Nationalize the Oil and Gas industry

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I sincerely try to believe that you are right. However I would not call it a trade agreement i would call it a corporate rights agreement  I also fear that if Canada sent the notice then we might see some covert "regime" change come into play.  No party talks much about the ongoing expansion of the corporate rights agreement let alone the decimation of the Canadian middle class and improvishment of the under class since their inception.  I have always thought we have to get rid of NAFTA by extending our hands across the border to american workers since it is hurting them as much as us.

Unionist

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Unionist we can debate Quebec exceptionalism some other time but I would like to know from you whether or not the people of Quebec are for or against free trade.  It was my understanding that at least initially it was seen as a positive by the majority.  

I have no idea. No one talks about it. And I don't follow polls. I know Jacques Parizeau used to brandish Wall Street and the U.S. as counterweights to Ottawa. But I can't think of a single Québec political figure who says, "let's strengthen our ties to the U.S." as opposed to (say) Europe etc.

I assume you mean "free trade" with the U.S., right?

Anyway, there's no serious movement anywhere in Canada to tear up NAFTA. No one understands the stakes either way, except particular communities or regions that get hit with its consequences or think they benefit from exports.

[url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f0ee8e76-84e3-4b3d...'s an article from 2007[/url] that says a majority of Canadians support free trade with the U.S.:

Quote:
Around 66% of Canadians favour a stronger economic relationship with its southern neighbours, 75% of whom favour stronger ties with Canada, the poll reported. [...]

The new survey, which also took regional support into account, indicated that support for the agreement was relatively less ardent in Quebec.

Mr. Nanos suggested the French-speaking province would rather have stronger economic allegiances abroad than with its own continent.

So, who knows. People aren't economic experts. You pays your pollster and you takes your chance.

Slumberjack

Rebecca West wrote:
Sigh. SJ, you're clearly on a roll, but you're starting to piss people off.  Give over on the West-baiting, okay? Everyone else who is using this thread to play east-west politics, get a room!

I was on to the evil eastern/central Canada (read Quebec) resource theft meme being propagated in this thread, with a few saucy bits to do with who is actually making off like bandits out there.  Nothing over the top, except that the Quebec Regiment thing perhaps was an overdone piece of mockery.  Wait a minute....Rebecca "West."  OMG, you're on their side!

Fidel

Northern Shoveler wrote:

I sincerely try to believe that you are right. However I would not call it a trade agreement i would call it a corporate rights agreement

That's true. NAFTA has very little to do with trade and is more about placing corporate rights above those of workers and federal government as well as environmental concerns. It's an attempt to re-create a laissez-faire style of governing except that they still have to feign political impotence. The impotence is not real.

Fidel

[url=http://peterjulian.ndp.ca/node/867]Task Force On Renegotiating NAFTA Encouraged By Quiet Demise of SPP[/url] 2009

Peter Julian wrote:
“The SPP was another trade agreement based on a right-wing conservative economic philosophy which has led a poorer quality of life for the vast majority of citizens in North America. I am glad that working together in all three countries we were able to stop this initiative, but now we need to push even harder so that we can start building standards in North America that actually contribute to a better quality of life for all of its citizens. First among this is putting enforceable social, labour and environmental standards into NAFTA and removing the negative impacts of Chapter 11”, said Julian.

CUSFTA and NAFTA were also controversial subjects for Tory and Liberal governments in Ottawa after having to lie to the Canadian public about it in two or three elections after which voter turnouts in Canada dropped off significantly at the only polls that count. And we can't help but notice the lack of phony majorities in Ottawa. Lying to Canadians about opening free talks with Washington in 1984 election campaign, and then a huge flip-flop on NAFTA and GST by the Liberals in 1993,  really took a toll on their political capital with voters. The Conservatives never really recovered since Mulroney, and the Liberal Party is enjoying all-time low voter support across Canada. They won their phoniest majority in 1997 and the last one in 2000, 11 years ago.

And with SPP they took a different approach. They just didn't say much about it to the public and was therefore easier for the opposition NDP, left US and Mexican politicians and labour groups to defeat. The very neoliberal GATS agreement is another deal where they have no specific timeline to implement. Lib-Tories want to avoid revealing that agenda to the Canadian public as well. With Tories and Liberals of the last 35 years, the approach they've taken with neoliberal ideology has been one of, What the public doesn't know won't hurt them.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Anyway, there's no serious movement anywhere in Canada to tear up NAFTA. No one understands the stakes either way, except particular communities or regions that get hit with its consequences or think they benefit from exports.

[url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f0ee8e76-84e3-4b3d...'s an article from 2007[/url] that says a majority of Canadians support free trade with the U.S.:

They could have asked Canadians if we like ice cream. And a majority would probably say yes. They might not want to ask us, though, if we prefer sending 60% of our ice cream and chocolate sauce production to the US, a land of prolific ice cream eaters, every year,  and eliminating all ice cream reserve requirements in Canada. I think they might have tallied different results.

Unionist wrote:
Mr. Nanos suggested the French-speaking province would rather have stronger economic allegiances abroad than with its own continent.

 CUSFTA and NAFTA tied our economic wagon of fortunes to the now ailing US economy. Some are saying the US economy won't experience a real recovery anytime soon as long as nothing changes.

I'm with Quebeckers and Kevin O'Leary of the Lang and O'Leary CBC news show when it comes to establishing new trade ties with Asia. Asian countries were once the largest economies in the world. They will be again. Because until there is an FDR and new socialist deal made with Americans, there will be no real improvements with the economy in the land of apple pie and ice cream. FTA and NAFTA were  economically damaging for Canada trade deals signed with an empire on the wane.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

They could have asked Canadians if we like ice cream. And a majority would probably say yes.

I agree with you, Fidel, and I should clarify. When I posted that dumb 2007 article from the National Post, I never meant to lend any credibility to questions like, "do Canadians like free trade"? They get whatever answer they want to any question. People (including me) have no deep analysis or pat answers to complex questions, so poll questions like that mean little. If they asked people, "Would you pay a little more for locally produced items if it meant more secure and well-paying jobs in your community and a better chance to retain control over our economy and natural resources and sovereignty - especially if the government helped out with subsidies like they used to?", I'll bet "free" trade would be dead in the blink of an eye.

 

MegB

Closed for length.

Fidel

Yes, I was speaking to the survey and wasn't of the impression that you agreed with it yourself. I've mentioned it before that Canadians are now agreeable with NAFTA if only according to one or two opinion polls.

And another thing, socialists in general are not opposed to true free trade. Of course the US needs Canadian energy. And of course we are natural geographic trade partners in the same way Cuba and the US were natural geographic trade partners for many years before 1960 or 61. It makes sense to trade with countries nearby. And anyone who tries to say that socialists don't believe in free trade are wrong. Socialists don't believe in signing lopsided trade deals that are harmful to workers rights and the environment as well as being antidemocratic in nature as FTA and NAFTA were. It's the democracy gap that is now become a canyon that irritates us so much on the left.

Pages

Topic locked