Zeitgeist

That's surprising and definitely wasn't the case for many years. My guess is that the question is problematic. I would say more Canadians than Americans support free trade, but they weren't questioned about supporting free trade, so NAFTA represents, at least in part, a surrogate for free trade. I am surprised though. The U.S. has tried to screw over Canada multiple times through NAFTA. Mexico has certainly benefited the most from NAFTA. I'd say it's a dead heat between Canada and the U.S. in terms of how much each country has benefitted. Trump will whine about how hard done by America is on trade. It's the same old refrain.

Zilch huh? More like the U.S. is scared of more Saudi terrorism, loss of oil/oil industry investments, and military contracts. We also worry about terrorism, but we all need to stick together in our fight against it and our defense of human rights. With regard to Mexico, the gang and drug lord violence that refugees are fleeing is not run by the state. Canada can't speak out against a Mexican government that is also against the violent gangs and drug trade in Mexico. Canada has always had a constructive relationship with Cuba, for good reason. Canada has taken very serious actions against Iran in the past, including closing its embassy. Oh, and China? Watch media reports about how much Trump kissed Xi's ass when he hosted him at Mar A Lago.

What makes you think NAFTA is widely supported in Canada? It never has been.

If they’re of such little import to the U.S., why does Trump make so much of them, especially knowing that trade is balanced with Canada and that the U.S. has a surplus with Canada on dairy, steel and aluminum? The only interpretation we can have is that he is seeking even greater advantage. It’s always about taking the extreme position, hoping that by doing so, even when that position isn’t properly defended, the negotiators will win more concessions. It’s a transparent and tired extortionist tactic right out of the Art of the Deal. We’ve all seen it before and are tired of watching the belly flops. Be responsible and negotiate equitably or don’t bother coming to the table.

How do you propose that Canada intervene to prevent China’s so called dumping? China is reacting to U.S. tariffs. You may not give a shit about our steel and aluminum businesses, but we sure do. If the U.S. wanted Canada in on tariffs against China, it should have communicated this instead of imposing them on Canada and treating us like collateral damage in your trade war with China. Again, these practices erode trust and make us question our alliance, at a time when the U.S. faces a rising China and could use friends. Are you trying to push us into an alliance with China? It’s just reckless foreign affairs.

I think Trudeau Jr. and Ford should take up the pipeline cause. Would be a great nonpartisan relationship builder between the province and the feds, a win win for sure.

The U.S. farm lobby has embedded interests. Trump can tweet that he’s offering zero trade barriers, but it’s just a statement. He would have to get through many hurdles within his own branches of government, departments, and interest groups to make that possible. What’s more, it probably isn’t in the interests of U.S. trade or agriculture to dismantle all of the supports. It’s like a ‘Just say no’ approach to trade barriers, laughably simplistic and out of step with what experts are advising. Someone on here said there’s no cultural difference between Canada and the U.S. apart from Quebec. That’s the crux of the problem in these discussions. Interlocutors don’t understand the complexity of what is being disputed in trade. French Acadia in the Maritime provinces is different from Quebec. Newfoundland is vastly different from Ontario or even Nova Scotia. The indigenous groups vary widely east to west and especially compared to the far north. Trade experts in both Canada and the U.S. know what’s at stake. In a small country like Canada, we have to work to preserve our First Nations, francophone, and other cultures. We value them. Agriculture isn’t something we’re just going to scrap to save a little on milk. In fact, milk, meat, and produce cost roughly the same in New York as in Ontario. There’s simply no favourable argument for giving up our culture and industries. Focus on a fair trade agreement in the areas where we can establish agreement. This is how it’s done. Trump and some other commentators throw out selective data to get a reaction, but all this does is erode trust. We want to carve out a fair deal, but Canadians and to some extent the rest of the world have been given ample reasons for cynicism. It’s not too late to turn this around, but we need honest arguments, good faith, and fair negotiations.

Canada has much arable land in the south, especially places like the prairies, western Ontario, BC’s Okanagan Valley and PEI. If the U.S. dropped its farm subsidies, the economics of farming would be similar to ours. You see there are protections on both sides. Don’t kid yourself. Those U.S. farm subsidies probably aren’t going anywhere. So why should we drop our policy if the U.S. won’t? We also buy from Mexico, South America, the U.S. and Europe the fruit and vegetables that our climate won’t support. If a place like PEI didn’t have farming, that province’s economy would collapse. Not everything is about providing cheap goods for consumers, or else we’d all by every good from Southeast Asia. No one would have a job but consumer goods would be dirt cheap. We have to recognize that not everything is up for grabs in a trade agreement. Otherwise there’s no value in such agreements.

We need to keep our Canadian farming. The U.S.’s subsidized big agri would wipe out Canadian agriculture without some kind of protection. Growing food locally is food security and better for the environment than shipping long distances. Maybe there are reasonable solutions to meet the needs on both sides. It seems like both sides are close.

If the market remains free the way that freedom loving people will always demand, I’m confident in Canada’s ability to remain competitive.

That makes no difference. Some of Mexico's gains in the past have been both the U.S.'s and Canada's loss. The U.S. doesn't control the negotiations. If they do or think they do, as the Mexicans are probably discovering, then those are sham negotiations and we want no part of it.

Canada should help in some way. It’s about helping people regardless of race.

Canada should post-pone negotiations as long as possible. Trump will lose support at the mid-terms and the counter-tariffs against the U.S. from multiple countries will start to really bite. Canada doesn't have to accept a deal under a "Deal or No Deal" scenario. If the U.S. and Mexico come to Canada and say, "Accept the terms or no deal," the answer is simple: "No deal." If it's a tripartite agreement, then all parties must be at the table. If the U.S. wants to go bilateral, that's fine, but that doesn't mean more concessions for the U.S..

The harmony among diverse groups in Canada is impressive. I think at least some of that can be attributed to an attitude of multiculturalism. No need to look for conflict where it doesn't exist, not that there aren't tensions between groups from time to time. It's hard to think of a more harmonious society in the world today.

The majority of Quebecers opposed the idea of building an oil pipeline from Alberta to Eastern Canada, where oil would be refined and shipped for export. Since the majority of Canadians outside Quebec support the pipeline idea, should it be built as far east as Ontario, where oil can be refined and distributed to Ontarians, western Quebec, and Great Lakes states? Keep in mind that Ontario represents 40% of the Canadian economy. If refineries were built along the Trans Canada north of Toronto and not too far west of Ottawa, Canada could refine and ship Canadian oil through Montreal, Toronto, and farther afield. Ontarians could reap a royalty, either shoring up the province's revenues or lowering gas prices at the pumps. This is also about Canadian energy security. If indigenous groups reap some of the benefits, they may also be in support.

“taxme”, no Canadian would say such things. Puerto Rico, really? Sorry to say this, but the comments on here are too uninformed to warrant responses. It’s supposedly a Canadian forum, but the range of opinions is so narrow. Sad, because obviously some people on here need to become better informed and take civic responsibility more seriously, but it’s amateur hour. There are certain standards you have to meet before your opinions can be taken seriously. Here are a few: Rascism, fascism, sexism, Islamophobia, and other stances that violate human rights and the U.S. Constitution are unacceptable. Think about how to improve the world, not just one tribe, without prejudice in regard to race, colour or creed. Find real sources for problems instead of stereotyped scapegoats. We need big picture, global thinking and positive local action, not fear mongering and oppression.

Your last four sentences reveal that you’re not Canadian. If you are, the self-loathing is pretty sad. Maybe most Americans don’t care about Canada. I’m not sure, but Canadians bloody well do care about Canada. I realize that Americans know much less about their smaller neighbour than we know about the U.S. I think that’s too bad, because each country can learn lessons from the other. It might help solve real problems.

With regard to your comments on indigenous people, I would say that there’s a failure to look at context. Some want to vilify our first PM Sir John A MacDonald and remove his statues because of anti-aboriginal comments and policies that relate to very different attitudes and times. Granted, the Indian Act needs major revision. Some will point to MacDonald’s remarks that Canada should not feed or fund indigenous people as horrible remarks, but I think he was trying to avoid the situation we’re in now of a segment of society that believes government should build its homes and provide services without asking for taxation or anything in return. It basically created a dependent class of welfare recipients. Yes, there are some successful reserves, especially the ones out west that have capitalized on resources. There are many decaying reserves that need major infrastructure upgrades and that depend on the government to provide them. We need to provide the important things right now to protect the vulnerable, but then we need a better long term plan. Indigenous people need to come to a consensus on whether preserving the reserve system or doing something else is better. It’s a no win for the government as every failure will be blamed on it for past sins. Some (most) of the most successful indigenous people left the reserve. It’s terrible how many missing and murdered indigenous women there are, but when Trudeau launched his costly inquiry, the process fell apart because of lack of consensus and support among indigenous leaders and protesters. Harper knew this and avoided such a process for that reason. And how many victims were victimized within their own communities? Many, sadly, though we’re afraid to be honest about this Real reform means not just blaming government and throwing more taxpayer money at the issues. Ultimately, people have to learn to fish for themselves, but we have to provide reasonable and targeted support to help make this possible. Making demands like asking for millions in compensation for every individual who attended a residential school will never fly because indigenous concerns are one set of concerns among many to be born by taxpayers, who are working to cover their own bills as well as solve these problems outside the communities where they live and work.

If you think that Trump, fascists and racists are better supporters of indigenous people, I fear for you.

Have you considered psychiatric help?

So now you’re playing the closet liberal card. Okay, if you’re saying that you stand for indigenous peoples and other marginalized segments of society, let’s start seeing posts with constructive recommendations. All I see from you is a blind pro-Trump, anti-Trudeau algorithm. Frankly it’s tired. I’m not a fan of either of these politicians. If I see either one of these politicians take a position that improves the situation, and not for one group at the expense of others, I’ll affirm it. Trump was right to do air strikes on Asaad’s regime after the gas attacks. Trudeau is right to be critical of the Saudis on human rights. Unless you become constructive, your comments will be rightly called unhelpful. Yes, there is hypocrisy and sometimes much more needs to be done. Let’s hear what needs to be done and what we can realistically do. Sometimes it involves sacrifice. Canada’s acceptance of refugees requires some financial sacrifice. By and large, most Canadians would say it’s worth it. As always, we have to make contributions in a measured way, so that we don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Your comments need to be more responsible. There are too many racists and fascists out there who will seize on any language that empowers them.

The PM you loathe so much has made indigenous rights a priority, to the extent of adding a holiday recognizing its importance. It doesn’t matter to you because you’ll criticize Canada for any measures it takes to address the problems on reserves as giving into special interests. You contradict yourself all over the map. Mining by companies from western countries has always been contentious. Canada can stack up its excesses and sins beside the U.S.’s and other countries. Question is, what are you doing about it? I’ll tell you, nothing, because you represent strengthening the haves and letting the have nots fall further into decline, but if a government you disagree with on some issues takes an important stance to right a wrong, you simply call them hypocritical to undermine any positive actions. Not cool.

You provide some interesting statistics and you definitely have challenged progressives on here to define and defend their thinking, but on this matter of Canada's legitimate and important criticism of Saudi Arabia on human rights abuses, there can be no equivocating. You may not like Freeland or Trudeau, but when you make your partisan anti-Trudeau position more important than protecting human rights and supporting an ally that is standing up for democratic freedom, you've lost me completely. Also, if you don't like the way Twitter has been used outside the U.S., take that up with Twitter. You don't own it. Trump has made Twitter his message board. It is a widely used medium for better or worse. You're complaining about the fact of its use just because some have used it to express views you don't like. Whatever happened to, "I may disagree with your opinion, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" (Hall re: Voltaire). You care more about your notion of Canadian "smugness" about defending democratic principles than you do about the importance of defending these principles. This is what makes your position and the people who agree with you dangerous to the future of democracy and freedom. Get your priorities straight.

Ha ha. Wow, do you really think Canadians could hope for so much? It would be amazing if we had that kind of influence. We're well aware that Americans have to make their own decisions about what works best for them. But sure, we'd be happy to set policy for you if you like. I know you don't want "liberal snowflake" Canadians influencing affairs down there. Don't worry, the U.S. is always right of Canada politically. We understood that a long time ago.

No, I mean that right now more Canadians agree with each other politically than do people in the U.S. We're not as polarized.