quote:

---

Originally posted by Adam T:
...includes left wing principles such as union organizing rights, protection for the environment, protection for social programs, and pushes aside the idea that free trade agreements are about strengthening corporate rights over governments.

---

There is actually some evidence Parliament and the Liberals are going the other way. I spoke with N.D.P International Trade Critic (and former President of the Council of Candians) Peter Julian at the Burnaby-Willingdon Provincial nomination meeting. He told me that the Parliamentary trade committee has asked for a review of Chapters 11 and, I think, 17 of the original Free Trade deal and NAFTA.

For that matter, what makes you think the Liberals would even want to introduce a proposal like the one you suggest? Manley may not be a member of the government any more, but the folks who have stayed are hardly Lula or Chavez-loving socialists. I think the majority opinion among the current Liberal leadership is much closer to Manley's "deep integration" than they are to either "fair trade" or anything else that cuts the U.S. out of the loop. If they can't pass deep integration I expect they'll do nothing.

[ 21 February 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

A free/fair trade deal with South/Central America that leaves the U.S out goes in the exact opposite direction of deeper integration with the U.S.

1.It promotes trade with countries other than the U.S

2.It creates a free trade template that is in the exact opposite direction of the corporate trade deals promoted by the United States.

[ 21 February 2005: Message edited by: Adam T ]

quote:

---

For that matter, what makes you think the Liberals would even want to introduce a proposal like the one you suggest? Manley may not be a member of the government any more, but the folks who have stayed are hardly Lula or Chavez-loving socialists. I think the majority opinion among the current Liberal leadership is much closer to Manley's "deep integration" than they are to either "fair trade" or anything else that cuts the U.S. out of the loop. If they can't pass deep integration I expect they'll do nothing.

---

Yes, that certainly seemed to be the direction taken by Minister Peterson. As I said, his only comment in regards to free trade with the Americans was in the context of trying to restart talks on the FTAA.

I don't know who voted which way on the Parliamentary committee. The Liberals are divided when it comes to relations with the United States.

I would not expect Minister Peterson to start talks with the Americas that might be considered a poke in the eye of the U.S, although I emailed him my suggestion (as bare bones as it is). This is why I'm hoping to start an end run around him by bringing it up here and discussing it with N.D.P trade critic Peter Julian.

Martin appointed Peterson and in my opinion, as long as Martin remains leader of the Liberal Party the Pro-Integration wing is also going to be ascendant. Part of the reason why I have been giving you a hard time is because, if I remember correctly, you were a fairly strong supporter of the Martin Liberals during the last federal election. Based on the opinions you are expressing here, I think your support may have been misplaced. What you are proposing seems to me to be much more in line with a Peter Julian/NDP idea than with a Martin/Liberal idea. I believe you (and all of us) are very fortunate the Martin Liberals did not win a majority.

I don't think anything you post on babble is really going to be influential enough to constitute an "end run" around the current Liberal leadership. Likewise contacting opposition MPs isn't going to do it either, although you might at least get your idea out there. On that note you might also try contacting whoever is the Bloc trade critic.

The problem is in our corporate capitalist dominated economy "free trade" exists only for the dictatorial corporate power brokers who control all of our money and use it against us. This is exactly what is happening under the sway of these so-called "free trade" agreements and like the FTA and NAFTA.

Corporate cliques and lobbies use the provisions of these treaties to blackmail and wring concessions from workers and communities, which are literally pitted against each other to see who can give up what rights and freedoms and standards to accommodate corporate interests as a condition of investment.

In addition, it's no secret that NAFTA and the FTA are set up to give the US government and American big business a tactical advantage by allowing them to take "pre-emptive" measures against Canada for whatever they think is "unfair" (like with the softwood lumber tariff).

What is needed are trade agreements that strengthen communities, democracy, labour and environmental standards and promote long-term sustainable prosperity and development. That involves taking power away from corporate bosses and bureaucracies, not entrenching it further.

Getting such better deals with other governments in the Americas (like the left-leaning ones in Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, etc.), bypassing the US, is good thing to go for.

But I doubt that's going to happen with the Liberals. They lied through their teeth in the 1993 federal election promising to gut the FTA and re-negotiate the more oppressive parts of it, and refuse to sign NAFTA until major changes were made. They did neither, and blindly signed NAFTA and have refused to do anything about it ever since. And they strongly supported the FTAA negotiations and have totally sucked up to the WTO.