TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Help Stop Deep Integration (SPP, NAU) in Canada
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »
Guys this goes well beyond corporations, and Canadian companies not being able to compete. This partnership goes after our very resources, and how we protect those resources.
The SPP, which is really lead by:
- United States Council on Foreign Relations
- Canadian Council of Chief Executives
- Mexican Council on Foreign Relations
These groups are the one who tabled guidelines and goals of the three countries over the next 10 years, on making 'north america a more competitive place'. Why are our politicians, who we ELECTED not part of the process? This is not a NDP, PC, or Liberal issue, as some members of all parties are against the plans. The liberals set it up, and now the Harper is going a head with it.
These groups are meeting again at the end of August, yet our media, our people are being barred from the proceedings.
| quote: |
| The Council of Canadians has been told it will not be allowed to rent a municipal community centre for a public forum it had planned to coincide with the next Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 20 and 21. The Municipality of Papineauville, which is about six kilometres from Montebello, has informed the Council of Canadians that the RCMP, the S�ret� du Qu�bec (SQ) and the U.S. Army will not allow the municipality to rent the Centre Communautaire de Papineauville for a public forum on Sunday August 19, on the eve of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership Leaders Summit. |
| quote: |
| Tory MPs storm out of meeting on energy sharing; Canada left short to aid U.S., says professor The Edmonton Journal (A6) The Ottawa Citizen (A3) The Montreal Gazette (A12) Fri 11 May 2007 Page: A6 Section: News Dateline: OTTAWA Source: Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service OTTAWA - Amid heated charges of a coverup, Tory MPs on Thursday abruptly shut down parliamentary hearings on a controversial plan to further integrate Canada and the U.S. The firestorm erupted within minutes of testimony by University of Alberta professor Gordon Laxer that Canadians will be left "to freeze in the dark" if the government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America. He was testifying on behalf of the Alberta-based Parkland Institute about concerns with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a 2005 accord by the U.S., Canada and Mexico to streamline economic and security rules across the continent. The deal, which calls North American "energy security" a priority, commits Canada to ensuring American energy supplies even though Canada itself -- unlike most industrialized nations -- has no national plan or reserves to protect its own supplies, he argued. At that point, Tory MP Leon Benoit, chair of the Commons Standing Committee on International Trade which was holding the SPP hearings, ordered Laxer to halt his testimony, saying it was not relevant. Opposition MPs called for, and won, a vote to overrule Benoit's ruling. Benoit then threw down his pen, declaring, "This meeting is adjourned," and stormed out, followed by three of the panel's four Conservative members. The remaining members voted to finish the meeting, with the Liberal vice-chair presiding. Benoit's actions are virtually unprecedented, observers say; at press time, parliamentary procedure experts still hadn't figured out whether he had the right to adjourn the meeting unilaterally. Benoit did not respond to calls for comment. It's "reckless and irresponsible" of the government not to discuss protecting Canada's energy supply, says Laxer. Atlantic Canada and Quebec already have to import 90 per cent of their supply -- 45 per cent of it from potentially unstable sources such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Algeria, Laxer said. Meanwhile, Canada is exporting 63 per cent of its oil and 56 per cent of its gas production, mostly to the U.S., he says. "It's shocking the extent to which the Conservative party will go to cover up information about the SPP," says NDP MP Peter Julian, who also sits on the committee. Other MPs raised concerns about recently revealed plans under the SPP to raise Canadian limits on pesticide residues to match American rules. Questions were also raised about whether the effort will open the door to bulk water exports. Representatives from the departments of Industry and International Trade defended the SPP as an effort to protect Canadian jobs in a competitive global market, without sacrificing standards. They denied charges SPP negotiations have been secretive, saying civil-society groups are welcome to offer their input, and referred MPs to the government website. *************************** Robert S. Rodvik Author/media analyst |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Oooooooooooooh baby I wanna RIM Job!  |
Please, if you feel this is the wrong direction for Canada, print out the petition from the first post, get is signed, and send it in.
We have to send a message that we will not stand for this.
Actually from the brief look at it's suggested implementation it's not nearly as invasive or an invasion as some of you see it as. I do think there's a lot of merit in having a lot of the overheads looked at in managed resources (data and material) across borders, reduced which would increase profit margins for all concerned.
I doubt that you're all going to wake up with a 'made in the USA' tattoo on your arse as there's no mention in it of alterations to private business and labour markets having the floodgates opened up, just a standardisation of legal avenues which would save everyone a lot of headache.
It has some merits, it's not all negative.
So please point out where on this list that the issue lies?
It all sounds good so far and surely makes sense.
| quote: |
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: Next Steps 31 March 2006 Cancun, Mexico The three leaders of North America agreed to advance the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) by focusing on five high priority initiatives: The North American Competitiveness Council. Increasing private sector engagement in the SPP by adding high-level business input will assist governments in enhancing North America�s competitive position and engage the private sector as partners in finding solutions. The Council will: - Consider issues that could be addressed trilaterally or bilaterally, as improvements in our bilateral relationships enhance North American competitiveness. - Address issues of immediate importance and provide strategic medium and long-term advice. - Provide input on the compatibility of our security and prosperity agendas, given the linkages between security and prosperity in a global marketplace. - Offer ideas on the private sector�s role in promoting North American competitiveness. Advancing Cooperation on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. Leaders agreed to the following principles to guide collaboration on all stages of avian or pandemic influenza management: - Share information among our governments in an open, timely and transparent manner. - Adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach that incorporates animal and public health aspects in managing avian influenza and influenza pandemics. - Ensure coordination within our respective national governments on all aspects of emergency management for an avian influenza outbreak or a human influenza pandemic, by building on existing mechanisms of cooperation and strengthening them as required. - Coordinate our actions and leverage our respective capacities to ensure rapid and effective steps are taken to deal with avian influenza outbreaks or a human influenza pandemic in North America. - Advise one another in advance of making any decision that could seriously affect the other countries. - Base our actions on the best available science and evidence-based decision-making. - Agree that the imposition and removal of veterinary or public health measures on the movement of people, animals, and goods, under our national laws and international obligations, will not be more restrictive or maintained longer than necessary to achieve the veterinary or public health objective so as to avoid unnecessary interference with the movement of people and goods within North America. - Ensure that the business continuity plans of our respective governments consider the highly interconnected nature of our economies. - Strive to utilize clear and consistent messaging to the public and international organizations that is proactive, timely and accurate. North American Energy Security Initiative. A secure and sustainable energy supply is essential for our economic prosperity in North America. To advance our energy agenda we have agreed to: - Enhance the development of a diverse energy resource base in North America by increasing collaboration on research, development and commercialization of clean energy-related technologies, and - Strengthen the North American energy market by improving transparency and regulatory compatibility, promoting the development of resources and infrastructure, increasing cooperation on energy efficiency standards, and supporting other efforts aimed at addressing challenges on the demand side. North American Emergency Management. The commitments made in the SPP recognize that a disaster � whether natural or man-made � in one North American country can have consequences across national borders, and may demand a common approach to all aspects of emergency management. Recent experience with hurricanes, ice storms, industrial accidents and the like demonstrate our interdependencies, as well as the need for coordination and mutual assistance in protecting and safekeeping our populations. Moving forward we will: - Develop a common approach to critical infrastructure protection, and response to cross border terrorist incidents and natural disasters, across a number of different sectors including, but not limited to, transportation, energy, and telecommunications. - Develop and implement joint plans for cooperation for incident response, as well as conduct coordinated training and exercises in emergency response. Smart, Secure Borders. Leaders agreed to complete the following activities, to contribute to smart and secure borders, over the next twenty-four months: - Collaborate to establish risk-based screening standards for goods and people that rely on technology, information sharing and biometrics. - Develop and implement compatible electronic processes for supply chain security that use advanced electronic cargo information to analyze risk and ensure quick and efficient processing at the border; - Develop standards and options for secure documents to facilitate cross-border travel; - Exchange additional law enforcement liaison officers to assist in criminal and security investigations; and, - Develop coordinated business resumption plans at border crossings to ensure legitimate trade continues. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Key Accomplishments since June 2005 The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), launched by the leaders of Mexico, Canada and the United States in March 2005, aims to promote growth and economic opportunity, increase security, and improve the quality of life of our peoples. In June 2005, lead Ministers issued a joint report outlining steps to achieve these goals. Since then, highlights of accomplishments include: - To enhance growth and competitiveness in a key sector, the North American Steel Trade Committee developed a new strategy aimed at reducing market distortions, facilitating trade and promoting overall competitiveness through innovation and market development. - To adapt to changes in sourcing and production methods, the three countries have analyzed ways to liberalize requirements for obtaining NAFTA duty-free treatment. Changes to the rules of origin have been implemented successfully and technical teams are working on additional changes. - To speed up response times when managing infectious disease outbreaks, save lives, and reduce health care costs, the United States and Canada signed an agreement to enable simultaneous exchange of information between virtual national laboratory networks (PulseNet). - To make consumer goods safer, save lives, and prevent injuries, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement for advance notifications when consumer goods violate one country�s safety standards or pose a danger to consumers. Canada and the United States signed a similar agreement in June. - The United States and Canada signed an agreement, which is a a milestone in pipeline regulatory cooperation, to allow increased compliance data sharing, staff exchanges and joint training. The sharing of best practices will lead to a more uniform regulatory approach for cross border pipelines. - The United States and Canada reached a full Open-Skies aviation agreement, removing all economic restrictions on air service to, from, and beyond one another�s territory by the airlines of both countries. The agreement will encourage new markets development, lower prices and greater competition. - The United States and Mexico expanded air service in specific markets by increasing the number of designated passenger airlines per city-pair, and opening cooperative marketing arrangements (code-sharing) to airlines of either country and carriers of third countries. - In order to increase navigational accuracy across the region, five Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) stations were installed in Canada and Mexico in 2005. - To promote prosperity by reducing the costs of trade, the United States and Canada decreased transit times at the Detroit/Windsor gateway, our largest border crossing point, by 50 percent. - To support increased trade and expedite secure processing of cross-border trade and travel between Mexico and the United States, six FAST/Express lanes are operating at the US-Mexico border, a new lane in Nogales will open soon, and we are working on a project for a lane in Matamoros. Exclusive lines and schedules will be implemented at nine crossings. - To allow more efficient examination of rail cargo for hazardous materials and illicit flows of goods, the United States and Mexico have installed gamma ray equipment at key border crossings. - To speed cargo shipping, the three countries are developing uniform in-advance electronic exchange of cargo manifest data for maritime, railroad and motor carriers. - To improve air quality and promote a more competitive automotive industry, Mexico implemented an official standard to reduce sulfur in fuels. This will increase supply of low-sulfur fuels in Mexico. - To increase border security, Mexican and U.S. agencies are harmonizing risk assessment mechanisms, exchanging information, and establishing protocols to facilitate detection of fraud and smuggling. - To strengthen the integrity and security of asylum and refugee status determination systems, the United States and Canada launched a pilot project to share information on refugee and asylum claimants based on a comparison of fingerprint records. - To address border violence, United States and Mexico signed an Action Plan to Combat Border Violence and Improve Public Safety. Officials of the two countries in Nogales, AZ- Nogales, Sonora and Laredo, TX- Nuevo Laredo completed protocols on border security and public safety. Under the United States-Mexico Voluntary Repatriation Program, more than 35,000 persons, including 20,500 in 2005, were returned to their home in a secure, legal, and humanitarian way. - To increase maritime security, the United States and Canada completed joint exercises on the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers in September and in February during Super Bowl XL. Officers, who were cross-designated on vessels of the other nation, could authorize pursuit of suspect vessels crossing jurisdictions. - To advance preparedness to address a cyber incident affecting critical infrastructure, authorities from the United States and Canada completed a multi-national exercise, Cyberstorm, in February 2006. - To enhance aviation security, the United States, Canada, and Mexico completed training on principles to protect aircraft from terrorism threats, on marksmanship skills, and on emergency procedures. - To enhance port security, Canada and the United States concluded port facility visits at Oakland, CA and Vancouver, BC in October 2005 to facilitate the development of benchmark security standards. - To ensure food safety while facilitating trade, a Food Safety Coordinating Task Force was formed and is developing a prioritized list of standards to compare for similarities, differences, and scientific bases for the differences. These efforts will facilitate the development of North American standards and, as appropriate, the removal of differences in standards. - To enhance clarity and compatibility of energy regulation, Canadian, U.S. and Mexican regulators began regular meetings to exchange information on regulatory standards and energy market developments and to discuss bringing gas from Alaska to the North American market. - To reduce marine air pollution, Canada and the United States have coordinated data collection, marine inventory development and air quality monitoring. The two countries are preparing to approach the International Maritime Organization to designate special areas for controlling sulfur emissions from marine vessels. Canada and the United States are developing Mutual Assistance Arrangements, which will enhance our preparedness for cross-border public health emergencies; Mexico has been invited to participate. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r So please point out where on this list that the issue lies? It all sounds good so far and surely makes sense. >>Source<< |
| quote: |
| Recently released documents uncover powerful business influence over SPP process James Corbett Corbett Report July 9, 2007 The Corbett Report has obtained minutes from the highly-secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Ministerial Meeting held in Ottawa on February 23rd, 2007. (click to view) This meeting � attended by political heavyweights from Canada, the United States and Mexico � received much criticism in the Canadian press at the time for being needlessly secretive. This was in fact the main focus of a Canadian Press report from that day headlined "Officials play down criticism that talks too secretive" which noted how "North American ministers deflected criticism that they had consulted only big business for their talks on trade and security rules, suggesting Friday there are 'different venues' for public interest and labour groups to raise their concerns and suggestions." Indeed, the government officials present at the press conference were forced to address issues of secrecy when the press conference was disrupted by protestors who were angry about the secretive nature of the talks. Such criticisms were not without their merit. In attendance were such key government representatives as Peter McKay (Foreign Affairs Minister of Canada), Stockwell Day (Public Safety Minister of Canada), Condoleeza Rice (U.S. Secretary of State), Michael Chertoff (U.S. Homeland Security Chief) and Patricia Espinosa (Mexican Foreign Minister). On their agenda, according to the CP article, were matters traditionally left to elected representatives to debate in legislative settings, including a meeting devoted to "finalizing a North American plan on dealing with a flu pandemic and another on a common regulatory environment in all three countries." The secrecy surrounding the talks come as no surprise to those who have been following the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP is carrying out a merger of the three sovereign North American nations in what has been euphemistically dubbed a "dialogue" in order to commit an end-run around the legislative process which would have made such a merger politically impossible. The process started when then-Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada, then-President Vincente Fox of Mexico and President George W. Bush of the United States announced the creation of the SPP at Baylor University in Waco, Texas on March 23rd, 2005 at a press conference which was heavy on hyperbole and scant on details. Facts coming out of the subsequent leaders summit in Cancun, Mexico on March 31st, 2006 were similarly sparse. The official websites of the SPP from all three countries (the Canadian the American and the Mexican) provide few details of how government representatives are working to carry out the SPP's initiatives. Indeed, the SPP completely circumvents the democratic process since it is a "dialogue," not a "treaty" or even an "agreement" between the three governments, meaning government representatives can claim they are attending SPP meetings as private citizens. The office of Stockwell Day refused even to confirm Mr. Day's attendance at the secretive North American Forum meeting in Banff, Canada in September 2006, saying it was a "private meeting and generally I don't confirm private meetings of the minister." The minutes of the Ferbruary 23rd meeting � obtained under the Access to Information Act and released on June 21, 2007 � show a continuing cloak of secrecy around matters of national importance. The most noticeable aspect of the document are the blacked-out passages. There is not a single section of the document that has not had information excised at the behest of the Ministers, citing the sections of the Act dealing with information obtained in confidence and information which could be "injurious to the conduct of international affairs, [and] the defence of Canada." What little information has not been excised proves what protestors feared at the time: that business interests wield a great deal of influence over the entire process while regular citizens are left out of the discussion, permitted even from learning the details of the SPP's implementation. The most startling passage of the document concerns the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), which the minutes themselves note was a "body created by Leaders in 2006 to give the private sector a formal role in providing advice on how to enhance competitiveness in North America." The idea that business interests are really in control of the process is suggested in the following passage: Exchanges following a formal presentation of the [NACC's] report uncovered frustration relating to the private sector's seeming inability to influence the pace of regulatory change "from the bottom up."[...]The subtext was clear: in the absence of ministerial endorsement, bureaucracies are unlikely to act on the more challenging recommendations.[...]The complex and far-reaching nature of the recommendations suggest that governments will need ample time to review and consult internally � and trilaterally � but it seems clear that the NACC will be looking for an early commitment to moving forward quickly. This shockingly candid passage makes it clear that the business interests are actually in charge of the process, giving the politicians marching orders and demanding that these orders are followed, and followed quickly. Perhaps this is not surprising when one discovers that the SPP in fact did not start life as a governmental "dialogue" at all, but rather as an initiative launched by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCOCE) in January 2003. According to the CCOCE's own documents Council members comprise the CEOs of 150 leading Canadian businesses which "administer in excess of C$2.1 trillion in assets, have annual revenues of more than $500 billion" and, it seems, have a number of ranking governmental officials from all three North American nations in their back pocket. The other worrying news to come out of the meeting minutes is the revelation that Canadian Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day proposed at the meeting "the establishment of a coordinating body on Emergency Management" which like all other SPP initiatives will drastically curtail democracy in each of the three countries by leaving vital matters of national security in the hands of unelected foreign nationals and bureaucrats. The effects of such initiatives have already been felt in other areas, as Canada has already announced plans to lower pesticide standards in order to bring Canada's comparatively high standards in line with America's standards, which rank among the lowest in the developed world. One can only imagine what will result of this three-way race to the bottom in this "body on Emergency Management" which will presumably be tasked with coordinating disaster response. One thing which emerges very clearly from these documents is that secrecy is not only an unnecessary component of the SPP process but is detrimental to our democracies themselves. Without public representation and input, the corruption of the process by business and political elites is a virtual certainty. There is no accountability where there is no transparency. The citizens of Canada will not stand for such a process, and demand representation at the upcoming leaders summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 21, 2007. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orko Full article with embedded links Minutes from the SPP meeting Why is so much of it blacked out? Why are they attending this as 'private citizens, and not members of our parliament? When our elected officials start attending meetings as private citizens, and then push the framework through the government, we have to be skeptical. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r I understand the skeptisism but what exactly do you think they're going to do? Put us all in a handbasket to Hell? Big business already runs a lot of things so what should it be so shocking now? Just do some research on Power Corporation of Canada; now there's a scary company; they have their tentacles in everything. However, in the end, as long as everyone benifit as a whole, what's to worry about? The scary 'process' and hypothetical 'what ifs'? I do agree that the whole process could probably be a little more transparent but remember it's the government's job to protect and keep businesses up and running. It's what creates jobs and wins votes. It shouldn't any great surprise that they would be pushing business interests via a government framework; it's what they're supposed to do! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r I understand the skeptisism but what exactly do you think they're going to do? Put us all in a handbasket to Hell? Big business already runs a lot of things so what should it be so shocking now? Just do some research on Power Corporation of Canada; now there's a scary company; they have their tentacles in everything. However, in the end, as long as everyone benifit as a whole, what's to worry about? The scary 'process' and hypothetical 'what ifs'? I do agree that the whole process could probably be a little more transparent but remember it's the government's job to protect and keep businesses up and running. It's what creates jobs and wins votes. It shouldn't any great surprise that they would be pushing business interests via a government framework; it's what they're supposed to do! |
My specific problems with the SPP:
- Integrating our security with that of the US.
They have proved time and again, they are not interested in real security, but only perception.
- Resource Management.
We will HAVE to hand over water, and natural resources, whether we want to or not.
- Universal Health care
The competitive nature of some of the agreements, will mean having to open our health industry to US competition. This is a long way coming, and the details are very sketchy right now, but the framework exists.
Basically I want nothing to do with US politics, and their ways of governing our country. I live in Canada for a reason, because I want to live under Canadian laws, not those of the US, or even Mexico.
I do understand our intertwined relationship, and that much of our financial and political climate is in fact influenced by the U.S., but this agreement, just takes things too far. Please do not think I am an ignorant person, who does not understand the complex global relationships. I have taken a management degree, worked for large business, from small positions to fairly responsible positions.
And yes, I do think they will "Put us all in a handbasket to Hell?"
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orko My specific problems with the SPP: - Integrating our security with that of the US. They have proved time and again, they are not interested in real security, but only perception. |
| quote: |
- Resource Management. We will HAVE to hand over water, and natural resources, whether we want to or not. |
| quote: |
- Universal Health care The competitive nature of some of the agreements, will mean having to open our health industry to US competition. This is a long way coming, and the details are very sketchy right now, but the framework exists. |
| quote: |
Basically I want nothing to do with US politics, and their ways of governing our country. I live in Canada for a reason, because I want to live under Canadian laws, not those of the US, or even Mexico. I do understand our intertwined relationship, and that much of our financial and political climate is in fact influenced by the U.S., but this agreement, just takes things too far. Please do not think I am an ignorant person, who does not understand the complex global relationships. I have taken a management degree, worked for large business, from small positions to fairly responsible positions. And yes, I do think they will "Put us all in a handbasket to Hell?" |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r We're been relying on the States for so many years in this area it's not funny. Our military is a joke to where it should be with all our commitments around the world. That's something we're offering to the table, not something being taken away. Canada is a rich, resource based country so again, no surprise here. We're already in a two-teired system anyways. Those with the cash can go to a private firm already. This is a win for everyone in the end. Business is business irrespective of borders; they all have an agenda to make money otherwise what's the point? This doesn't automatically mean that 'somehow' we suddenly loose our nation sovereignty and culture; that's pure NDP crazy talk. Scare the people by keep them divided. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r This doesn't automatically mean that 'somehow' we suddenly loose our nation sovereignty and culture; that's pure NDP crazy talk. Scare the people by keep them divided. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by infinity HiGH THINK LONG-TERM. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EvilTree long term started when Canada couldn't compete with US in every aspect, and had to cooperate with US in order for a measure of security and prosperity. arguably, that can go all the way since the days of New France vs 13 colonies |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EvilTree long term started when Canada couldn't compete with US in every aspect, and had to cooperate with US in order for a measure of security and prosperity. arguably, that can go all the way since the days of New France vs 13 colonies |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r People seem to forget that Canada is very innovative even with the population difference; we CAN survive and have. Sure there are more American companies that us, but that doesn't mean we need a knee-jerked reaction to 'protect our soverignty' either. I'd much rather take the competition head on than rely on government trade tariffs and government subsidies in the name of national pride? That just putting up walls and frankly, going backwards. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by infinity HiGH How is that going backwards? Because it's not acceptive of America's hypocritical "globalization" concept? Oh please |
| quote: |
Yea, let's move "forward" towards complete economic takeover. That's the future. Let's take on the competition "head on" and get completely obliterated, because that's what will happen. Unlike American companies, Canadian corporations don't have the same potential to expand and take over like they do. These things, along with NAFTA, are to give an advantage to American corporations in expanding their business. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by infinity HiGH soooooo in that case we should just bend over and give the Americans whatever they want for free? Or at least, give in to their demands that favour them and screw us? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Maybe you missed the name of the group? Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Let's read that again. Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. |
| quote: |
| It's only the conspiracy quacks and hippies that have no idea what business is about that are squawking; shrouding their arguments with the Canadian flag hoping nobody see through it. |
| quote: |
| Government coddling of Canadian business WILL NOT HELP US. They make for weak businesses which deserve to die off. Giving businesses the right tools to fight globally is what's needed. The rest of the world is doing it and we're falling behind. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by infinity HiGH Who's "US"?? Consumers? Businesses? The economy?? Canadians?? The problem is, is that sometimes industries and companies need to be coddled to survive. It's one of the first lessons of "International Business". I know we're short-stacked against the US. Afterall, they've been in the capitalist game for a little longer than us and have the resources (read: money) at their disposal to do more. This is precisely the reason why we should oppose these ideas of "deep integration" as much as possible so that we get as god of a deal as possible out of this. |
First NAFTA, then SPP, then NAU, what next?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Magnetonium First NAFTA, then SPP, then NAU, what next? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EvilTree Exactly how is holding out against 'deep integration' going to provide a better deal for Canada in the long term? Whether Canadians like it or not, US is the primary investor in Canadian economy and current economic boom is happening because of trade (which accounts for 85% of Canada's trade with the world) for most part. As far as I'm concerned, 'deep integration' has happened, ever since Canada joined NAFTA. What only remains is politics, IMO |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.