Canada's ferocious NAFTA growl

[ConcernedCanuk]

.
.
.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/28/canada_nafta_and_obama/index.html">Canada's ferocious NAFTA growl

One of Thursday's spiciest Democratic campaign controversies has been the report out of Canada, citing unnamed sources, that an Obama campaign official told the Canadian government not to worry about the senator from Illinois' anti-NAFTA "rhetoric." It wasn't "serious," he reputedly said.

/snip/

But all this focus on whether the Obama campaign actually fumbled the NAFTA ball in such a spectacular fashion misses the real point, which is the opportunity for a refresher course in U.S.-Canadian trade relations.

Question: Who is the largest supplier of energy resources to the United States?

Answer: Canada.

Canada exports more crude oil to the United States than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia. All of that oil, along with a gusher of natural gas, comes free of any kind of export controls or tariffs, courtesy of NAFTA. In fact, the United States consumes almost 100 percent of Canada's energy exports.
________________________________________________________________________

Lots more at link,

Interesting discussion, and I like the point,

that we are MISSING the point.

The NAFTA cat is out of the bag so to speak, so we might as well deal with it.

From another article:

From Monday's Globe and Mail

January 28, 2008 at 12:00 AM EST

In Texas City, a small port town south of Houston near the Gulf of Mexico, a hub of refineries rises through the misty January air, billowing steam from scrubber towers.

These refineries make up part of a sprawling industrial cluster in the Gulf Coast region that is better equipped than anywhere on earth to handle the gooey crude coming out of Alberta's oil sands.

In a twisting turn of geography, geology and history, Texans are hungry for Alberta oil.

As the U.S. seeks to decrease its dependence on crude from unstable regions and OPEC countries, and with the oil sands booming, Canada has supplanted Saudi Arabia as the leading supplier of crude to the U.S., claiming the No. 1 spot in 2004.

[Donnachaidh]

1. So Obama wasn't *serious* about getting rid of nafta?

Of course, his followers won't believe that -- he couldn't POSSIBLY be lying to them to get into office, eh?

Yup -- same old politics. Say what people want to hear. Then forget what you've promised once you get into office.

His halo is slipping. :rofl:

[axordil]

2. OK, that's like seven times

This story has been posted--AFTER the Canadian embassy's official spokesperson said it never happened. Not to mention the fact that somehow, the fact that BOTH Obama and Clinton are mentioned in the now-debunked story as having done more or less the same thing seems to get dropped off the titles when posted...hmmm, wonder why that is?

Reported for SPAM.

edit to add--actually, after looking through the links in the OP, this is different enough from the others that it's not sufficiently spammy for me to be annoyed. Nevermind. :)

[JDPriestly]

3. Actually, Canada might be interested in renegotiating NAFTA

because Canada has not always gotten what it wanted with NAFTA.

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. You know it - the Lumber thing, the beef thing, now the border/passport thing

.
.
.

Politicians can get a lot of support from us Canuks if they want to renegotiate, or opt out of Nafta.

With our dollar at par pretty much, makes modifying or trashing NAFTA, or at least our USA agreement part of it looks better all the time.

With other nations getting hungry for our products, a free hand would probably be in our long-term interest.

USA gets more of their energy from Canada than Saudi Arabia,

and our Human Rights reputation is a wee better than the Saudis.

[Caradoc]

5. NAFTA

NAFTA has also prevented Canada from increasing its percentage of overall trade with Europe and South America. NAFTA also has bizarre clauses that let multinational corporations appeal/supercede/overide unique environmental regulations particular to each participating nation. US corporations have used this numerous times to avoid costs.

The concept of 'free trade' sounds great, but the reality is anything but. The concept can only work if 'all things being equal' such as standards of living, environmental regulations, labour agreements etc. etc. They're not and therefore it's seriously flawed.

A brave government (one actually interested in the social side of the equation) would realize that you don't have to scrap NAFTA, just start changing it issue by issue. No multinational corporation wants it scrapped, but they'd be powerless to do anything if it was revised on a point by point basis. The US knows this and that's why it has dug its heels in on various issues that didn't favour its domestic industries, such as softwood lumber. It's clear Canadian governments don't have the guts to do this, though.

[AlertLurker]

6. If Canada were to renegotiate NAFTA, the US would not benefit.

Removal of the Proportionality Clause, protection of BC's salmon fishery, removal of illegal US softwood subsudies, US Ag subsudies (especially wheat, barley and corn), tighter environmental constraints, enforcement of Canada's Arctic sovereignty, the Auto-Pact, etc...

There's a HOST of issues that would have to be revisited and could no longer be renegotiated to the USa's benefit...

Then again, once Mo Strong, the Thompsons, the Aspers and Paul Demarais ask for something here, they usually get it pretty quickly...