Trade Experts, Big Business Slam Martin's 'irresponsible' U.S.-Bashing

Anything that hurts the CCCE is bad I guess.

I second that thought.

"Michael Hart, a former adviser on both the Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement."

Gee, he is not biased in any kind of way? Money uber alles with this group.

They would like us to forget what the underlying issues are that are driving this wedge between the nations. It is more than nationalism, it is about the right thing. Rules are rules and they are ignoring them. The environment matters, and the US refuses to come aboard the progressive train already boarded by the rest of the world leaving them alone on the platform.

The Canadian Ambassador to Washington didn't shoot his mouth off during the US elections, so what gives them the right to do so with us?

The CCCE are so far from the mainstream view of most Canadians, but they don't care. It is about establishing rules and regulations favourable to themselves and themselves only. They don't give two shiites about anyone else other than their shareholders and their own pocketbooks - rest of Canada and our very nations sovereignty be damned is their attitude summed up.

> The Canadian Ambassador to Washington didn't shoot his mouth off during the US elections, so what gives them the right to do so with us?

Oh, really? I'd like to remind you of what happened in 2000, when Chretien’s nephew, then ambassador to Washington, was quoted suggesting that a victory by Democrat Al Gore would be better for Canada.

Ignorant, rude, undiplomatic: quintessentially canuk.

That’s right, one comment to the couple of dozen from Cellucci, the Bush Administrations Press Sectaries, Congressmen and Senators. We didn’t see any of them fired from their jobs or made to apologize, as he did, for the greater point of better relations!

How limited our American memories are.

Let’s remember the first Bush Press Sectary stating that the Terrorists that attacked the Trade Towers came through Canada when they were living in the US for up to five years no apology, no correction etc.

These Nafta trade experts sound a little two-faced when they negotiate an agreement to let large international corporations run amok in our society (and resource industry) and then turn around and blame all Canadians for not meeting pollution targets. People can have concerns for social responsibility, corporations never will. This was part of the great gamble when they negotiated these trade deals. Well, they were wrong in spades, and instead of hiding under a rock, they still think they have something to add- amazing!
Small and medium sized business owners, wage earners, and farmers should have sufficient experience by now to realize the Liberals and Conservatives have gotten us into this mess and have no intention of getting us out, despite their recent pro-Canada rhetoric.

"""This isn't nationalism," Ritchie said in an interview. "This is cheap jingoism." <

But he is right. Martin is using anti-Americanism as a political tool. If Martin was earnest, he would have done something about NAFTA from the first day he was PM. He waits untill Canadians are angry before he takes a stand. He'll be back to ignoring the voters after the election.

You are correct. Martin is a Canadian sellout of a Prime Minister but he is one hell of a politician. We must give him that, he and his team are playing this perfectly.

<< We must give him that, he and his team are playing this perfectly.>>


Or you could say that Canadians are suckers for any anti-US message, even if delivered by a corrupt party

Paul Martin is a regional candidate playing to the bigotries of his party's region (Southern Ontario).

It was through the mercantilist/protectionist policies set up by MacDonald and perpetuted by the Liberals and Conservatives alike until Brian Mulroney changed course with the FTA that placed Toronto and Southern Ontario in the place of dominance they now enjoy within Canada. Southern Ontario's power is based on a history of extracting resources from the other regions and selling finished goods back to those regions as captive markets.

Liberal industrial and immigration policies ensured that Southern Ontario would always hold electoral and economic superiority over the rest of the country.

One of the few threats to this ongoing Central Canadian hegemony was a situation in which businesses in the other regions were free to trade directly with businesses in neighbouring US states without significant penalties in the form of duties and tariffs. So Southern Ontario based politicians traditionally portrayed any form of cooperation with Americans as being unpatriotic. It's no surprise then that Canadian nationalism is largely an Ontario phenomenon.

The other major threat to Southern Ontario's stranglehold was a province becoming sufficiently wealthy due to its natural resources to rival the golden horseshoe as a power base. Alberta came along, and by virtue of its oil wealth, demanded a seat at the "big peoples' table". The NEP was an attempt to contain the "damage" by re-asserting the mercantilist model - the oil exists to serve the Southern Ontario industrial heartland, which will trickle back social programs and other pork barreling/charity back westward.

Free flow of goods and services north-south threatens Southern Ontario's dominance. And the Western Canadian work ethic and sense of individual responsibility (balanced admittedly with some rural communalism) finds more resonance with the American culture to the south than with the soft-authoritarianism, social engineering and feudalistic Red Tory nobless oblige of the east.

So when Martin acts like a rabid nationalist, he's not being sincere. He's just playing to the crowd that votes Liberal. Once the election's over, he'll go back to trying to make nice with Washington. It's not like Martin's actually anti-American or anything.

Hell, even Chretien wasn't anti-American. He just got pissed off with them when they wouldn't vote Democrat.

this post is sums it up.
like mexico, or Saudi Arabia, our leaders tell us one thing, and their imperial
masters another.
We get the words while the boss-man gets the action.

From here in the West, we did "bitch" about Ontario/Quebec hegemony from time to time, though many felt the NEP was necessary to retain Canadian control of our future energy needs, whether that was its main purpose or not. This was part of being Canadian- what was good for the bulk of Canadians was good for Canada, and out west we were Canadian first. Perhaps it’s a question of which is worse: hegemony exercised by a large concentration of Canadians living in two of our provinces, or hegemony exercised from the Cayman Islands, un-elected trade panels, or WTO bodies. Personally, I’d take the former as I’m familiar with the hegemony exercised in B.C. by the Greater Vancouver population, but I wouldn’t presume to suggest voting rights be exercised by geography regardless of population nor would I suggest devolving all federal control with the argument: “If I cant have it, then nobody will.” Of course, if one truly wishes for de-Confederation may I suggest wetting your whistle with <a href="http://www.separationalberta.com">www.separationalberta.com</a>.

We must give him that, he and his team are playing this perfectly.<<

I wonder what he & his party will do, to make up to the Americans, once it is all over. Perhaps Bush is saying NOW, "You owe me big time". His list will be a long one.

kyoto?progessive?says who? isn't that too bad the usa doesn't get on the kyoto bandwagon.maybe the diplomatic effort on the pro side was and is wanting.

the united states has by any measure a better environmental record than canada; under the circumstances canadian political, social, and economic elites would be wise to get their own house in order before critiquing others.

toronto based metlife now owns john hancock life, one time pride ofthe boston insurance business.don'tyourealize americans are saying the exact same thing about nafta and canadian companies?