Free at last! Canada without NAFTA

John A. Macdonald called free trade with the US “veiled treason.” A century later, Pierre Elliott Trudeau called the FTA a “monstrous swindle.”

by David Orchard

David Orchard
David Orchard

Donald Trump has said he intends to renegotiate or cancel the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This would be good news if we take the opportunity to get out of the NAFTA straitjacket and begin using Canadian resources for the benefit of Canadians. Under the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) – chapters 4 and 9 and NAFTA chapter 6 – Canada gave the US the right to take the same proportion of any good, including all forms of energy, that it was taking over the previous three years, even if Canada itself goes short. The US is now taking about 60% of our oil production and with the prospect of large new pipelines to the US, which cripples the idea of an east-west pan-Canadian line because we have a finite supply of oil, that percentage will rise. Under (NA)FTA, the US has the right to continue taking this 60%, and more, of our total supply, in perpetuity. Further, Canada has agreed to never charge the US more for any good, including all forms of energy, than it charges Canadians.

Meanwhile, in addition to charging some of the world’s lowest royalty rates, we are selling our oil to the US at far less than the world price – a subsidy from Canada to the US of roughly $30 billion per year – while Canada pays some $10 billion a year to import foreign oil, mostly from Saudi Arabia and the US, into eastern Canada at world price. Does that make sense?

No self-respecting country would, as Canada did under Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien, sign away its resources, its sovereignty and its future in this way and most Canadians are still unaware our country has done so. (Mexico refused to sign these energy sections in NAFTA and exempted itself from their terms.)

Eighty percent of the world’s oil resources are held by state-controlled oil companies. Yet, in the 1990s, Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments privatized and sold our national oil company, Petro-Canada, which in a few years had grown to become one of Canada’s largest companies. Norway, which has less oil than Canada, voted to stay out of the EU and today has a trillion dollar (and growing) surplus. It has used its oil and its national oil company, Statoil, to make Norwegians the richest people on Earth with free childcare, free dental care for everyone under18, free university education and generous old age pensions. There is zero government debt and homelessness is virtually non-existent.

By contrast, Canada, a far richer country than Norway, has massive provincial and federal debt, totalling some $1.2 trillion, after decades of pouring increasing amounts of oil, gas and other resources across the border. The provinces are desperately offering to sell off profitable crown corporations to pay their bills, while also implementing huge budget cuts. Canada has miserly old age pensions, high university tuition and no national free pharmacare, childcare or dental care.

If we continue in this way, the resources will be gone. Norway will hand its savings to its grandchildren, but what will we say to our generations to come?

Algeria used its oil to build Sonatrach into the largest company in Africa. Mexico’s publicly owned national oil company, Pemex, is Latin America’s second largest company, producing 40% of Mexico’s federal government revenue. Italy’s state controlled oil and gas giant, ENI, brings in $150 billion a year. Brazil’s publicly controlled Petrobras has grown into a world leader of advanced technology, the southern hemisphere’s largest company; its power kept Brazil’s stock market steady during the 2008 whiplash. Libya, until it was subjected to a horrific US-led NATO attack in 2013, in which Canada played a significant role, used its oil revenue to move its citizens from the poorest in the world in 1960 to the highest standard of living in Africa.

NAFTA’s Chapter 11 contains a dispute settlement provision allowing US and Mexican corporations to sue Canada for any law or regulation, which they think causes them “loss or damage” and which they feel breaches the spirit of NAFTA.

These disputes are not heard by Canadian judges in Canadian courts, but by special tribunals operating behind closed doors, using not Canadian law, but NAFTA rules. There is no right of appeal. Since 1994, Canada has been sued 35 times by US corporations under NAFTA, reversed several of its laws, paid out $200 million in NAFTA fines and faces claims of $6 billion more. The US has not lost a single case.

(NA)FTA gave US corporations sweeping rights to buy up most of the Canadian economy. Called “national treatment,” it prohibits Canada from restricting or screening new US investment in Canada and grants American investors, citizens and corporations the right to be treated as if they were Canadian citizens. With a low dollar and low interest rates, the wholesale take-over of Canadian companies is proceeding in a torrent. Our standard of living and real wages have declined, jobs and factories have disappeared and almost a million Canadians now use food banks.

Freed from (NA)FTA, Canada could go on to use its natural resources to create Canadian owned and controlled industries, with all the benefits and security that could mean for Canadians. Instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign machinery, electronics, ships, aircraft and jet fighters, we could build our own. We once created the world’s most advanced jet fighter, the Avro Arrow, so we know it can be done. Canada is a huge market for foreign automobiles. Countries from Korea to Italy and Sweden, far smaller than Canada, with a fraction of our resources, have built their own auto industries. So could we.

Our founding fathers would be outraged at the giveaway of our raw resources and the casual sale of our railways and iconic corporations: from Hudson’s Bay to Stelco, the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board, built by western farmers and given away for a song, and Nortel, Canada’s giant, high tech powerhouse, allowed to go down, its parts picked up by Google and its other foreign competitors.

For 150 years, great Canadian leaders have warned that, without an economic border, Canada would not long have a political border with the US. John A. Macdonald called free trade with the US “veiled treason.” A century later, Pierre Elliott Trudeau called the FTA a “monstrous swindle.”

Both John A. Macdonald and Georges-Étienne Cartier were determined to build Canada into “a northern power,” a competitor to the US, not a resource colony. We can see their vision in the magnificent Parliament buildings they left us, the world class railways they built to bind the country together and one of the world’s longest lasting and most admired constitutions.

The idea that Canada would sign away its precious non-renewable resources to another country, our greatest competitor, and that it would allow itself, at the whim of foreign corporations, to be sued for following its own goals, would have been unthinkable to our founders. Let’s take this chance to get out of these destructive agreements, the FTA and NAFTA, stand on our own two feet and make Canada an independent power on the world stage.

David Orchard is a farmer and the author of The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism. davidorchard.com davidorchard@sasktel.net

45 thoughts on “Free at last! Canada without NAFTA

  1. Many of us had hoped that Justin would have some Canadian values inherited from his dad, his failure to uphold the promises in his election campaign have been another stab in the back. NAFTA and globalization in general have destroyed much of our national manufacturing base and it will be a long road to restore and create the future that is possible. If we used Canadian energy for Canadian manufacturing we would be a world leader in creating economic prosperity.

  2. Just as R.K. Henderson above, I too was a delegate for David at that leadership convention. I can honestly echo the exact words that Mr. Henderson stated. He is right on. Peter McKay is a man who could never be trusted in my eyes. Thanks for keeping up with your views David, they are much appreciated.

  3. I was a delegate for David at the PC convention in 2003. That was a rumble. Reading this again I’m reminded why we Orchardistas were so passionate about our candidate. The opposition called us “fanatics”. In reality we were Canadians who knew what they wanted, and only one man was selling it.

    I was also among the 2/3 of David’s delegates who voted for Peter MacKay when David asked us to. He told us we had to play by establishment rules if we wanted to be taken seriously. It made sense, and we trusted his vision, and so I did it.

    Voting for Peter MacKay was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. I was literally nauseous. He was the last contender I’d’ve voted for in an open contest. (The other two at that point were Scott Brison — a man I respected — and Jim Prentice — a man I at least didn’t loathe.)

    As everyone knows, Sneaky Pete immediately reneg’ed on both of the reasonable concessions David asked for. Dude’s a gangster, that’s all. And if the ensuing years have proven anything, it’s that Canada with NAFTA as its constitution has no future.

    David’s pitch hasn’t changed in the twenty years I’ve followed him. He has no need to update it; the disaster is ongoing.

    We gotta get out of this God-awful entanglement with the Yanks. Yeah, many Canadians now owe their jobs to it. But that was a mistake, and a dead-end for our country. We traded all of our potential for a handful of change dangled in front of us.

    It was a ridiculously bad, profoundly irresponsible business deal, and we have to terminate it. It’s been thirty years now; that’s damage enough to prove good faith. Now we have to do the responsible thing.

  4. That remains to be seen. CETA is worse so don’t celebrate yet. And our new clueless minister for Trade (or whatever) Chrystia Freeland whose claim to fame is being a corporate scribe and our corporate mouthpiece- in-chief Trudeau think of course it is wonderful.

  5. The independent-party idea to deal with “Canada-first” has been desperately tried and has so-far failed. Paul Hellyer (formerly Deputy Prime Minister) had his Canadian Action Party, a start-up that had much of the shining Orchard ideals, and when it struggled for traction, he tried to amalgamate with the NDP for some extra heft. I was present at that secret little meeting, and witnessed the cold-shoulder.

    Nationally-famous publisher Mel Hurtig initiated his National Party of Canada, and in the election of 1993 fielded candidates right across Canada, doing better than Preston Manning’s western-based party in Manning’s first year—and then the westerners went on (with some out-in-the-open lying and back-stabbing of Orchard by Peter Mackay)—subsuming the Progressive Conservatives of Canada on their way to Ottawa. The National Party then fell apart in post-election disarray because of internal mismanagement. Mel Hurtig had stepped aside.

    David Orchard’s opinion at the time, as I recall, was that start-ups were next-to-impossible to succeed: better to take better ideas to long-established parties that people were used to voting for. Of course, better ideas for the good of the country would be adopted. But only if promoted by the leader… Who knew about Peter MacKay and friends?

  6. Thank you David for once again speaking with the voice of reason. Abrogating all these ‘free trade’ agreements is a first step to regaining our autonomy. The second of course is restoring control over our monetary policy and money creation. COMER is currently fighting our government, on our behalf, to bring back the Bank of Canada from its corporate-inflicted dormancy as our primary money creator.
    I was at the PC leadership convention with you when Peter McKay et al taught us a painful and valuable lesson.
    Your voice is needed now more than ever.

  7. Thank you David for waving our flag so clearly again!

    The question then begs:

    …. how would you suggest the BIG money dominated Canadian narrative that perpetuates this status quo be changed to look more like the Norwegian model, given the very deep pockets currently in charge?

  8. David,
    Thank You for this excellent essay.
    I hope you’re able to advance your ideas for the ultimate benefit of all Canadians.

  9. Robert Gullins

    Canada’s history is riddled with mistakes our elected leaders have made yet most are not aware of what has happened. Political parasites have given away our resources from ‘sea to shining sea to shining sea.’ There is considerable talent in this country to continue to be one of the best places to live on the planet yet we are continually forced into a position to ‘defeat governments rather than elect governments.” Trudeau is a perfect example.

    John Diefenbaker, (scrapping the Avro Arrow) Brian Mulroney (free trade deal) to Steven Harper and his secret deals, all have contributed to a lesser Canada than we should have.

    Bottom line is the Free Trade Deal was heavily opposed by informed Canadians, accepted by passive Canadians and endorsed by international corporations. It was never a good deal for Canadians and it may be the one action Trump does right! Again we are relying on a foreign government to make the right decision while our adolescent Prime Minister endorses the deal because it is easier to give away our natural resources than to bring back manufacturing to Canada.

    God help Canada

  10. If only the Canadians had the common sense to vote for a profoundly intelligent and honest man like David Orchard. The challenge is that the Globalists invest heavily to dumb down and weaken Canadians. They control the mainstream media and also fund hundreds of grass root organizations that sound benevolent but are designed to subtlety brainwash Canadians to accept the Globalist agenda, which is a New World Order, translated as World dictatorship. To their credit, young Canadians care, are are very idealistic, but they are easy fodder to the Globalist propaganda machine.
    If you can understand the issues and can talk simply so a child can understand, you have great power for good.

  11. Canada, through it’s leaders, is willing to be portrayed as “nice”, but, as that characteristic is commonly considered, the desire to be considered as being nice coincides with being foolish and easy prey. Our governments are giving the store away with the goods. We have lost control of our plentiful natural resources with hardly a whimper. What a foolish and illogical absurdity!

    The U.S. refers to itself as uniquely, America, and the world accepts that, including Canadians. Why? The word “America” collectively refers to both the North and South continents. America is not a country as the United States would have the world believe. Canadians also live on an American continent and as such could be referred to as Americans in the same manner as all citizens of independent European countries are referred to as Europeans.
    Canada is also an independent country. Why are our politicians cowering to the interests of the U.S. at the expense of our own? David Orchard is absolutely correct. The North American Free Trade Agreement must be abrogated. If President Trump wants to renegotiate then Canada must take this opportunity to either abolish or change unfair agreements. Control of our water, oil, wood, and mineral resources is paramount. The richness of our resources is recognized by the U.S. who have gained unfair control due to poorly negotiated agreements. This affects the welfare of all Canadians.

    Pierre Trudeau was also absolutely correct in calling the FTA a “monstrous swindle”. Where will his son lead Canada? Yes, we must be a trade competitor to the U.S. and not just a resource colony .

    Kevin O’leary is not the answer. He is a pseudo American. He will give even more away to the country of his choice, the United States.

    The poster who spoke of the article to which we are all responding as “…nonsense… divorced from economic reality” has a misunderstanding of the social science of economics. It is not a static “reality”. It is concerned with economic theories related to the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. As such the practice of economics is fluid and negotiable. What is reality is the topic under discussion which David Orchard has aptly outlined.

    Shall we control our own economic destiny or allow ourselves to be easy prey ?

  12. I totally agree with David. What I find hard to believe is that he had anything to do with either Conservatives or Liberals. Unless he hoped to change them from within. Why. Else would an economic nationalist be involved with either. He tried but it had no hope of success either with the neo conservatives or the neo liberals. Time for a party that believes as he does.

  13. Hear, hear! say the honourable members of Canadian society.

    When ham-fisted Trump made noises about tearing up or renegotiating NAFTA — for his own electoral and crony capitalist reasons — Canada’s political leaders could have welcomed the opportunity to ditch the energy and ‘national treatment’ provisions David cites, and the corporate tribunals that have cost Canada so much and the U.S. nothing.

    Instead, Trudeau and his globalist trade minister, now foreign minister, snivelled about the only thing they apparently want to get: the ability to sell softwood lumber to the U.S. without tariffs. Given indigenous and other observations that low stumpage fees in Canada could indeed amount to a subsidy, in this one case the U.S. might be right.

    But the Canadian government, as usual, will plead on bended knee to sell resources cheaply and otherwise maintain the status quo. Major opposition parties are unlikely to press seriously for anything better.

    BTW, Mexicans are even worse off. NAFTA destroyed local agriculture by flooding the country with subsidized U.S. corn, thus driving peasants into cities and to El Norte (hence the U.S. illegal immigrant ‘crisis’). Ending NAFTA is quite unlikely to revive the peasant economy (among other things, neoliberal Mexican governments greatly eroded common landholdings), while Trump’s threatened tariffs on goods manufactured or assembled in Mexico’s ‘free trade’ maquiladora zones (free mainly of unions, safety and environmental standards as well as tariffs) that NAFTA fostered would impoverish even more workers.

  14. Once again, (see “The Fight for Canada – Four centuries of resistance to American expansionism”, 1993, Rev. 1999), David Orchard has set before us, with clarity and common sense, the possibilities (and the failure to fulfil them) of a former Canada.

    I doubt, more, in fact, with each passing day, that the current American administration will give one moment’s pause in its drive to feed its bottomless maw with our resources – playing the music to which the Canadian Government, once again, will dance . . .

    Sad, really.

    What, I wonder, remains so difficult about “Just say No!”?

  15. I have wondered for some time why Canada seems to be unable to do as well as man other nations of the western world. Well it seems NAFTA or the FTA is at the root of many of the problems. New Democrats campaigned against it. Maybe it is time to resurrect these views.

  16. David Orchard is absolutely right in pointing out how Canada appeased foreign interests in agreeing to unfavourable terms in the original NAFTA. It’s not unlike how the politicians negotiating on our behalf in the mercifully pre-empted TPP arrangement appeared to trade in global citizenship points ahead of economic principle. There is a trend here, and guilt for the sins of NAFTA should not be placed solely at the feet of former prime ministers Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien; it belongs hung around the necks of the Canadian people, who have shown a maddening propensity to give away the house, the car, the kids and the vegetable garden in exchange for a flattering word about our highly valued “generous” nature.

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau comes by his infatuation with the selfie honestly. We are a nation willing to surrender any part of self (and our neighbour’s self too) just to feed our unseemly addiction to world praise. Bad things can happen to a nation whose people are distracted by addiction. We are vulnerable to the advance of predatory interests, where even our strongest guardians might misread vulturine intent as gestures of friendship. A desire to be liked, especially when allowed to become a cultural obsession, promotes a need that presents like blood in the water in boardrooms where cutthroat deals are forged. I believe that is the dynamic at the root of Canadian losses vis-à-vis NAFTA. That and the lack of accountability demanded of politicians and negotiators by the people.

    Canadians seldom exhibit outrage at the erosion of Canadian-centric values. Or acreage. Or wealth. We save our outrage for perceived threats to the projected persona we believe the world admires in us.

    Where was the outrage in the early 1990s when NAFTA handcuffed Canadian enterprise in broad daylight? Where was it when national symbols began vanishing at an alarming rate? Where in the Stephen Harper era, when China came calling for control of Canadian resources and the highly restrictive and binding TPP was being put in place behind everybody’s back? Where is it now, when Trudeau’s entire agenda appears to be about solidifying citizenship in the globalism framework, no matter the dismantling of traditional Canadian values, legacy and resources required to achieve it?

    As a nation that has demonstrated it values selfies and applause over economic and national sovereignty, on whom could we possibly call for protection when President Donald Trump comes to fetch our lunch? Those who will be renegotiating NAFTA on behalf of the U.S. are graduates of the doctrine of corporate might, as Trump’s cabinet picks illustrate, and no amount of “sunny ways” hugs-and-smiles philosophy sung by Trudeau’s covenant seekers will carry appreciable currency. Nor should we expect to find the will to survive all that much stronger among the low-energy suits in the running for leadership of the Conservative party, all of whom are distinguishable from Trudeau in only two ways: 1) a polite aversion to selfies, and 2) owning only half as much charisma. Canadians are wont to commiserate about our plight when we come up half a fistful short, but there is never a demand for strength, or even better, in any decent measure of plurality — except in how our image might increase in contrast to that of the U.S.

    Perhaps the interloper in the Conservative leadership race, Kevin O’Leary, will rise up and cause the spirit of nationalism to coalesce around him, as Trump succeeded in doing in the U.S., and the until-now-obediently-silent Canadians who still value national identity will find their voices. O’Leary, however, runs the risk of coming across as Trump-lite. Perceived wannabes seldom succeed in igniting populist fires.

    The thing to remember, however, is that Americans didn’t vote for Trump as much as they voted to reject globalism. They recognized the local impoverishment that goes hand in hand with the weakening of individual nations (the grim reality of political power centralizing somewhere else and beholden to other agendas) for what it was and sprang into action. Brexit achieved pushback also through will of the people, but without need for a galvanizing figure like Trump to lead the cause. Canadians who realize now that NAFTA represented a mini-globalization effect, and recognize as well that Trump’s proposed teardown does not have the best interest of Canadians in mind, need to find a touchstone of our own — sooner rather than later.

  17. Well done David Orchard.

    You are saying what the entire left, including the CLC, the NFU, and all those movements motivated to uphold Canadian economic independence and real people’s sovereignty, must do better.

    Relying on any of the mainstream establishment parties is futile.

    Don Currie, Slocan BC

  18. I would like to hear more about Norways success versus our unwholesome indebtedness. If we can make reasonable comparisons it gives much cause for thought.

  19. David Orchard has written what the Canadian Action Party has been saying for years. I would add that there is a misconception that Bitumen and oil are the same thing. We are currently sending 100% of our bitumen to the US, and by NAFTA rules mentioned by Mr. Orchard any increase in bitumen production for export to China for instance would be challenged by the USA which virtually “owns” our bitumen production – after all 100% means all does it not and the size of all is immaterial. Since this started with Mulroney’s famous give away of Canada through the FTA that agreement needs to go as well.
    The fact of the matter is that we need to rebuild on the Libyan, Norwegian model not the greed of corporate profit model, and this includes using our own public Bank of Canada to actually finance our needs, not some corporate high profit driven international banks and investors issuing false credit based on computer strokes.
    I would say that Trudeau junior is bound and determined to out Harper Stephen in the race to give Canada or what is left of it away to the global corporations. As such he cannot be trusted.

  20. thanks david! the ole noggin is still workin’.
    we need to make canada great again! send your article to Justin.i think his dad got it,but he seems somewhat detached from his father’s way of thinking.

  21. Colin J William’s in his comment above declares that shipping oil by rail is hazardous. The truth is that shipping oil by any method is a hazard! Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez? The west coast still hasn’t recovered from that spill. And we’re approving tanker ports on B.C.’s west coast, and still more pipelines?

    Here is a time lapse showing pipeline spills in the US which includes stats on the human and financial cost of every oil spill since 1986.

    http://www.upworthy.com/watch-this-is-one-time-lapse-big-oil-doesnt-want-you-to-see

    Enbridge’s track record of pipeline ruptures has been thoroughly documented. Between 1999 and 2010, the company was responsible for approximately 800 pipeline spills in the United States and Canada, which includes the 2010 spill of over 1 million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. The spill has been recorded as the worst inland oil spill in U.S. history.

    How about the corroding pipeline under Lake Michigan? http://usuncut.com/climate/video-corroding-pipelines/

  22. Thanks David, good to hear from you again.

    Missing from your article is any exploration of how the oil will get to tidewater, to enter the world market and, incidentally reduce imports of oil.
    Let’s remember that many oppose pipelines. Yes, much is being shipped by train, an inefficient and hazardous method.

    Regards,

    Colin W.

    • 1. Getting tar sands oil to ‘tidewater’ — mainly for export to China and elsewhere — won’t reduce our imports significantly.

      2. As the Leap Manifesto and many others have made clear, to slow down global warming we need to leave most oil reserves in the ground. Pipelines, especially to exporting ports, just continue the warming trend.

  23. David was right then (1988), and right…now.
    Why is it taking so long to figure this out ?
    How much MORE time have we got ?

  24. I appreciate David Orchard’s knowledge of these trade agreements. Canada should abrogate the NAFTA and cease being a colony for Jan and Kees.

  25. The so called free trade under NAFTA was never free for Canadian companies. Where we were more competitive, as in the case of the lumber industry, we endured 8 billion in tarrifs and a quota to cover no more than a third of the US market. Haprer said that was “the best deal we could get”. But the deal was supposed to have been agreed within the NAFTA itself. There should have been no other negotiations and tarrifs tehreafter.

  26. David Orchard, please run in the next election as an independent with only one purpose on the platform, that is “Direct Democracy by referendum.
    That is the only way to know if most Canadians really want “Free of Regulations Trade Agreements” to benefit International corporations.

  27. Once again David has the audacity to clearly enunciate what most Canadians intuitively know: we’ve been had.
    I am so glad that his voice is still being heard, albeit by non-corporate owned media such as Common Ground. Thank you!

  28. Globalism, as John Raulston Saul pointed out in his book, The Collapse of Globalism, has been going through the slow process of falling on its own sword. Let’s get back to trade on Canada’s terms.

  29. a burnished gold article that separates, all so wisely and well, the dross of free trade from the rich potential of a mature Canadian nationalist vision (that once was at the heart, centre and core of classical Canadian Toryism)—-welcome back David to the fray—you have been much missed—-may your voice and pen speak and write much more.
    Ron Dart

  30. Thank you David Orchard and Common Ground for printing this timely piece. Alas a voice of sanity and informed reason prevails again to cut like a mighty sword straight through all the media obfuscation and it’s nonsense about NAFTA having anything to do with real trade.

    Trading is as old as mankind, but the NAFTA free trade deals are a clever cover word to disguise a hostile takeover of our economy and sovereignty by the American imperial empire and corporate globalist.

    Never-mind our great ancestral leaders turning in their graves, but all Canadians given the true facts, would be outraged by the rotten bill of goods we’ve been sold. Sold out lock stock and barrel by our recent and current leaders.

    Trump’s now offering us a golden opportunity here to just say no to “renegotiating” this treacherous deal, abrogating it outright, and simply just walking away from it for the sake of regaining our economic independence and national sovereignty.

    Thus we have a chance now to “make Canada great again” and forge our own destiney. It all hinges on our own PM Trudeau now, whom in his sort time in office has already betrayed most of his major promises and jumped on board to sell out what’s left of our sovereignty, by eagerly signing us on to the CETA and having committing us to signing on to all the fraudulent TIPP deals.

    The last of which by the grace of God Trump has just crushed. Hence our challenge here now is how to stop Trudeau dead in his tracks from “renegotiating” NAFTA, which given Trumps intentions, and Trudeau’s submissive willingness, will only make it an even far worse deal for us.

    Somehow our runaway traitorous Liberal Prime Minister here, his Cabinet and party sitting in Parliament, have to be made to abrogate the notorious NAFTA deal. So as we can once again get on track with the job of making Canada a truly just, socially equitable, peaceful, prosperous and economically independent nation again.

    Raymond Becker

  31. For too long the ‘talking heads’ have misled Canadians, and betrayed our best interests. It would be ironic indeed if some improvement (i.e., abrogation of NAFTA/FTA) came as a result of a right-winger like Trump.

  32. The problem of Canada is not in the trade with the states, but with the way it prioritizes business greed over life and well-being of its citizens. Some of them started calling Canada a country of legalized scammers. Big corporations are allowed to buy whatever policies and regulations they want. Canadian’s are paying the world highest prices for for many things. Canadian fish captured in Canadian waters priced to Canadians higher than the very same Canadian fish from Canadian waters captured and exported, transported by US chain to New Yorkers. The reason? Unleashed Corporate Greed. My last water bill in Toronto was $787. The reason – the corporate greed uncontrolled by regulators

  33. I remember waiting for some good news after the signing of nafta but nothing ever happened that was tangible to me and it’s been an annoyance eversince. The sense we were hood-winked persists even today. I’m with you on this one Mr. Orchard

  34. The other commenters here are traiterous morons. It is really pathetic that they can be so ignorant.

  35. One wonders if there are not people out there being paid to specifically discredit any Canada First thinking. Stay the course Mr. Orchard.

  36. Actually i thought it was a great article. What the author is saying is true. Canada has been sued just for trying to protect its water and forests from destruction. Corporations are allowed to sue for what they could have earned if they were allowed to cut down all our trees or bottle and sell all of our water.

    Obviously Martin has some vested interest here.

  37. Wow – more fake news. Where is restaurant brands international head quartered? What did altagas just buy?
    Approval of keystone will finally get oil to markets. A made in Canada solution would leave most unemployed and oil in the ground.
    How many Canadians are working in the US due to NAFTA vs how many Americans in Canada?
    Make Canada an independent power? I think David can’t see past his orchard.

  38. This article is nothing short of barking mad nonsense, utterly divorced from economic reality.

    • “…utterly divorced from economic reality.”…hmmm…you seem to be suggesting that in some way economics drives reality and that we are not able to change reality by changing how we manage our economics…or change our economics and change reality…like “economic reality” was god given and not changeable…kind of weird way to view the world and definitely not supported by economic history…economics degrees are granted by the arts department…there are many economic theories which have be put into ‘reality’…none of them worked over any length of time…we are presently seeing the free trade no trade block “economic reality” of Bretton Woods post war economic system falling apart as the US tries to create trade blocks excluding China, Russia and Iran to put pressure on these countries to follow American post war hegemony…

Leave a comment

*