Canada / U.S. relations

RobertDyck · 2006-10-13 14:03:13

A number of Americans have asked why there appears to be criticism from Canada. The war against Iraq is one reason, trade is another. Trade is a sore sticking point. But here are a couple news articles of really offensive actions that can only permanently break down relations.

US is building a wall along the Canadian-U.S. border:

1,800 towers along the border, anywhere from 24 to 60 metres high
unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, big ones such as Global Hawk and Predator
blimps, able to launch small UAVs
seismic sensors capable of detecting a tunnel being dug
infrared and motion detectors
a border fence in highly populated areas is still a consideration
machine-guns on coast guard vessels in the Great Lakes

U.S. to create 'virtual fence' for borders
Blimps over the border
U.S. puts machine-guns on Great Lakes coast guard vessels
Great Lakes machine guns raise ire in Canada
::Edit:: The last news article now requires a subscription. Here is a copy that doesn't.

Who does the US government think Canada is? We are not Mexico, we are not like Mexico, we are not a third world country. It's highly offensive to treat Canada like Mexico. If you think there’s illegal immigration from Canada, you’re dreaming. Welfare pays more than illegal unskilled labour jobs. The only reason for a Canadian to move to the US is a highly paid professional job, and that requires income tax. Filing income tax requires either a work visa or landed immigrant card (green card). That paperwork is what’s important, not building an iron curtain along what was the longest undefended border in the world. If the U.S. really wants to crack down on illegal immigration, require employers to send a photocopy of the employee's Social Security card with the income tax paperwork for every new employee. When I worked in the U.S. my Social Security card prominently stated "requires INS approval" or something like that. This is a clear indication that a work visa is required. I had a TN (Temporary Nafta) work visa. A photocopy also ensures the Social Security number is valid, not just made up to fill in boxes on a form. Arming the border is dangerous and offensive. It's only a matter of time before a gun happy guard itching to use his new big gun shoots someone.

Palomar · 2006-10-13 14:50:14

From what I understand (not claiming to be a political expert here...far from it), part of the issue is [no particular order]:

a. Canada's perceived [note I said perceived] lax immigration standards and the threat that poses us [terrorist activity/planning].
b. Thwarting terrorists actually crossing down from Canada.
c. Ditto drug smugglers/trade.

...and last but not least, if we didn't show some vigilance towards our northern border, reverse racists in the Mexican gov't would be screaming "racism" [even if Canada doesn't give us even 5% of the troubles Mexico does with its inept, corrupt, bungling "gov't"]. I live only 50 miles from the Mexican border and trust me, most people here are quick to say "and our northern border too!" so as not to be accused of racism. Even my husband, who is Latino, has to be "careful." It's ludicrous.

Palomar · 2006-10-13 15:00:43

. If you think there’s illegal immigration from Canada, you’re dreaming. Welfare pays more than illegal unskilled labour jobs. The only reason for a Canadian to move to the US is a highly paid professional job, and that requires income tax.

Wanted to address this as well: I've never heard anyone accuse Canada of giving us illegal immigration troubles. You're our very quiet neighbor to the north, tidy and self-contained. That's the general perception, imo -- and you've earned it (compliment).

In fact, Bill O'Reilly has often pointed out the similiarities of Canada's GNP, population, etc., compared to Mexico and has asked the Mexican gov't to stop and consider why it's not faring as well -- or better -- than you guys! With its nice climate, two lovely ocean coasts, oil...

So, you're not being "seen" as Mexico To The North. Rest assured.

I wish the Mexican gov't would get its act together for its people! They deserve much better than what they're getting. Imagine a strong Canada, U.S. and Mexico: All independently strong. That'd be great for everyone. Hopefully some day soon.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-13 15:20:09

Bill Clinton wanted to expand the Canada-US binational free trade agreement to include Mexico so there would be as many people in the North American free trade zone as the then-new European Union. The worry was Europe would surpass the US. Many Canadians did not want to include Mexico; the fear was Canada would be treated the same as Mexico, treating Canada as a third world nation. Free trade with Mexico would drag down Canada's economy, damaging our economy until Mexico was pulled up to America/Canada's level. The only reason the Canadian government agreed was to get a dispute resolution mechanism so the sort of problem we had with steel would never happen again. But it has; we now have the softwood lumber dispute. The US government has blatantly refused to abide by the decision of the NAFTA dispute resolution board. Now you're saying in order to be politically correct in the US you have to treat Canada the same as Mexico! Everything we feared has come to pass and the benefit hasn't happened either! I as a single citizen have to question whether NAFTA should continue at all. If the current crap cannot be corrected, then it's time for Canada to withdraw. If the US proceeds with the iron curtain, then what's the drawback?

As for terrorists from Canada; I hope you realize that's political bullshit. Canada permits immigrants who should be permitted to immigrate. US laws are racist. Racial profiling and denying immigration based on ancestry is racism. The only supposed case of a terrorist cell in Canada was a group of yahoos running around playing paintball in the woods; led by an American citizen who had been arrested by the FBI but released because he was deemed harmless, loudmouthed but harmless. This group claimed they were going to storm the Parliament building; I've been in that building, security is so strong they wouldn't get past the lobby at the front door. It has a metal detector arch, X-ray for bags like an airport, and locked doors, an armed RCMP officer has to buzz you in. News reports claim the yahoos had ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the key ingredient for the same explosive as the Oklahoma bombing. If you read the small print you'll see the RCMP themselves provided it as part of a sting operation. In the US this would be called entrapment, but there is no entrapment law in Canada. This little group was not only lead by an American, moved to Canada after the FBI arrested him, but they weren't a threat to anyone. And the RCMP were keeping an eye on them. Terrorists from Canada? Look at the Oklahoma bombing or the anthrax mailed to Congress. Terrorists are within the US, not Canada.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-13 16:06:50

So, you're not being "seen" as Mexico To The North. Rest assured.

Thank you. Could someone please pass that along to George W. Bush, Congress, or whoever has started to arm the border.

I guess we have a [expletive inserted] head of government about as bad as George W. now. Stephen Harper wants to build 3 armed heavy icebreakers for the arctic, install underwater microphones, UAVs, and some other stuff to defend Canada's sovereignty. He spoke to the Economic Club of New York on September 21, where he actually said "We will defend our sovereignty over all our territory — including over the islands, waterways and resources of the High Arctic — even if that conflicts with American claims,". Flouting something like that in the face of a bunch of CEOs is just stupid. Is this guy trying to start a war with America? All that is stuff that Ronald Regan was trying to get Canada to build, he wanted Canada to spend more money on North American defence, but why claim to a bunch of American businessmen that it's targeted at America?

If you can get your government to calm down and not spend all that money to arm the Canada-US border, I'll get our government to not arm the arctic. I know we're just citizens, but politics starts with voters.

Palomar · 2006-10-13 16:19:23

I guess we have a [expletive inserted] head of government about as bad as George W. now. Stephen Harper wants to build 3 armed heavy icebreakers for the arctic, install underwater microphones, UAVs, and some other stuff to defend Canada's sovereignty. He spoke to the Economic Club of New York on September 21, where he actually said "We will defend our sovereignty over all our territory — including over the islands, waterways and resources of the High Arctic — even if that conflicts with American claims,". Flouting something like that in the face of a bunch of CEOs is just stupid. Is this guy trying to start a war with America? All that is stuff that Ronald Regan was trying to get Canada to build, he wanted Canada to spend more money on North American defence, but why claim to a bunch of American businessmen that it's targeted at America?

:shock:

Good grief, is the entire world going nuts? I'm stunned.

Um...is there a chance he was just joking/satirical? You know -- stir the pot, get a reaction? I doubt it, but thought I'd ask.

If you can get your government to calm down and not spend all that money to arm the Canada-US border, I'll get our government to not arm the arctic. I know we're just citizens, but politics starts with voters.

Will try. Still stunned...

RobertDyck · 2006-10-13 17:00:37

:shock:
Good grief, is the entire world going nuts? I'm stunned.
Um...is there a chance he was just joking/satirical? You know -- stir the pot, get a reaction? I doubt it, but thought I'd ask.

He wasn't kidding.
Harper touts Canada's emerging role in NYC address

This is the politician who was the most radical right-wing extremist in the Reform party. When the Reform party merged with the Progressive Conservative party, the new merged party was called the Conservative Party of Canada, CPC or simply Conservative. Stephen Harper was voted leader as a concession to Reform members, to unify the new merged party. Unfortunately after 13 years of Liberal party government, voters thought it was time for a change. Stephen Harper claims to have changed his stripes; he claims to be centre of the political spectrum because only centrist parties get elected. But you know about tigers and their strips, this guy is a closet red-neck.

Yea, sure, Canada has a 200 mile limit off its coast; the limit hasn't been 12 miles for decades. Canada's claim that the border is straight from the Alaska-Yukon border to the north pole was made in 1927. The US accepted and acknowledged it, along with the rest of the world, but when nuclear submarines were invented the navy wanted to play footsy with Soviet submarines without asking Canada's permission. It was simply convenience for the navy. America is our ally so Canada didn't have a problem with navy submarines there, so chose not to push it. We just built up our coast guard, sent science expeditions, and supported Inuit economic development. The Inuit used to be called Eskimo; they don't like the name Eskimo. Fine, so the issue was convenience for the US navy, that's all. Not something to argue over. Now that the arctic is melting, some people want to send oil tankers from Alaska to the American east coast. Fine, but recognise it's Canada's territory and respect Canadian laws, things like don't dump garbage or waste engine oil in sensitive arctic waters. Stephen Harper just had to be rude and crude. Stuff he wrote when he worked for the National Citizen's Coalition was much worse. If Canadian voters actual read it they would never vote for him. His diplomacy skills remind me of a bull in a china shop.

noosfractal · 2006-10-13 17:06:05

Um...is there a chance he was just joking/satirical?

Actually, because of global warming, the territory may be worth quite a bit of money.

The sea route over the top of Canada ("the Northwest Passage") from Asia to Europe is 3-4 thousand miles shorter than the route via the Suez or Panama Canals. Some climate models have that route open longer and longer each year until it is open year-round.

The same predicted retreat of the ice makes it easier (i.e., more profitable) to extract any oil in those regions.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-14 20:09:36

Some are resentful to those that act diferently, have a different language ect....
Some of the resentment is due to the illegal entry issue, while other parts are due to the non assimulation into american culture by those that do come to the US and for not giving up what they have known as there way of life.

I myself do not want to be lumped into the crowd that cause this thread to be initiated.
I hope you will stay and try as best you can to ignore those that act that way.

Commodore · 2006-10-14 20:19:47

Preventing unauthorized entry, for whatever reason is the right of every soveriegn nation, and is nothing to be offended by.

Quite frankly so much of Canada and her coasts are remote enough that anyone could enter the country, and then enter the US without anyone knowing about it.

Stormrage · 2006-10-14 21:29:50

Weird to do that to the Canadian border when the mexican border is like a leaking bucket. I normally make it my business to never agree with rednecks. But i agree with the people in the southern border stopping illegal immigrants. It would be racist? Screw that. Has an immigrant from a war torn country. I can tell you personally how much effort it takes to move and survive in a war zone. Also how many hours my mum spent praying hoping that we get to live in Europe. Then you get people who live in realatively safe country who sneak in looking for jobs. Kind of makes me sick knowing that some people who really do need asylum get over turned because they did the legal way.

If he isn't willing to act on the mexican border. I doubt he would do so in the Canadian border. There is probably some other reason. No one would be stupid enough to waste money fortifying the border of an allied country when illegal immigration is rampent down south.

John Creighton · 2006-10-15 14:11:32

You know though if they do build a fence maybe they can help keep illegal US guns out of Canada.

DonPanic · 2006-10-15 15:07:30

LO

The sea route over the top of Canada ("the Northwest Passage") from Asia to Europe is 3-4 thousand miles shorter than the route via the Suez or Panama Canals. Some climate models have that route open longer and longer each year until it is open year-round.

You know though if they do build a fence maybe they can help keep illegal US guns out of Canada.

If so, Groenland-Danemark will be your close neighbour, you'll have to sea patrol to intercept those african boat people coming from Europe

John Creighton · 2006-10-15 16:48:31

LO
The sea route over the top of Canada ("the Northwest Passage") from Asia to Europe is 3-4 thousand miles shorter than the route via the Suez or Panama Canals. Some climate models have that route open longer and longer each year until it is open year-round.
You know though if they do build a fence maybe they can help keep illegal US guns out of Canada.
If so, Groenland-Danemark will be your close neighbour, you'll have to sea patrol to intercept those african boat people coming from Europe

I'm not sure what you are saying or who you are talking to.

John Creighton · 2006-10-15 16:49:50

One funny thing about building a fence along the Canadian border is they can’t find it. A lot of the border is covered with trees.

DonPanic · 2006-10-16 01:04:47

I'm not sure what you are saying or who you are talking to.

Groenland is danish, then it's Europe quite near Canada.

Grypd · 2006-10-16 15:24:21

Greenland is a Danish protectorate and it has to be noted becoming more independent each year. It also used to have a large US base there, but this is due to close soon.

It is also gaining from the reducing ice and also has a claim on the potential North West passage.

Still annoying a neighbour especially a smaller and one that has been a close friend even to the point of Joint military units. (NORAAD) is not a good idea. Both sides have a lot to lose especially when trade is involved and a barrier will be an impediement to trade. A lot of people will lose there jobs over this as Canada is being forced into putting trade barriers into place. Since the US will not remove there's as treaty insisted.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-18 12:58:04

A number of Americans have asked why there appears to be criticism from Canada. The war against Iraq is one reason, trade is another. Trade is a sore sticking point. But here are a couple news articles of really offensive actions that can only permanently break down relations.
US is building a wall along the Canadian-U.S. border:
1,800 towers along the border, anywhere from 24 to 60 metres high
unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, big ones such as Global Hawk and Predator
blimps, able to launch small UAVs
seismic sensors capable of detecting a tunnel being dug
infrared and motion detectors
a border fence in highly populated areas is still a consideration
machine-guns on coast guard vessels in the Great Lakes
U.S. to create 'virtual fence' for borders
Blimps over the border
U.S. puts machine-guns on Great Lakes coast guard vessels
Great Lakes machine guns raise ire in Canada
::Edit:: The last news article now requires a subscription. Here is a copy that doesn't.
Who does the US government think Canada is? We are not Mexico, we are not like Mexico, we are not a third world country. It's highly offensive to treat Canada like Mexico. If you think there’s illegal immigration from Canada, you’re dreaming. Welfare pays more than illegal unskilled labour jobs. The only reason for a Canadian to move to the US is a highly paid professional job, and that requires income tax. Filing income tax requires either a work visa or landed immigrant card (green card). That paperwork is what’s important, not building an iron curtain along what was the longest undefended border in the world. If the U.S. really wants to crack down on illegal immigration, require employers to send a photocopy of the employee's Social Security card with the income tax paperwork for every new employee. When I worked in the U.S. my Social Security card prominently stated "requires INS approval" or something like that. This is a clear indication that a work visa is required. I had a TN (Temporary Nafta) work visa. A photocopy also ensures the Social Security number is valid, not just made up to fill in boxes on a form. Arming the border is dangerous and offensive. It's only a matter of time before a gun happy guard itching to use his new big gun shoots someone.

We tried to erase the border with Canada before, buy you guys did not like it.
One reason we guard the borders, is the possibility that you may let people into your country that we wouldn't, and from there, they may want to travel to our country.

Canadian Custom Inspector: "Oh so your the Anti-American Taliban are you? Well just so long as you don't hurt any Canadians, your perfectly welcome."

That is the fear of most American customs inspectors anyway. If we are to erase the border, we would have to ensure that no one comes into Canada that we wouldn't want in the USA.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-18 21:38:47

We tried to erase the border with Canada before, buy you guys did not like it.
One reason we guard the borders, is the possibility that you may let people into your country that we wouldn't, and from there, they may want to travel to our country.
Canadian Custom Inspector: "Oh so your the Anti-American Taliban are you? Well just so long as you don't hurt any Canadians, your perfectly welcome."
That is the fear of most American customs inspectors anyway. If we are to erase the border, we would have to ensure that no one comes into Canada that we wouldn't want in the USA.

In 1812 the US attempted to invade, conquer, and annex Canada the same way the Iraq attempted to invade Kuwait in 1990. Are you advocating the US invade it's ally, behave as a third world country?

Canada screens immigrants, but we do so according to criminal record, not racism. Canada would permit an immigrant from Germany who has dark skin and grandparents immigrated to Germany from Afghanistan at the time that country was ruled by a modern, secular, democratic government. The US would label anyone who looks Afghan as a terrorist. Your comment is an example: al Qaeda attacked the US, the Taliban restricts their activity to within Afghanistan, they haven't attacked anyone outside their own country and never will. The failure to recognize the difference between these two organizations is one reason the US is in the mess is has now.

You know, you can learn a lot about the meaning of freedom and democracy by reading the US Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, and writings of people like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. I recommend you do so.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-19 13:17:46

We tried to erase the border with Canada before, buy you guys did not like it.
One reason we guard the borders, is the possibility that you may let people into your country that we wouldn't, and from there, they may want to travel to our country.
Canadian Custom Inspector: "Oh so your the Anti-American Taliban are you? Well just so long as you don't hurt any Canadians, your perfectly welcome."
That is the fear of most American customs inspectors anyway. If we are to erase the border, we would have to ensure that no one comes into Canada that we wouldn't want in the USA.
In 1812 the US attempted to invade, conquer, and annex Canada the same way the Iraq attempted to invade Kuwait in 1990. Are you advocating the US invade it's ally, behave as a third world country?

Were I to advocate such a thing, I would say so explicitly. As it was, I was just being politically incorrect to remind you that the United States once tried, no twice tried to erase the border between the US and Canada. Since you Canadians fought so hard to keep that border, I wonder why you should suddenly complain if that same border is used by us as a screen to control what and who comes into our country, as teh French say, "You cannot have your cake and eat it too." If you really want to eliminate that border, then Canada should join the United States, and their will be no trade barriers and people can come and go as they please.

Canada screens immigrants, but we do so according to criminal record, not racism. Canada would permit an immigrant from Germany who has dark skin and grandparents immigrated to Germany from Afghanistan at the time that country was ruled by a modern, secular, democratic government. The US would label anyone who looks Afghan as a terrorist. Your comment is an example: al Qaeda attacked the US, the Taliban restricts their activity to within Afghanistan, they haven't attacked anyone outside their own country and never will. The failure to recognize the difference between these two organizations is one reason the US is in the mess is has now.

People who think ill of Americans as you apparently do when you imply that American Immigration is racist, might be inclined to give a pass on a suspected terrorists who clearly only intends to harm Americans and not Canadians, so long as that possibility exists, we should therefore guard our border with Canada. If you can think of a way to prevent terrorists from getting into our country without guarding the border with Canada, I'm welcome to any suggestions you may have. Your attitude about my country troubles me, because I can easily imagine Canadian customs inspectors also having that attitude, they might let in some terrorists who migrate to the USA, and that might result in some Americans being killed. Do you understand my problem?

You know, you can learn a lot about the meaning of freedom and democracy by reading the US Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, and writings of people like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. I recommend you do so.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-19 17:21:05

Canada should join the United States, and their will be no trade barriers and people can come and go as they please.

Perhaps the United States should join Canada. That would make more sense. Canada has federal finances under control, greater literacy, lower crime involving guns, few people in jail as a percentage of the population.

Canada was invaded by the US twice, once in 1775 and again in 1812. We got over our differences; Canada and the US have been the best of friends for almost two centuries. Why spoil it now? We are a brother, an equal, we won't be treated as a territory or vassal of the US. There are large corporations in the US who try to destroy everything that's different from the US, and government trade negotiators always try to achieve an advantage. That breeds ill will; if you don't like the attitude, you have only your own government representatives to blame.

There are many people in Canada who don't like the fact that American companies are buying up Canadian companies, or driving them out of business. When Canadian grain farmers sell more wheat to US pasta manufacturers, North Dakota farmers and their politicians cry, trying to make it appear unfair. When Canadian softwood lumber producers sell more lumber, higher quality lumber and at lower prices, the American logging industry cries. Actually Canada has more land area that the US but 1/10th the population, that should tell you we have much more trees. Supply and demand, our lumber should be cheaper. When a single Canadian steel company invested in a new furnace in 1992 while every other steel company in Canada or the US used furnaces built at the beginning of World War 2, American steel companies cried. But you don't realize how many Canadian businesses have been taken over or driven out. Drive down a Canadian street and all you see are American franchises. It's very difficult to find a single Canadian business. Even "The Bay" had been bought by an American, a retail department store formerly known as "The Hudson's Bay Company" and a key part if building Canada, incorporated May 2, 1670.

You realize if America wants to continue establishing trade barriers and fortifying the border, Canada may very well re-institute the Foreign Investment Review Agency.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-20 10:02:57

Canada should join the United States, and their will be no trade barriers and people can come and go as they please.
Perhaps the United States should join Canada. That would make more sense. Canada has federal finances under control, greater literacy, lower crime involving guns, few people in jail as a percentage of the population.
Canada was invaded by the US twice, once in 1775 and again in 1812. We got over our differences; Canada and the US have been the best of friends for almost two centuries. Why spoil it now?

I haven't suggested that we should, I just cited it as a historical example.

We are a brother, an equal, we won't be treated as a territory or vassal of the US.

Who suggested you were. We respect your borders, and you should in turn respect ours.

There are large corporations in the US who try to destroy everything that's different from the US, and government trade negotiators always try to achieve an advantage.

The US government trade negotiators represent the US government, they do not represent Canada, which has its own negotiators. In a negotiation, each side seeks maximum advantage for its side, and the process of negotition, each side tries to get what it wants, and their are some things each side doesn't want as badly and so it is willing to give those things up in exchange for what it really wants. Canadians don't have an automatic right to travel across international borders or to ship goods across them, and neither do US citizens, that is something to be negotiated between our trade representatives. In such a negotiation, neither side always gets everything it wants, and their will be some controls at the border whenever we feel there are concerns like that of security that aren't being met. If we had a unified customs authority operated jointly by both countries, and a free trade agreement, then it should be possible to have free unfettered movement of both people and goods across the US/Canadian border, but that has not been negotiated yet.

That breeds ill will; if you don't like the attitude, you have only your own government representatives to blame.
There are many people in Canada who don't like the fact that American companies are buying up Canadian companies, or driving them out of business.

How about if a black man buys a Canadian company, and drives white businesses in the area out of business? No doubt some Canadians will get riled about that, although it would be politically incorrect for them to say so. If you have free unfettered access between both markets, then your going to have plenty of situations where Americans buy Canadian firms and drive Canadian owned compidators out of business, that is the price you pay for free trade, as the French say, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Favorable outcomes aren't awlays guaranteed by free markets. If you want a free trade agreement and a customs union between the US and Canada, then some people will always suffer from the greater competition, but the consumer as a whole will benefit.

When Canadian grain farmers sell more wheat to US pasta manufacturers, North Dakota farmers and their politicians cry, trying to make it appear unfair. When Canadian softwood lumber producers sell more lumber, higher quality lumber and at lower prices, the American logging industry cries.

Well, yes, we don't have complete freedom of trade and a customs union and of course American logging firms and the people who work for them are going to complain to their representatives, and since they vote, those representatives have to pay some attention to them, and not to Canadians who don't vote in US elections. The only real way to change this is if Canada becomes a part of the United States. Otherwise we can have a customs union and a free trade agreement, but congressmen and senators are still going to pay more attention to their own constituents than they are to Canadian citizens, that is the price you pay for being a seperate country.

Actually Canada has more land area that the US but 1/10th the population, that should tell you we have much more trees. Supply and demand, our lumber should be cheaper. When a single Canadian steel company invested in a new furnace in 1992 while every other steel company in Canada or the US used furnaces built at the beginning of World War 2, American steel companies cried. But you don't realize how many Canadian businesses have been taken over or driven out. Drive down a Canadian street and all you see are American franchises. It's very difficult to find a single Canadian business. Even "The Bay" had been bought by an American, a retail department store formerly known as "The Hudson's Bay Company" and a key part if building Canada, incorporated May 2, 1670.
You realize if America wants to continue establishing trade barriers and fortifying the border, Canada may very well re-institute the Foreign Investment Review Agency.

Free trade produces both winners and losers, in order for free trade to work most effectively, both sides have to become less sensitive to who owns what.

American owned companies won't be have any different from Canadian owned companies, they both will try to maximise their profits and cut costs. American owned firms aren't trying to operate an employment program for American citizens, they don't care whether their employees are Americans or Canadians and they don't favor one over the other either, to do so would be to reduce their efficiency and thus their bottom lines. The ownership of a firm matters little to a candian who buy groceries at a supermarket, it doesn't matter who owns the firm, whether he's American, Canadian, Black or white, the only thing that matters is whether the store has got what he wants to buy and whether the prices are low or high. Does it really matter to you about whether the rich guys who own the store that you shop at is an American or a Canadian, its not like a Canadian billionare is more likely to walk by and stuff $10,000 into your shirt pocket for no reason, than an American billionare would. A billionare is a billionare, and what country he holds citizenship in really doesn't change his behavior, his basic impulse is to make as much money as he can, if he can do so more effectively by hiring Canadian citizens, then he will, he does not do so out of a sense of patriotism, but he can get away with paying the Canadian workers less. Why do you think so many movies are made in Canada? Remember the Fantastic Four, even though that movie was set it New York City, it was actually filmed in Vancouver, they even built a set there that replicated the Brooklyn Bridge, instead of filming at the real Brooklyn Bridge in New York City. These decisions were all about economics and had nothing to do with patriotism. You should know by now that it doesn't matter who owns what company, whether they are US Citizens of Canadians.

By the way, I wonder how you feel about the use of the term Americans, technically Canada is Part of North America, but Americans generally refers to US Citizens, and Canadians have never insisted on being called Americans.

C M Edwards · 2006-10-20 14:28:16

Canadians have never insisted on being called Americans.

I always figured that was because they had something to call themselves...

I have to agree that companies don't care what the nationalities are, but they often consider a nation's import/export laws to be a pain in the neck. I've recently signed on with an Italian owned company having operations in both the US and Canada. I find working with coworkers that I can only deal with through a paperwork "border" is often schizophrenically assinine in practice. But then, sovereignty must be respected. Ultimately, many trade laws have nothing to do with business.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-21 08:39:53

I'm all for free trade, and the free movement of people across the US/Canada border, but I also want our security concerns addressed, and I don't want my country giving away stuff for free. If we are going to have free movement of goods and people across the US/Canada border, then we need something called a Customs Union between our two countries, we need a binational customs, naturalization and immigration service to make sure that the people we don't want in the US don't get into Canada either and that the Canadians don't want in their country don't get into the US. We are both immigrant nations, and I think we can agree on the types of immigrants that we want and on those that we don't want, but its a kind of dual key process. If one country lets a person in, but the other country doesn't want him, then that person can't get into both countries. Also beefed up border patrols along the Mexican border and along borders we don't share with Canada would also be required. That means a US/Canadian border patrol along the Mexican border, and a US/Canadian Coast Guard patroling the waters off of both the US and Canada. When these things are accomplished, then I think we can let people cross the US/Canada border willy nilly.

But its a two way street, you can't accuse the US because trade isn't as free as you would like, you must undestand the motivations of why each country wants to protect its economy and its citizens and deal with them, the above is an attempt to do just that. There is really no reason why we can't comer and go as they please.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-21 11:07:21

Free access across the Canada/US border has already been negotiated. It was agreed to many decades ago, removing it is reneging upon an existing agreement. There were three main reasons for this: to be good neighbours establishing good will, to avoid conflicts at the border, and because it cost so damn much money to arm the border. Our border from the Great Lakes to the Pacific is thousands of miles long, it's way too expensive to arm that. Proceeding with arming the border means the US has violated yet another treaty. The US has earned a reputation for doing that.

How about if a black man buys a Canadian company, and drives white businesses in the area out of business?

Canadians would have no problem with that. We don't have any prejudice toward black people. I live in Winnipeg, a city that has been and multi-cultural from its founding, the longest cosmopolitan city in Canada's history. Yet I did hear prejudice expressed toward Sikh immigrants coming from Pakistan. The primary complaint was they wanted to continue their conflict with Hindus. Canadians feel strongly that if you move to Canada you have to leave your conflicts behind; you can keep your ethnic clothes, food, music, dance, but you're expected to assimilate into Canada's view towards tolerance of other cultures and peaceful settlement of disagreements. Furthermore, there is great resentment toward immigrants to immediately go on welfare; the view is immigrants must work to earn their own living. So if an immigrant buys a business and runs it successfully, fine that's what they're supposed to do.

By the way, the founding cultures were English, French, Scottish, Ukrainian, German, Mennonite, Icelandic, Chinese, Métis, and Native. That's in no particular order; actually the local newspaper did a survey in the 1980s and found the largest single ethnic group was Ukrainian, not English or French. There are so many people of Native descent in Winnipeg that if it were a reservation it would be the largest (most populous) reservation in the Country; yet they're just people working for a living like everyone else. Métis are half Native/half French, but their culture became unique hundreds of years ago. Métis consider themselves a "first nations people" meaning native, but the native people don't. Métis were a key player in founding this province, Louis Riel is recognized as the founder of the province and he was Métis.

Let me give another colourful example. If an immigrant girl from Afghanistan wants to wear a Burke and stands next to an immigrant from Spain wearing nothing but a mini-skirt and bra, each girl has to accept the other without complaint. Yes we do have Sikh and Hindu immigrants, Palestinian and Israeli, Protestant Northern Irish and Catholic Mainland Irish, all living side-by-side. They're expected to accept each other and coexist peacefully or get out.

So realize prejudice in Canada works differently than in the US. In Canada immigrants are expected to assimilate Canada's core values, but not assimilate surface things like clothing. Most importantly, if you want to buy a Canadian business then move your ass to Canada. Business owned by immigrates are fine, but we have really hate foreign owned business.

In a negotiation, each side seeks maximum advantage for its side, and the process of negotition, each side tries to get what it wants, and their are some things each side doesn't want as badly and so it is willing to give those things up in exchange for what it really wants.

With an ally you're supposed to work together as a team for the common good. An ally is not an opponent. If you can't understand cooperation, then you're an animal and should be treated as such. Perhaps the next trade negotiation should be held in Canada, and if American negotiators attempt to push their advantage then we'll house them in a kennel instead of a hotel room.

The bi-national free trade agreement had some things Canada really didn't want. America first asked Canada for a free trade agreement after the Foreign Investment Review Agency and National Energy Policy were established, many American CEOs really hated FIRA, and American politicians hated the National Energy Policy. But when a Canadian government was willing to negotiate, they acted like they didn't want it and tried to put Canada on the spot. Canada did not want to guarantee access to any Canadian resource, our stuff is our stuff, but American wanted access to Canadian oil. The free trade agreement gave American unrestricted access to buy Canadian oil, but America could not restrict importation of any Canadian goods. But when one single steel company built a new furnace in 1992 that enabled them to make steel that was higher quality than another other American or Canadian steel company, and sell it at a lower price but still with enough profit to make their bank loan payments and pay dividends to their share holders, American steel companies screamed. The bi-national trade dispute board looked at it and said it was fair business. But a Virginia state court ordered the Canadian company to increase their prices to the point they weren't competitive any more. Where does a state court get off overruling an international court, where does a lower court get off overruling a higher court? That's why Canada insisted on writing into NAFTA that the NAFTA dispute resolution board is a court, and its decision must be obeyed. An appeals system was built in as well; the highest appeals court has heard the case for softwood lumber and made their decision. The decision was not entirely in Canada's favour, mostly but not entirely. The decision is that American cannot limit the quantity of lumber exported into the US, cannot set a minimum price, must immediately revoke all duties, and must repay 100% of every single penny of duty collected to date. The American government has still refused to comply. Canada has engaged in multiple court cases over this, the American government now promises to pay 80% but won't do so or remove the duty until after Canada cancels its litigation. The American government then told Canada's ambassador to Washington D.C. that American won't repay even one cent of the duty. Prime Minister Stephen Harper then got on the phone and got the American government to promise to pay the 80% they committed to, but they would only pay after all litigation is cancelled. You know how this works; once all litigation is cancelled they'll refuse to pay anything. They already told Canada's ambassador they intend to do that. Unfortunately Stephen Harper is believing liars. Most recently the US announced they gave 5% of what they owe Canada to charity. That's another statement of intent to not pay Canada. This is not how you treat an ally. If you want good relations with Canada then obey the treaty your country signed.

As for an American billionaire owning a Canadian business: where do you think the profits go? We don't want our wealth sucked out of this country to subsidize another.

I didn't want Canada to enter into a free trade agreement with Mexico because it has a third world economy, but now that they are part of NAFTA why are you attempting to establish trade and immigration barriers with them?

If you want Canada's coast guard patrolling Canadian waters, we already do that. Here is a list of Canadian Coast Guard vessels.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-10-13 14:03:13

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#2 2006-10-13 14:50:14

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#3 2006-10-13 15:00:43

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#4 2006-10-13 15:20:09

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#5 2006-10-13 16:06:50

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#6 2006-10-13 16:19:23

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#7 2006-10-13 17:00:37

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#8 2006-10-13 17:06:05

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#9 2006-10-14 20:09:36

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#10 2006-10-14 20:19:47

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#11 2006-10-14 21:29:50

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#12 2006-10-15 14:11:32

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#13 2006-10-15 15:07:30

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#14 2006-10-15 16:48:31

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#15 2006-10-15 16:49:50

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#16 2006-10-16 01:04:47

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#17 2006-10-16 15:24:21

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#18 2006-10-18 12:58:04

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#19 2006-10-18 21:38:47

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#20 2006-10-19 13:17:46

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#21 2006-10-19 17:21:05

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#22 2006-10-20 10:02:57

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#23 2006-10-20 14:28:16

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#24 2006-10-21 08:39:53

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#25 2006-10-21 11:07:21

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

Board footer