NAFTA

What would the outcome have been had we NOT joined NAFTA? All the yea
sayers have no *&^%ing idea.

As far as I'm concerned NAFTA has made a few very rich and as the days of
NATA wear on and on the lack of sustainability of such an "I value
consummerism over
all other things" society will and is finding its way into all Canadian, Mexican
and USAmerican homes.

Why are Mexicans still leaving thier country in droves? Why did Canada have
a brain drain and is now experiencing a return of those hunting for more
money?

Canada is a nation full of resources the world needed and needs even more
now and she would have been a success and even more successful had we
had leaders that could see beyond their Pinocchio sized noses.

Nice try Vancouver Sun.

---
"The most sustainable product is the one you never bought in the first place."
Alex Steffan

Absolute hogwash! I can't believe what I just read.

Yes, there may be more wealth in Canada but it has all funnelled to the top. They are many more millionaires and billionaires in Canada but many many jobs have gone south, manufacturing is a lost art in Canada and the middle class is evaporating.

People in general are much worse off than they were in 1989, and we have a new class in society called the "working poor." These are people who have to go to food banks at the end of month to just get by.

The newspapers are all owned by big business so it doesn't suprise me that they are trying to convince Canadians that NAFTA was "great" for the country.

Yeah, just wait until the North American Union comes about. It has been referred to as "NAFTA on steroids." It will bring about the biggest changes in our lives since the '29 depression and the world wars.

Is the VanSun herding the sheeple to slaughter?<br />
If this paper is all for giving away the country, they should be called on it. For <br />
those who wisjh to respond with a Letter to the Editor, Murray Dobson has <br />
inspiring letter-writing resources at WordWarrriors:<br />
<a href="http://canadians.org">http://canadians.org</a><br />
Resources against SPP/NAU:<br />
<a href="http://canadians/org/integratethis">http://canadians/org/integratethis</a><p>---<br>See my art at http://cafepress.com/peaceangel

Link correction:<br />
<a href="http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/index.html">http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/index.html</a><p>---<br>See my art at http://cafepress.com/peaceangel

As I wrote before, if Hitler had been running in an election
in Germany and Austria after WW2, the starving people would have crept out from under the ruins to vote for him.

Induced mass hysteria is one of the main reasons of history's repetitious tragedies. And ruling classes have always been the masters in controlling and directing it. Now they can hire the best mind benders and control the universities to sell the lies and do the dirty work for them

Ed Deak.

I noticed the Sun didn't give the actual questions so I had to go looking for them. It's in english here:<BR> http://www.sesresearch.com/news/in_the_news/Policy%20Options%20Sept%202007E.pdf<BR> & french here:<BR> http://www.sesresearch.com/news/in_the_news/Policy%20Options%20Sept%202007F.pdf <P> <blockquote>Q1: How would you rate the importance of free trade between Canada and the United States on enabling North American companies to compete globally?</blockquote><BR> Well of course trade is very important. What kind of idiot would disagree with that? <P> <blockquote>Q2: How would you rate the importance of free trade between Canada and the US on ensuring North America's furute prosperity?</blockquote><BR> Again, trade is very important. Who would disagree? <P> <blockquote>Q3: Would your country be better off, worse off, or would there be no impact if there was no free trade agreement between Canada and the US?</blockquote><BR> Of course Canada & the US would both be better off if they agreed to trade, what idiot would disagree with that? But which free trade agreement are they referring to? What specific things does a free trade agreement do? <P> <blockquote>Q4: Do you support, somewhat support, neither support nor oppose, somewhat oppose or oppose enhancing the free movement of people between Canada and the United States?</blockquote><BR> Of course there already is free movement of people between Canada and the US. Someone only needs to go to a border crossing with a passport & enter the other country, and only an idiot would say it should be more difficult. (except for special cases like with criminals, terrorists etc) What they mean by 'enhancing' I have no idea. <P> <blockquote>Q5: Do you support, somewhat support, neither support nor oppose, somewhat oppose or oppose creating stronger economic ties with the US?</blockquote><BR> There's that word again, "stronger," whatever that means (if anything). Because of that ambiguity I don't know how to respond except to say stronger economic ties sounds good & not many people would disagree. A more meaningful question would be "do you agree with the government's policy towards such-&-such, yes or no?" <P> <blockquote>Q6: Do you support, somewhat support, neither support nor oppose, somewhat oppose, or oppose building a more integrated rail, highway and air transportation infrastructure between Canada and the US?</blockquote><BR> Since people can drive to the US, fly to the US & catch a train to the US, the transportation infrastructure is already integrated & only an idiot would disagree that people shouldn't be able to travel to one country or the other. What they mean by "more integrated" I have no idea. If a road crosses the border & joins up with another road on the other side I would say that road infrastructure is as integrated it could possibly be, since it's one continuous road. <P> They asked the usual general questions, never referring to any specific things. This one was exceptional though in that it didn't even refer to a specific free-trade agreement! Most of these polls usually at least refer to NAFTA or the FTA. No wonder the Vancouver Sun didn't print the actual questions! Ipsos-Reid did a poll on trade agreements in 2004 where they found that <blockquote>"Six In Ten Canadians (62%) Disagree That Canada Should Sign A Trade Agreement That Would Open Canada’s Public Services to Competition From Foreign Companies"</blockquote><BR> and<BR> <blockquote>A Further Six In Ten (60%) Disagree That Government Should Sign Deals That Would Allow Corporations to Directly Sue The Government of Canada If Our Public Policies Impair Their Ability to Make Profits </blockquote> http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2224<BR> So obviously a clear majority of Canadians disagreed with those specific parts of the current free-trade agreements (when that poll was done anyway). The fact that the results are so different when NAFTA (or free trade, etc) is mentioned shows most people are still very much uninformed, even after 20 years of being a part of these agreements.<p>---<br>"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

You are right, Ed.
Henry Giroux, of McMaster University, recently revealed that Eisenhower left one
word out when he warned us about the military-industrial complex: ACADEMIC.

---
See my art at http://cafepress.com/peaceangel

The conclusion "That NAFTA has been good for Canada is indisputable. As the survey showed, most people are aware of its benefits, but, every now and then, the rest need a reminder." reeks of typical high-handed MSM dribble.

I remain unpersuaded, and do not need a reminder.