[whelan costen]

Milton, excellent idea!

[Jakob]

Yeah, and Lyin Bryan should be tried for treason for foisting that whole crock on us in the first place along with chretien for telling us, along with other notables like copps that on their being elected that so called agreement would be torn up. Shame on the lot of them!

[Kory Yamashita]

Milton, I like the way you think. Ideas like this NEED to be discussed openly.

[FreeCanada]

Such a proposal is the kind of thing that needs to be discussed in parliament. It is a truth that trade laws and agreements are about as clear as Lake Ontario. I wish that Canadian politicians, bureaucrats and business leaders would be so rational as to put the interests of us, the citizens of Canada, first. Free trade has never really been free and should cease to be called such. Unfortunately bringing clarity and reason to the issue would evoke the true wrath of our southern neighbour. This scares many people and it must remain a concern in any such discussion. Before Canada can simply state that it is restructuring its entire way of doing trade it must ensure that it is self sufficient in all its basic needs (which I would promote) and have secure sources for exporting of goods. Getting out of the NAFTA would be first priority and that would be challenge enough to start.

[sthompson]

But how effective will it be to pass a law saying no trade agreement shall supercede our laws, when the trade agreements can then supercede that very law? <p> But yes, I think it's necessary to renegotiate our trade agreements, and the only way to seriously do that is to pull out of them first, since otherwise we know who will benefit from the renegotiation--and not us. Will it happen? Well, just imagine the stink that would be raised, since we'd be offending our American "neighbour" and "best customer" and "friend". I think the only way to do it would be with a really strong citizen mandate and the support of, most likely, Mexico and other countries. <P> The NDP doesn't take as strong a stance on this as I'd like, not because they don't feel it should be abrogated it seems (although I'm sure that depends on who you talk to in the party), but because it's not "good politics" to say so. <P> Unfortunately I'd say it's more likely for us to at least avoid signing more NAFTA-plus type agreements and to try to get water removed from our current agreements.

[Milton]

You add a clause to this law, ( no trade treaty or agreement of any kind shall be held to be legally binding on Canada if it is found that the effect of any part of the contract breaks any federal law), saying that it can only be removed or amended by having a National referendum. Then in order to sign a trade treaty or other agreement that would break one or more of our laws the laws that would be broken would have to be amended so that no law was, in effect, broken. The process of changing a law is much more transparent than signing a treaty, (and then going on TV and saying what a good deal it is blah blah blah etc...) that supercedes our law. Any action we take that stops the lock, stock and barrel hand over of our country to corporate USA will incur their wrath. We have to incur their wrath so that the good citizens of the USA will take courage from our actions, stand up and start the fight to take back their country from the thugs and murderers or businessmen and politicians, in my opinion the terms are synonymous, who stole it from them.

[Kory Yamashita]

Milton, so we should play the role of mentors by first becoming martyrs? Until the USA can demonstrate to the world that it isn't a self-serving aspiring empire, we should ignore it. Don't sign trade treaties, treat this country as any other country. Why is it that we value the American "friendship" so much that we question their response to every action we, as a country, partake in? I'm with Milton on "incurring the wrath" of our southern neighbors. If we elect governments to appease Americans, why not simply let the US assign MP's and cabinet ministers FOR us? Canada has often deviated from the popular path, set precedences that would change the world, found innovative solutions, succeeded where all others have failed. We need to do this again and now. We, as Canadians, need to use this reputation we've built over the years, and stand up for the people of the world in their greatest time of need. So I guess I'm saying that I think we SHOULD play the role of martyrs in order to become the mentors of the masses. Step one: Begin the transition from a society where the people serve the economy to a society where the economy serves the people.

[Reverend Blair]

I have a feeling there are a lot of countries waiting for somebody to lead them too. By signing only trade deals that improve Canada's lot and the lot of other countries in similar situations we could very much force the USA's hand.

The really big thing is that we have to start acting as their equals. They do have way too much influence over the Canadian economy. So what? They are dependent on us as well. It's time to give our six months notice to get out of NAFTA and tell the US that if they want our goods that there are conditions.

[Scape]

We live in a society where the Supreme Court of the late 19th century twisted and contorted the 14th Amendment to define the corporation as "a person," a decision that has helped to exempt it from a wide array of social responsibilities in the U.S. We need that addressed first as it is the root of this problem and only then can we credibly deal with the subsequent national treatment clause in NAFTA that give stockholders in the U.S. the same rights as a Canadian citizen.

[N Say]

[QUOTE BY= sthompson] But how effective will it be to pass a law saying no trade agreement shall supercede our laws, when the trade agreements can then supercede that very law? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/confused.gif' alt='Confused'> [/QUOTE] <br /><P> <br />Toronto international lawyer Barry Appleton says a constitutional amendment to better protect property rights of Canadians should be considered. The thing I read didn't include specific wording or anything; he only wrote that the idea should be considered since the NAFTA is a de facto amendment to the Charter of Rights.

[Milton]

I think we need to protect our laws in such a manner that they can't be undercut by free trade deals without our knowledge. About the only way I can see to do this is to have extensive use of referendums. I think we may have to have a referendum for every bit of provincial and federal legislation that is passed because the politicians are showing themselves to be nothing but greedy self serving liars and thieves. Not all politicians are corrupt and incompetent but the overwhelming majority of them sure appear to be.

[Scape]

It is not that they are incompetent at all. They know what side of the bread is buttered. NAFTA is a cash cow to the companies who sponsor our national political parties. Ergo, we must address the problem at it's source or cease to be a nation. It's just that simple. Our media will not inform us of it for it will not be in their best interest they will find their sponsors suddenly drying up. If Canada wants to be a nation it has to act like one. Lasse faire economics is the enemy of our children's future and anyone who will tell you otherwise has vested interests that are not in Canada's interests.

[xdeathx10]

I think NAFTA is dumb because the AMericans can break it whenever they want. <br />ie. 17% tax on pork is proposed