According to International Trade Canada, "Since NAFTA came into force, the Canadian economy has grown by an average of 3.6 per cent annually, keeping Canada in the lead among the G7 countries." Canadian productivity has risen by nearly 25 per cent since free trade's inception.
As part of the world's largest trade bloc, we are a part of a free trade area that represents a third of the world's gross domestic product and our exports to the U.S. and Mexico have grown in value by more than 100 per cent. Since NAFTA, Canadian exports to the U.S. have nearly tripled.
And we registered an all-time high merchandise trade surplus with the U.S. last year. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, "Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry is largely export-oriented and has benefitted from the increased access to U.S. and Mexican markets." Since 1994, our agricultural exports to the U.S. and Mexico have increased by 95 per cent.
And there is much more that could be added to the "pro" column for NAFTA and FTA. Which is not to say there should not be a response to the American decision. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorialized in our favour, in large part, regarding lumber tariffs, and suggested George Bush should have used the committee's ruling "as a graceful exit" from the tariffs.
A useful retaliation, not just chest-thumping and petulance, is in order.
Slapping tariffs on U.S. products would, in turn, only increase the cost of items purchased by Canadians. Limiting energy exports would be about as clever an idea as a trade war. A good start would be for Canada's Prime Minister to show some concern beyond making bold statements to Canadian media.
International Trade Minister Jim Peterson said that Paul Martin would talk to George Bush about the matter, "sooner, rather than later." Now there's passion. I would suggest sooner. Or even now.
There are a number of paths to travel here, starting with trying to reach a settlement. But doing away with open access to the world's largest market would be travelling the wrong path.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1125094214671&call_pageid=968256290204
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on August 31, 2005]
Note: http://www.thestar.com/...
Rondi Adamson Says NAFTA And FTA Has Been Beneficial To Canada
Posted on Tuesday, August 30 at 14:34 by jensonjContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
For the Pro-American canadian, i have a Bill Hicks quote for you.
"How far up your ass, does this guys cock have to be, before you realize, HES FUCKING YOU!!!"
Black is white, up is down, slavery is freedom - that is the neocon message.
---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.
What have vastly increased are Canadian resource exports, by World Bank figures from 13% of the total in the mid '80s , to 67% a few years ago. This is not a benefit to Canada, but a liability, because, apart from their unaccounted depletion, most of these exports are within and between multinationals and Canada receives no benefits, apart from small mining fees and some basic, mostly unskilled employment and large, polluted holes and waterways. Our industrial capacity has been thrown to the dogs, with millions of skilled jobs.
If we count the real facts, our economy has shrunk, not expanded, because exporting resources is exporting capital.
Something even a pro-American Canadian should be able to comprehend. As I'm listening to the copper ore trucks driving are by on the highway day and night, taking our capital out of the country, for the benefit of others.......... Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC>
As always Rondi, you have exquisite taste in the people you piss off! Thanks for swimming against the current and thinking for yourself. In this case, thinking at all.
"Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorialized in our favour, in large part, regarding lumber tariffs, and suggested George Bush should have used the committee's ruling "as a graceful exit" from the tariffs.
A useful retaliation, not just chest-thumping and petulance, is in order".
Following these comments Rondi stresses that we should not put tariffs on American goods nor should we limit exports to the US. How then do we retaliate?.
She suggests that Martin and Peterson talk to George Bush and she says "sooner (rather than later). Or even now". Now that's relly going to get things moving!.
Frank