Is Canada too dependant on the US?

[CanadianPatriot]

Often it seems as though Canada is helpless to make big decisions without the US´s approval. Can we even call ourselves independant anymore? It seems like if the USA catches wind of something Canada wants to do that the USA isn´t too fond of, we are expected to immediately back off. The US threatens to withdraw its support and we´re crippled! Have we become the 51st state?

[takeanumber]

Often it seems as though Canada is helpless to make big decisions without the US´s approval. Can we even call ourselves independant anymore? It seems like if the USA catches wind of something Canada wants to do that the USA isn´t too fond of, we are expected to immediately back off. The US threatens to withdraw its support and we´re crippled! Have we become the 51st state?

I'd hazard to say only around 20 percent of all Americans label themselves a 'liberal'. (and not 'liberal' in the small 'l' sense either, it has a different meaning that's nuanced.)

That said, I don't think there's too much support for making Canada a 51st state. 26 million more liberals to deal with. (And 3 million moderate republicans, with 750,000 hard republicans and 250,000 very hard, right wing republicans)

Moreover, there are a few other issues...Western Alienation is a pretty strong force down in the States too, but it's way more acute. I should make another post on that topic.

That said, I don't think there is much danger of takeover.

As for 'are we too dependant', I think we are 'dependant', and it becomes a question as to how much dependancy is too much dependancy?

What is it? 85 percent of all our trade is with them...is that too much?

I'd like to see is lower, because of hedging. I mean, I'd love to see MORE TRADE with the US, because free trade is good trade, but I'd like to see the proportion of trade go down, which means getting MORE TRADE with other countries too.

It's like keeping your eggs in one basket right now, and it's not a sound hedging strategy.

[idealisttotheend]

What is it? 85 percent of all our trade is with them...is that too much?

Ah third option politics.

I think that we have failed to diversify our trade for the simple reason that it's been left to the market which is notoriously short term. There are a lot of people out west who are wishing they'd sold their cattle or lumber to more markets. But it's easier just to put it on a truck and ship it south 200 kilometers than put it on a ship and send it 1000 kilometers.

I wonder if the solution isn't to sign free trade deals with the EU and key Asian markets and then set up some sort of shipping co-operative, (this would be great for Martin ) The shipping co-operative would ship both ways at cost and perhaps make trade more economically viable to farther flung places for all sorts of industries. I know it's not strictly free market but it might be better for all of us in the long term.

[idealisttotheend]

Have we become the 51st state?

No for the simple reason that when we entered into NAFTA we gave away a host of economic rights (between vastly unequal partners and considering economies of scale) without getting any political representation in return. This makes us more of a colony than a 51st state. It works good as long as we keep the dollar low and don't mind a lot of foriegn ownership of valuable industries/resources. Under any other conditions it does not work and I think we are about to find this out.

Very stupid, very Mulroney.

[takeanumber]

Meh, Free Trade is Good Trade, IMO.

But concentrated free trade isn't so much good trade.

[CanadianPatriot]

I know trade betwen and Canada and the US is important, but what about aside from trade? For example, there were problems when the US first decided to go to war with Iraq and Canada was dragging its feet about backing the States up in the war. Bush got upset with Canada. Was he justified in being upset? Don`t we have the right to say ``No, this is your war. We don`t want to get involved.`` or should we always be expected to back up the States, no matter what?

[idealisttotheend]

Don`t we have the right to say ``No, this is your war. We don`t want to get involved.`` or should we always be expected to back up the States, no matter what?

Many people felt the long delay in dealing with mad cow was both successful lobbing by their industry AND politically motivated pay back for the refusal to go to war with Iraq. As to our relationship, in the end most everything comes down to economics I've found. If we didn't have to worry about trade with the US I doubt that many people would pay all that much attention to them (good or bad). We do have the right (and the obligation) to make our own foriegn policy decisions but like the rest of the world we must acknowledge that there could be (and sometimes are) economic consequences if the Republicans are in power in Washingtion. Sometimes you must pay something of a price to do the right thing in the short term.

We must keep the elephant from rolling over basically. Or be ready for some radical new ways to become self-sufficent or close to self-sufficient in other more equal trading blocs.

[caesar]

Right ideal. I think we should look for a more diverse range of trading partners. We must not allow the USA to control our economy. If the USA will not trade fairly and deal fairly with NAFTA decisions; we should opt out of Nafta until we get some guarantees of fair play.

[Stoker]

Right ideal. I think we should look for a more diverse range of trading partners. We must not allow the USA to control our economy. If the USA will not trade fairly and deal fairly with NAFTA decisions; we should opt out of Nafta until we get some guarantees of fair play.

opt out of NAFTA? yeah that would teach them....there are members within the GOP that want exactly that.........then there are the Dems that are tired of "exporting American jobs"........I suggest that which ever party is in the whitehouse, we should learn to shut our traps a tad.......

.......That is unless caesar or anybody else can find a buyer for all our goods.........

[Reverend Blair]

Opting out of NAFTA wouldn't end trade with the US, Stoker. They need us as much as we need them. Opting out of NAFTA would force them to deal with us on equal terms though...something that Mulroney made sure didn't happen with the FTA or NAFTA.

Canada badly needs to diversify its trading base. The United States is in serious trouble economically, even if they don't realise it yet. They owe far too much and have an ever-shrinking manufacturing base even as they import huge amounts of their raw materials. Their debt is huge and increasingly foreign owned. Their housing and commercial real estate is over-valued. Their social deficit is an embarrassment in the developed world. Their foreign policy has made them most despised country on the planet.

Being tied to the US economically is like strapping gold to your body before going swimming. It makes you feel rich but will drag you down with it.

[Stoker]

Opting out of NAFTA wouldn't end trade with the US, Stoker. They need us as much as we need them. Opting out of NAFTA would force them to deal with us on equal terms though...something that Mulroney made sure didn't happen with the FTA or NAFTA.

Equal terms Hows that?

United States = Superpower = does what it wishes

Canada = feather weight = does what United States wishes or becomes a second world country.

Now do you really think we would win a game of hardball with the United States? Look what they did to our nations cattle industry and lumber industry just by closing the boarder and putting on a tariff.......

Now what would happen if they closed the boarder to our Automotive industry? Started buying more oil from South America and'or opened up Alaska more?

Canada badly needs to diversify its trading base. The United States is in serious trouble economically, even if they don't realise it yet. They owe far too much and have an ever-shrinking manufacturing base even as they import huge amounts of their raw materials. Their debt is huge and increasingly foreign owned. Their housing and commercial real estate is over-valued. Their social deficit is an embarrassment in the developed world. Their foreign policy has made them most despised country on the planet.

I agree that we should try and diversify, but with who?

[idealisttotheend]

I agree that we should try and diversify, but with who?

I think this is the key to the thread I looked up the trade numbers here (table 4B) and found some things that really ought not have suprised me but did (like our trade as a % of GDP went up for 26% to 41% between 1989 pre FTA and 2004). The most telling is that we import pretty much the same amount of manufactured goods and machinery as we export. We have a bit of an advantage in Automotives (hurray for the Stronachs) and take a big hit in consumer goods. The only 'products' where we have a lot of goods to sell is in resources. This is our 'competitive advantage.' We sell a lot of resources and it is here we need to diversify.

It shouldn't be that hard either. Everyone needs our agricultural and forest products, our gas, oil, and most of our other resources products. The only question is whether we can get a good price for them somewhere other than the United States. I'm thinking China might be a possibility but who knows. If we concentrate on our resources trade we could go back to producing our own industrial and consumer goods to make up for any losses of exports we might suffer to other markets. That's the key diversify the resource markets and a lot of people in Western Canada won't have their ability to earn a livelhood determined by the congress in Washington. But this diversification would require the help of the federal government in one form or another.

[Reverend Blair]

They need us as badly as we need them, Stoker. If Canada were to cut off the energy supply, especially natural gas and electricity, we could bring American industry to its knees. I don't advocate doing that, but surely we could start nailing them with a hefty export tax to recoup losses from other industries due to their trade practices.

In the case of softwood lumber we could, much like the British did with steel, target areas that use a lot of lumber (say the tornado and hurricane prone areas) to put pressure on the Bush administration. Their policies are costing Americans a lot of money but most don't realise it. We can make that clear by lobbying specific politicians and running specific ads in specific markets.

Same when it comes to wheat. Canadian wheat is sought after because of its high quality. Millers and bakers like it because of the product it produces. If we were to enlist their help in fighting off the constant attacks on the Wheatboard we would become a serious player.

Combine that with diversification of markets and countervailing duties on US products, and you'd find they'd be more than willing to deal with us.

[KrustyKidd]

Combine that with diversification of markets and countervailing duties on US products, and you'd find they'd be more than willing to deal with us.

OPEC has a similar problem/corner on the market. Produce too much, the price goes down, produce too little, the customer is forced to find alternatives and adapts to other products or sources and they don't come back. Hence, the wheat board to keep things in balance.

[Reverend Blair]

We actually sell very little wheat to the US though, Krusty. Their big bitch with the CWB is that we can sell our product to third countries too cheaply. This from one a country that subsidisings its huge ag companies to the point of affecting not only world markets, but its domestic small farmers.

We do need to diversify our markets. The US may be convenient, but it is also predatory

[August1991]

The US may be convenient, but it is also predatory

Whta? Do you mean that there is this single, huge corporation, United States Inc, a giant monopoly run by a hidden CEO who pulls the strings for all decisions.

The US is hundreds of millions of individuals each making decisions about all kinds of things every day. There is no central, organized co-ordination at all between these decisions.

We deal with Americans on a person-to-person basis, not on a country-to-country basis.

We do need to diversify our markets.

That's like saying to someone in Toronto that he is relying too much on Toronto shopping malls. He should drive to Montreal more often and diversify. In fact, it's worse. You are saying let's impose a $300 entry fee on Toronto shopping malls so that he'll be encouraged to go to Montreal.

[Reverend Blair]

Whta? Do you mean that there is this single, huge corporation, United States Inc, a giant monopoly run by a hidden CEO who pulls the strings for all decisions.

You may want to give Bobby Zoellick a Google, August. You might want to consider that Britain got Bush to drop the unfair steel duty by promising to target key states. You might want to look into the Campesino forums in Mexico (Zoellick declared victory before he got on the plane to go to Mexico. He got told to piss off) and consider that a lot of countries have refused to sign on to the FTAA.

That's like saying to someone in Toronto that he is relying too much on Toronto shopping malls. He should drive to Montreal more often and diversify. In fact, it's worse. You are saying let's impose a $300 entry fee on Toronto shopping malls so that he'll be encouraged to go to Montreal.

No, it is saying that any reasonably intelligent businessman knows that they should not rely on a single customer because that customer can then bully them and/or put them out of business.

[August1991]

No, it is saying that any reasonably intelligent businessman knows that they should not rely on a single customer because that customer can then bully them and/or put them out of business.

That is precisely the point. Canadians do not deal with a large, single customer called Mr. America. We deal with many, many individuals and firms. One of those individuals can decide to be a bully, but not all of them simultaneously.

You may want to give Bobby Zoellick a Google, August.

True, you are now indicating the one entity that could possibly enforce a bullying cartel against us: the US federal government. The US constitution limits severely the power of the US executive branch. We negotiated the FTA to make US government intervention more difficult.

By and large, it has been a success.

Lastly, I will just note that the problem here is the US government.

[KrustyKidd]

We do need to diversify our markets. The US may be convenient, but it is also predatory

The wheat board was a poor example. What I should have put forth was the observation that if we make it difficult or high priced to buy our commodities then they will seek these same things elsewhere. Right now, we have an edge with the ability to transport things cheaper and mor equickly but if tariffs and such are not reciprocal they might find Mexico a more lucrative market. When expense makes that unreasonable, they will go elsewhere. Diversify, yes, but only where it makes fiscal sense.

BTW, the Wheat Board does not really compete. I believe that it is an extension of Canadian Foreign Policy. All at the expense of our farmers.

[Reverend Blair]

Since I had a couple of politically opposite grandfathers who both grew wheat for a living and helped to start the Wheatboard (along with everybody else) and I still have many relatives who grow wheat and support the CWB, I'll just assume that you are misinformed, Krusty.

You can believe whatever you want. Personally I believe that Greg Moore was Jesus and died because of Tony George's sins. It's at least as solid as your feelings about the CWB.

[idealisttotheend]

August said:

The US is hundreds of millions of individuals each making decisions about all kinds of things every day. There is no central, organized co-ordination at all between these decisions.

The softwood and wheat tarrifs were set by the central government. The mad cow problem is with the government. All trade deals and rules are set and agreed to by governments. All regulation involving the production and consumption of good are set by central governments.

That's like saying to someone in Toronto that he is relying too much on Toronto shopping malls. He should drive to Montreal more often and diversify. In fact, it's worse. You are saying let's impose a $300 entry fee on Toronto shopping malls so that he'll be encouraged to go to Montreal.

The anology is errounous. It is more like if you own company C and you set up shop ONLY in Toronto shopping malls because you live in Toronto. Even with Toronto being a good market you are still vunerable if the Toronto market collapses for your goods, you'll go broke. So you set up shops in Montreal shopping malls and Calgary shopping malls both to make more money and to protect yourself from adverse conditions in your previously sole market of Toronto. Even though Calgary and Montreal are much farther away and you will have increased costs doing buisness out there.

Diversification. But since it is hard for the little guys, the government has to help them to get out to Montreal and Calgary.

[Reverend Blair]

Exactly, Idealist. We're supposed to buy into a system that no decent businessman would opt for himself. If we don't agree to it we are communists or anarchists or something. Pee on that, not being an idiot does not make anybody a communist or an anarchist.

We are supposed to buy into the dogma of not asking questions and short-term profit being good enough, no matter what the long-term cost. I may have been born at night, but I wasn't born into a family of myopic greed-hogs.

[KrustyKidd]

  BTW, the Wheat Board does not really compete. I believe that it is an extension of Canadian Foreign Policy. All at the expense of our farmers.

 

  Since I had a couple of politically opposite grandfathers who both grew wheat for a living and helped to start the Wheatboard (along with everybody else) and I still have many relatives who grow wheat and support the CWB, I'll just assume that you are misinformed, Krusty.

   

CNEWS

Bugbears for Alberta, for example, include gun registry misspending, the Kyoto accord, health-care reform, under-representation in the Senate and the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly over Prairie wheat and barley sales. But in have-not Saskatchewan next door, they're more bothered by what they see as unfair equalization payments and a lack of federal help for beleaguered farmers.

GLOBE AND MAIL

"Let's look at the situation: an unfair equalization formula, shameful neglect of Saskatchewan's communities and a total failure to defend farm producers in dealing with a subsidy-driven global grain-trading system."

BRANDON SUN

NDP candidate Walter Kolisnyk goes up main street less than an hour after Peterson, Dewar and their entourage go to a lunch meeting.

Kolisnyk says the Liberals have slashed support for farmers in the past decade and if they are serious about helping farmers they should give them money like in the U.S. and Europe.

"Let's be honest. Farmers are trying to make a living in an economic environment that's not fair. We're not playing on the same level playing field as everyone else. We're selling our products at a lot lower price than the Americans are getting," Kolisnyk said.

AID

The support package will include $250 million in agricultural export credit guarantees managed by the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB)

[idealisttotheend]

The CWB exists for farmers and only for farmers. Ottawa has no other interest as far as it's foriegn policy goes. The links you've posted only prove that the Americans and Euporpeans subsidize their product more than we do and our farmers have to compete collectively or they'll fail individually.

If it was called the Canadian Wheat Corporation I think everyone would have a different view of it.

[KrustyKidd]

  The CWB exists for farmers and only for farmers. 

I don't proffess to be an expert, but there sure seems to be a lot of farmers getting screwed by the CWB. Has anything changed in the past few years? A few of these links are dated a bit (96/99) and some of them are very recent. There is lots of them, probably hundreds of articles with the same message - CWB sucks big butt.

THIS

The judge ruled against a defense motion to squash the charges against Saskatchewan farmer Dave Bryan on the grounds that the board monopoly over wheat and barley violated the property rights of farmers and usurped provincial jurisdiction.

Dave Bryan, who was charged with illegally exporting wheat to the U.S., based his challenge on the arguments that the wheat board monopoly violates his individual private property rights and is beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government.

The judge also convicted Bryan of violating the Customs Act by hauling two loads of barley across the Canada-U.S. border in 1996-97.

AND THIS

"The radio campaign opposes the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, which was imposed on western farmers as a wartime measure," explains NCC president Stephen Harper. "Our radio ads say the war ended over 50 years ago; it's long past time to scrap the monopoly and restore freedom to farmers."

The radio spots also slam Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's hypocrisy of preaching human rights in Cuba while supporting the wheat board monopoly at home.

AND THIS

Canadian Wheat Board Monopoly Continues to Work Against Alberta Farmers

September 8, 2003 EDMONTON - Alberta farmers continue to be penalized by the Canadian Wheat Board, as the Board's decision to move away from tendering and back to a formula system for allocating railcars to grain companies will reduce farmer returns.

AND THAT

The Right Honourable Jean Chretien

Prime Minister of Canada

and

All Members of Parliament:

On October 31, 2002 a number of Alberta farmers will be jailed for offenses relating to exporting

grain to the USA - some grain was not sold but donated to Montana 4H clubs.

To have growers of wheat and barley going to jail, for doing something that every other business

person in Canada takes for granted, is a huge embarrassment for us as a country. A resolution to

the issue highlighted by the jailing of farmers - the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) monopoly in

western Canada - must be found to avoid further international embarrassment and spending of

taxpayer money to deny a select group of individuals their fundamental rights

AND THIS

Jailing farmers highlights discrimination by government and the

Canadian Wheat Board

Airdrie AB., November 4, 2002; "Going to jail for doing something that every other business person in Canada

takes for granted is a crime committed by the state against its citizens" said Albert Wagner, President, Western

Barley Growers Association, when commenting on the jailing of thirteen farmers in Lethbridge, AB. for offences

related to exporting grain to the USA.

Unlike farmers in western Canada who must first buy their own grain back from the Canadian Wheat Board

(CWB) before an export license is issued, farmers in eastern Canada receive a no-cost license on demand.

" The CWB uses our money to cover the administration costs of issuing export licenses for companies selling

grain under the Export Feed Manufacture Agreement and farmers in other parts of Canada - that adds insult to

injury" said Wagner.

AND THAT

"It became a monopoly for the benefit of the government, not farmers. The myth is that the Wheat Board was a great savior, but the reality is that it is the greatest confiscation of private property in the history of Canada.

"The Minister of Agriculture has title to your grain as soon as you put it in the bin, after you've taken all the risk. If you don't think he's got title to it, try and sell it."

AND THIS AND THAT AND THIS AND THAT .....

I will give three examples of producers who are hurt by the current system of forced participation and the inability to get information from the Canadian Wheat Board system.

The first example is western Canadian farmers who have been able to contract their grain. Farmers who have found markets for it have been restricted by the Canadian Wheat Board from marketing the grain themselves. Ontario farmers have a choice when it comes to marketing grain but not western Canadians. Not only can we not get information but we have no freedom to market.

The Liberals are sending out a task force to talk to western Canadians about agriculture. Maybe they can start with this. One reason why there is alienation there is that people are treated differently in different areas of this land when it comes to marketing their products.