of mutual resources. Right now we have no recourse if the States decides to start syphoning water from the Great Lakes, even though it would be a disaster on our side of the border (as well as on the South, but if they want to do that to themselves, I can't say much). As well as dispute negotiation and the oil situation twinky mentioned.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit surprised that the story Mucus links to above isn't all over the news in the US. If nothing else, I'm surprised that Clinton hasn't pounced on it; it's the sort of thing that could conceivably torpedo any candidate's campaign. Obama is good enough at deflecting criticism that I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he were able to deal with this effectively, but if I were Clinton I'd certainly be making him try.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two options: 1) It could be wrong, while CTV is large and generally reputable, the news has yet to be corroborated (on the other hand, it could be argued that the political debate might not recognize the distinction) 2) Clinton might also be caught in the proverbial cookie jar, and thus not want to draw quite too much attention to the issue:
quote: Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.
posted
3) Coulda been nothing more than Wilson mistranslating "Trade isn't going to change much." as meaning the same as "There will be no changes to NAFTA." The growth in internal trade between NAFTA members is only slightly higher that the growth in external trade between NAFTA nations and nonNAFTA nations, the difference totalling ~4.4% more over 14years. If somebody said, "Give me a hundred dollars and in fourteen years, I'll give you the hundred back plus four dollars and forty cents profit.", I very much doubt that you'd care if he recinded that offer. Same thing with killing NAFTA entirely.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty sure both Clinton and Obama in the Ohio debates both said outright that unless Canada and Mexico came to the table for NAFTA reforms that they would seriously consider pulling out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Republican front-runner John McCain warned on Friday that his Democratic rivals are jeopardizing Canada's military support for the U.S. by threatening to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.
McCain said national security and trade issues are "interconnected with each other."
"One of our greatest assets in Afghanistan are our Canadian friends. We need our Canadian friends, and we need their continued support in Afghanistan," McCain said.
"So what do we do? The two Democratic candidates for president say they're going to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA .... How do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that?''
posted
Strange bedfellows? The Republican party, and McCain in particular, has long had a stronger tendency towards free trade.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The two Democratic candidates for president say they're going to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA .... How do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that?"
The usual. Vast hordes of Canadians clad only in fur loincloths riding wendigos and sasquatch and humongous wolves will come thundering down to burn WashingtonDC to the ground while drinking all the liquor and beer in their path. Then they'll grab all of the women and the sexiest of men, throw 'em over their saddles, and ride back up North to where a man can still be a man. Not that Canadians would care about NAFTA.....but what the heck, it's a good excuse for some serious partying.
posted
"The Republican party...has long had a stronger tendency towards free trade."
The Republicans trounced on the Democrats in the '94 & '96 & '98 CongressionalElections using NAFTA as their hobnail boots.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13: I should have elaborated more. The traditional wisdom in Canada for the last eight or so years is that Bush (and by relation, the Republicans) have been acting unilaterally throughout the world, especially during the Chretien/Martin years. It would just be ironic that the two leading Democratic candidates are talking tough and essentially threatening Canada with opting out of NAFTA and that this time a Republican is the one that is listening to our concerns.
It makes sense when you parse out the issues, but at a glance it looks counter-intuitive from our POV.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I would like to see not just sale of water addressed, but also bi-national protection of mutual resources. Right now we have no recourse if the States decides to start syphoning water from the Great Lakes, even though it would be a disaster on our side of the border (as well as on the South, but if they want to do that to themselves, I can't say much). As well as dispute negotiation and the oil situation twinky mentioned.
The Great Lakes States hope you win. Senators and Reps from the GLS have been trying for months now to get some sort of lake protection law passed, as they fear more and more that southern and western states, with coming droughts, will force us to sell them our (and yours) water. We're afraid that we might not have the ability to protect the lakes from the Federal Government, should they decide to overrule us and sell the water. So I hope that if this measure is relooked at, you win, and laws are set so that we can't sell a shared natural resource like the Great Lakes. At the very least, you'll have Michigan on your side. We're adamant about it.
Now if you could only see fit to stop sending us your trash...
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry about the trash. There's a sizable faction here that doesn't want to be sending it to you either.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean it's mostly just giant truck loads of empty maple syrup bottles, broken hockey sticks and moose antlers, but come on, we've got our own problems.
posted
Landfilled I'm almost sure. I get monthly updates from both my US Senators about this issue. The governor, both senators, most of the Reps, local mayors and millions of petitioners have been trying to stop the trash from coming in. We almost wouldn't mind so much except that the trash isn't inspected or isn't inspected enough, and often has harmful or toxic materials in it that is damaging local ecosystems and gets into watersources.
I'm not sure what the roadblock is in stopping the trash from coming over, but it's been an issue here for some time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The garbage issue is just silly. First, let's consider the unfortunate fact that cities do produce garbage, yeah we can recycle, reduce, whatever but at the end of the day it is unfeasible for a major North American city to have no garbage. So what would you naturally think should be the solution? Well, find a nice close safe (relatively) place north of Toronto to put it. Yeah, it sucks for the people nearby but trash *has* to go somewhere and there is plenty of space. Empty space is one of the "natural resources" that Canada certainly excels at.
Of course you get politics and the location for landfills gets further and further until we're dumping trash in Michigan.
My major objection to this is the sheer waste in the idea of shipping tons of garbage across the already quite clogged highway 401, hundreds of kilometres away, wasting plenty of fuel/energy moving it, when there are perfectly good places to dump it much closer.
The only real reason we're sending it to Michigan rather than closer places is due to the fact that NIMBY issues (for now) are easier to handle when you're listening to foreigners who don't get a vote bring up NIMBY issues rather than local citizens who can, and thats just frustrating.
Democracy can lead to quite perverted outcomes sometimes.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
