Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reopening NAFTA would be a 'mistake': PM

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 05:38 PM
Original message
Reopening NAFTA would be a 'mistake': PM
Source: cbc.ca

.
Last Updated: Thursday, February 28, 2008 | 4:04 PM ET
CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a friendly warning to Democratic presidential hopefuls south of the border on Thursday, saying it would be a "mistake" for the United States to reopen the North American Free Trade Agreement.

/snip/

"If any American government ever chose to make the mistake of opening that, we would have something we would want to talk about as well," the prime minister said with a smile, in response to a question from NDP Leader Jack Layton.

He didn't elaborate, but earlier this week, Trade Minister David Emerson and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said U.S. officials should not forget the benefits of the agreement and hinted Canada could respond to a NAFTA pull-out by renegotiating U.S. access to Canada's oil.

Layton urged Harper to take advantage of the opening and negotiate better labour and environmental standards.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/28/harper-nafta.html



Well, whatever may, or may not have been discussed between the embassy and the delegates,

NAFTA is now being discussed with earnest by our politicians in parliament.

Tempers are warming up up here - the fight over our beef and lumber products in the last decade are fresh on the minds of the average person, as many lost their jobs, businesses and homes while the USA continually fought rulings by the WTO that were consistently for the Canadians.

It's about time that our legislators got involved, and now they are.

At the highest levels.

Oh boy . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thems war words!
Forget Iran! Let's invade Canada (sarcasm)

Left of Cool
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. Didn't Michael Moore already make a movie about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's not the like U.S honors NAFTA anyways
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. Great! Just what we needed, another country holding us hostage to their oil.
Do you think the politicians in this country will ever get the message that we're nothing without our own energy production methods?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Oh, don't fret. Steve'll happily bend us over for you in a heartbeat.
Just ask anyone in the forestry industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
last1standing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Let's hope he's not around long enough to do that.
I'm not against Canada protecting its best interests, I'm against this country begging at the feet of Saudi Arabia or any other nation in order to meet its energy needs. We can pump in ANWAR but that would be a very temporary solution with far reaching environmental consequences. The only real solution is to develop realistic alternative energy sources that don't rely on pulling much needed crops out of the food supply. This means solar, hydro, thermal, wind and even nuclear energy if we can find a way to safely dispose of or reuse the waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sueragingroz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. amen /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Just A Bit of Clarification
Canada is not threating to cut off oil. In fact they couldn't afford it right now. As a country we do not have a surplus. We import oil, from Venezuela for the east coast.

The problem could arise, if say Venezuela cut off Canadian exports. In that case Canada would not have enough oil for the country.

As NAFTA is now structured, Canadians could not shift the oil destined for the US to Canada. It has to go to the US.

So no one is cutting off oil.

Why anyone would sign such an agreement? Well that remains for the historians to dig up.

But consider this. With the present dependency that Canada has on their oil exports, any renogations would certainly turn to the next more valuable commodity. Water.

It is only a matter of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. A little more Clarification - with links.
.
.
.

First of all, Canada will always have oil for Canadians first.

Read below.

Canadian Oil Exports to the United States Under NAFTA

Introduction

There is a widespread belief that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) requires Canada to sell a fixed percentage of its total oil production to the United States. It has been suggested that, under NAFTA, Canada can do nothing to curtail oil exports to the United States, even in the event of energy shortages at home. This paper examines that claim.

/snip/

Interpreting the Energy Provisions in NAFTA

Article 605 of NAFTA has been interpreted by some to mean that Canada is required to sell a certain percentage of its energy output to the United States, even in the face of a severe domestic shortage. Moreover, they argue that NAFTA prevents this percentage from falling over time.

Neither of these statements is true. Canadian producers are free to sell as much oil as they wish to whomever they wish, including, for example, overseas customers. As a result, the share of total output exported to the United States can rise or fall according to the normal forces of supply and demand.

/snip/

Conclusion

Contrary to some claims, NAFTA does not commit Canada to exporting a certain share of its energy supply to the United States regardless of Canadian needs. Canadian producers sell without restriction on the open market.

The only significant limitation NAFTA places on Canada is that it prevents the Canadian government from implementing policies that interfere with the normal functioning of energy markets in North America. Provided they have the demand and can pay the price, Canadian consumers could conceivably buy 100% of all energy produced in the country without violating NAFTA.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * **


My comments:

This paper includes excerpts and references from the rules found in Chapter 6 of NAFTA, Energy and Basic Petrochemicals, and was prepared by Staff of the Parliamentary Information and Research Service (PIRS) of the Library of Parliament for general distribution to Canadian Parliamentarians to provide background and analysis of issues that may arise in the course of their Parliamentary duties.

So I sorta believe it.
____________________________________________________________________

Regarding imports from Venezuela, I can't find any info that supports that.

rather - I found this:

"Exports accounted for two-thirds of domestic output in 2007, up about three per cent over 2006. Although the U.S. accounted for the majority of export sales, other countries in places such as Asia began to creep into the mix.

Canada remains a net oil exporter, despite imports that edged up 0.3 per cent to 851,000 bpd. About half that figure came from OPEC countries such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq while the bulk of the remainder originated from Norway and the United Kingdom, which accounted for 39 per cent of imports."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * **

Furthermore, I can find no Imports for the West at all.

To the Contrary I find imports for the East - Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic

Both light and heavy crude - links below lead to the appropriate charts (.xls files)

Disposition of Domestic Light Crude Oil and Imports - 2007

Disposition of Domestic Heavy Crude Oil and Imports - 2007

Canadians get their share first and foremost.

Or we would surely revolt methinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CHIMO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Thanks For The New Canadian Government's
Interpretation of free trade.

NAFTA restricts the rights of Canada to have a National Energy Policy.

The article, the first one, states that market forces will apply.

There is no allowance for the Canadian government to override that rule.

As for the net balance on oil, I haven't been able to dig up that information yet, although I have had it in the past. Will keep on looking.

Also there is an election on Mar 3. Hope it all comes out roses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glarius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. The reason they want to reopen NAFTA is due to losing jobs....well..THE JOBS ARE NOT COMING NORTH!
Most of the manufacturing jobs that are fleeing the U.S.A. are going to Asia....India, China etc. The problem is not Canada. We may have received a little of the job migration, and Mexico has gotten quite a bit (because they have low wages)....including jobs from Canada. What needs to be done in America is to stop your companies from going where they have slave labour. That is not Canada and opening up NAFTA will not solve your problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sueragingroz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. I posted my post to the wrong thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-28-08 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. Wow, that's almost Cheneyesque. I say we see their un-named threat and raise it
by a triple sled-dog dare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. Repoening NAFTA would be a mistake..
... ending the war would be a mistake. Repealing the tax cuts for the rich would be a mistake.

No, guess what - these were all mistakes that now need to be corrected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thevoiceofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-29-08 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
14. Folks, do you think that Canada is more lax than us on the laws?
OK. I've been relatively quiet. But the misinformation and innuendo is bullshit.

1. Neither Obama nor Hillary claim they want to scrap NAFTA. Both say that NAFTA needs work to increase the environmental and labor safeguards. BIG DIFFERENCE!

2. And, to further the last point, do you really think that Canada has a problem with being more lax on environmental or labor standard issues than the US? Get real! In fact, we are probably lucky that Canada has not demanded to renegotiate NAFTA to demand that the US institute some standards, since our government seems so intent on having no standards whatsoever!

So, the long and short of it is that there is no reason, was no reason, nor will be any reason to "clue in" the Canadian "embassy" (har har) that Barack, or anyone, might be coming after Canada on NAFTA. Folks, we are the ones who are supposed to have brains.

Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-01-08 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
15. "Something we would want to talk about"...
namely NAFTA screws Canada over its natural resources - essentially establishing a quota of oil and derivatives exports to the US even before satisfying domestic demand. In a tar-sands ramp-up era this may not be as big an issue, but natural gas is a current problem only getting worse.

Expect to see less Canadian NG available in the US as a part of any renogotiation. As Mexican NG and foreign LG is hardly increasing, this is just one more problem on the horizon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC