• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canadians favour more free trade

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Canadians favour more free trade

    <b>High Praise As NAFTA Turns 20
    66% of Canadians favour stronger ties to U.S.: poll</b>

    Craig Offman, National Post, Monday, October 01, 2007

    Canadians and Americans are overwhelmingly pleased with the free trade agreement, according to a poll that comes amid new concerns about protectionism and isolationism from U.S. lawmakers.

    Twenty years old this week, the once-controversial pact is perceived as crucial to the future prosperity of both countries, the survey finds.

    Citizens from both sides of the border unanimously would also like to see trade relations enhanced.

    "In retrospect, it was like Buckley's cough syrup. It was hard going down, but it worked," said Nik Nanos, the president of SES Research.

    The poll was conducted for the magazine Policy Options, which is devoting a special issue to the sometimes prickly pact.

    "It's a heart-versus-mind dilemma with Canadians. The heart tells us to be careful when dealing with the U.S. because we might lose our identity and control over our own destiny, but the mind tells us we need the Americans in order to compete."

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

    Around 72% of Canadians and more than 66% of Americans would like to see improved transportation ties, which would involve more integrated railways, highways and air transportation. "It shows Americans see us as a partner in security, not a security threat," Mr. Nanos said. "What really jumped out the most though was that both sides of the border wanted to see a greater freedom of movement."

    While the two governments grapple with what kind of identification Canadians must present at U.S. border crossings, 58% of Americans surveyed supported the free movement of U.S. citizens into their country.

    Last week, Stephen Harper voiced concern in a New York address that the Bush administration is taking the United States toward an unhealthy form of protectionism and nationalism. The Prime Minister insisted that Canada's border with the United States is safer that its own coastal borders.

    Two days later, the two long-standing allies were sniping at each other after U.S. investigators smuggled simulated radio-active materials across the border into its own country.

    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.

    Two decades ago, the prospect of free trade sparked a political firestorm, which reached its most intense moments during the 1988 federal election.

    Led by former prime minister Brian Mulroney, conservative proponents predicted it would usher in a new epoch of prosperity; detractors on the left, led by Liberal leader John Turner, warned the country would sign away its cultural and economic sovereignty. Mr. Mulroney's party prevailed in the election, though with a slimmer majority.

    The trade partnership turned out to be an economic bonanza, growing from US$192-billion in 1989 to US$441-billion in 2003. The SES survey reported that 57% of Canadians --and almost the same amount of Americans --feel their countries would be worse off without the pact.

    The survey was conducted online on Sept. 17 and 18, using a random sample of approximately 1,000 citizens from each country. It is considered accurate to within three percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

    #2
    Lets see, US prices for wheat are better than ours. Their prices for fertilizer, vehicles, used equipment and cheese are less.

    I agree, lets see some more free trade, heck why not go for the gusto and have actual real free trade.

    Comment


      #3
      Yes , lets go for it. We could enjoy their their unworkable and un-affordable free market healthcare system and their heavily subsidised agriculture. That would be real progress, on second thoughts why don't you just move there frisco and leave Canada as is?

      Comment


        #4
        With 80% of our exports going to the US, who do you guys really think needs the other one more?

        Comment


          #5
          Fransisco,

          If we look at it more closely, it is clearly more than "Free Trade" that the US lawmakers insist on.

          The US Law prevents monopolies from being set up... like Microsoft. The US oil companies have been prevented from monopolising the oil/fuel markets...

          Canada clearly does not have the anti-racketeering/collusion laws with teeth. The US lawmakers depend upon these laws to assure the US consumer that industry truly has meaningful competition to discipline the market place.

          Canadian governments have pulled in massive tax revenues BECAUSE they have allowed aggressive players in many sectors of the economy to dominate... and extract high returns out of the consumer... and also push down prices to primary producers.

          We certainly need a gov. regulatory frame work to create "free trade".

          Monopolies will develop if it does not exist! Having gov. pick winners and losers... as many times the competition bureau does now in Canada... leaves the consumer and primary producer as prey.

          Supply management is to some extent a reaction to this problem. We in Canada must fix the "Freedom" issue in "Free and Democratic Society" to get a competitive "Free Enterprise and Free Market" economy. We need property rights in the first place... and Quebec "Administrative Law" bases traditionally leave clearly defining these "Rights" up to government decision makers... not the courts.

          British based society... built on the "common law" assumes that the "Freedom" will be respected... in a free and democratic society.

          Hence the Quebec vision of society is very different than many folks have... especially in western Canada!

          Comment


            #6
            Grassfarmer, "why don't you just move there frisco and leave Canada as is?"

            And if you are so keen on living in a socialist utopia grassfarmer Cuba and South Korea await your immigration request.

            Comment


              #7
              ditta franny, oh, and our healthcare system is so workable? we pay significantsly more taxes here in canada than US citizens do, and it is through this transfer of wealth that we fund our own inefficent and challenged health care system, arguably on some levels it is better than US healtcare, but I know a lot of freinds who have saved the lives of family members by taking them to hospitals after mistreatment and misdiagnosis here in Canada...


              ...but I digress, the FTA was the most important peice of federal legislation in my lifetime, the Libbers lost an election over it, than campaigned on one to scrap it, and then did nothing.....but the polls say the majority support it in both nations....here is to freer trade on all fronts.....and yes Tom we do need better competition laws to ensure we have better ***ntioning freer markets....as Haper also said the number on constituional issue in Canada is the issue of property rights

              Comment


                #8
                As to wanting to be just like the Americans. I don't want to be just like the Americans, when it comes to economics I want to kick their butts, I want our country to have a higher standard of living than theirs.

                Socialism and protectionism aren't going to accomplish that, those two roads lead in the opposite direction.

                Comment


                  #9
                  NAFTA benefits the USA far more than it does Canada. NAFTA was one of the worst things ever signed by Canada.

                  I would withdraw from it in a flash if I had my way.

                  There would no longer be a "cheap" oil supply going south either. Do you realize that we can't even control the supply of raw oil leaving this country and can't charge more for it than is charged to Canadians?

                  NAFTA = USA control of Canadian resources for ever.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Hmmm, in 1989 we did $192-billion worth of trade, by 2003 we were up to $441-billion.

                    Must be that wheat board calculator you're working with again willagro.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      wilagro,

                      Would you advocate Canada making a FTA with Cuba, or Rawanda, or perhaps Nigeria?

                      Would that be more in line with your preferences?

                      Parsley

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I actually moved here to get away from a country being run by socialists. Canada is far from a socialist country. Perhaps you wise guys need to travel a little to see what the world is really like. "Rawanda" indeed Parsley, and Frisco I think if you were to plunder your resource facility (read google) you would find that it is north Korea that is the communist state. Such worldy knowledge.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Ouch, you got me on that one. I meant North Korea not south.

                          Which Country did you move from grassfarmer?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I was being facetious, grassfarmer.

                            Parsley

                            Comment


                              #15
                              [Milton Friedman,former economic advisor to Presidents Nixon and Reagan, has argued that the North American Free Trade Agreement is actually not a "free trade" agreement, but rather is government managed trade. The essence of this criticism is that such trade agreements don't promote free trade, they inhibit it by implementing another level of bureaucracy on top of national governments. This can not only have a detrimental effect on trade, it results in an erosion of sovereignty for all nations involved and causes citizens and governments to be bound by decisions made by an unelected international body.]

                              Opposition in the States is rapidly growing to all "free trade" agreements and the last poll I saw showed opponents and proponents evenly split around 40%- with 20% having no opinion yet...

                              Something many do not know is that while NAFTA is looked at as a treaty under international law-- under United States law it is classed as a congressional-executive agreement rather than a treaty, since President Clinton was unable to get the two thirds majority of the Senate to vote for it, which is needed under the US Constitution to ratify a treaty...What this tentatively means is that the US could back out of it anytime they wished if that becomes the majority feeling of the Congress and next President (which some candidates are now campaigning on that platform) ...

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...