CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:42 pm
 


Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:
Man, when the monkeys take over as the Zoo's caretakers, ...


...everyone gets a banana! [B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:55 pm
 


If you want another example of the insanity we have to deal with, just read through Trump's tantrum over "Canadian shoe smugglers" from earlier today. It's a real doozy, even for him. :roll:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11671
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:57 pm
 


U.S. President Donald Trump launched another trade tirade against Canadians, accusing them Tuesday of sneaking their American shopping back home — all because of what he calls "massive" tariffs on American goods.
"We can no longer be the stupid country; we want to be the smart country," he said to rousing applause.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump- ... -1.4713012
So this is Trump thinking.
Canadians are smuggling US goods home because of tariffs on them.
So he concludes tariffs are a good idea, Americans are stupid for not having them and starts imposing them.....
BTW we used to smuggle lots of shit across the border. BeforeNAFTA.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10503
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:05 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
herbie herbie:
Civil means I'm still going to point someone out if they make a racist statement or blatantly lie.
But these three page back and forth name calling sessions should be ended.


You've got a white supremacist as a moderator so you won't get far there. That's not intended to be an insult, by the way, just a statement.


Dr. Caleb is a white supremacist? I had no idea. :lol:

I always had my suspicions


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 51795
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:28 am
 


llama66 llama66:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
You've got a white supremacist as a moderator so you won't get far there. That's not intended to be an insult, by the way, just a statement.


Dr. Caleb is a white supremacist? I had no idea. :lol:

I always had my suspicions


I'm not really a Klansman, but $20 is $20.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13404
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:19 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:
Man, when the monkeys take over as the Zoo's caretakers, ...


...everyone gets a banana! [B-o]

Everyone gets poo thrown at them, more likely.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10503
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:13 am
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'm not really a Klansman, but $20 is $20.


I use this justification often...


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:16 am
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
I'm not really a Klansman, but $20 is $20.


You got $20????

I really need to raise my price for bribes. :cry:


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 51795
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:25 am
 


llama66 llama66:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I'm not really a Klansman, but $20 is $20.


I use this justification often...


I used that one time during a Friday doughnut break with the team, and said "I'm not gay, but $20 is $20" and we nearly lost the Director who almost choked on a crueller.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10503
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:03 am
 


:thumbs up:


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1455
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:35 pm
 


...I think we're a bit off topic here.

So how about I get us back on?

If something like Vive Le Canada can die, then maybe it's time for NAFTA to go too:

$1:

Before Trump came on the scene, Canadians were evenly split on NAFTA. Every time he speaks or tweets, Canadians love NAFTA more. Its popularity probably jumped over the moon after Trump’s drive-by, virtual shooting of the prime minister at the G7 summit.

They may like it, but Canadians don’t know what’s in NAFTA. They think it’s about free trade — no tariff barriers among the three North American countries. Wrong.

Tariffs between Canada and the U.S. were very low before the 1989 Canada-U. S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and 1994 NAFTA began. Tariffs have since fallen for Canada, the U.S., Mexico and many other countries under the most-favoured-nation rules of the World Trade Organization. If NAFTA dies, tariffs between Canada and the U.S. would remain at zero for many items and very low for the others.

Unless, of course, Trump finds a flimsy excuse to impose them. But he does that under NAFTA.

NAFTA is a corporate rights agreement, not a free-trade agreement in the original sense.

Trump is causing such turmoil with tariffs, anti-Trudeau tirades, and weaponizing uncertainty that NAFTA’s future is in doubt.

Creating chaos may be more effective than slapping on tariffs in bringing investment and jobs back to the U.S. NAFTA gave corporations the impression they could put plants in Canada and Mexico to ship their products to the big enchilada — the huge U.S. domestic market. Trump shows that NAFTA provides no such assurance.

So, what does Canada give up under NAFTA?

NAFTA’s chapter 11 gives foreign corporations the right to sue Canadian governments for passing laws that hurt their anticipated profits. It’s rigged against Canada. It’s ironic that, although the U.S. has not lost a single case, Trump wants to end chapter 11, while Trudeau fights to keep it. Wealthy foreign corporations have sued Canada successfully eight times, mainly over environmental protection and resource management laws. Canadian taxpayers’ bill is $314 million so far.

Canada sought free trade to overcome unfair U.S. trade laws, like those that limit Canadian softwood lumber exports.

If a law is bad, change it. Instead, NAFTA changed the judges. In NAFTA they aren’t even judges. They’re secret tribunals run by exorbitantly paid corporate lawyers to decide what Canadian laws hurt U.S. corporate profits in this country.

NAFTA’s biggest flaw is chapter 6 — its energy “proportionality” clause. It obliges Canada to make available for export three quarters of our oil and half our natural gas to the U.S. — even if Canadians are shivering in the dark in an international oil crisis caused by a major Middle East war. Chapter 6 hinders Canada from reducing oil exports in the West to ship the oil to Canadians in the East, who rely on oil imports.

Even worse, chapter 6 prevents Canada from reducing the proportion of fuels exported from Alberta’s tarsands and fracking. Two research reports I wrote show that retaining proportionality would lock in an additional 1,488 megatonnes of greenhouse gases between now and 2050 and likely torpedo Canada’s Paris climate promises.

Proportionality enforces a continental, fossil fuel policy and hinders Canada from pursuing a national eco-energy one.

NAFTA has so integrated our economy with the U.S. that Canada is very vulnerable to every U.S. lurch and tirade.

In response, Canada should diversify its trading partners and develop a more inwardly directed, environmentally friendly economy where Canadians buy more local goods and services.

More trade is not win-win if we export raw resources and import manufactured goods and high tech services. Under NAFTA Canada has regressed to hewers of wood and drawers of bitumen.

NAFTA ended Canada’s ability to enforce the auto pact. That gutted auto production in Ontario. Canada can build more high tech and industries of the future if we are freed from NAFTA’s corporate rights shackles.

Why should Canada remain bound by NAFTA when Washington can capriciously act against Canadian imports at any time? We can build a prosperous, low-carbon future without NAFTA.



And an ugly truth about NAFTA Chapter 11:

$1:

Canada is the most-sued country under the North American Free Trade Agreement and a majority of the disputes involve investors challenging the country’s environmental laws, according to a new study.

The study from the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) found that more than 70 per cent of claims since 2005 have been brought against Canada, and the number of challenges under a controversial settlement clause is rising sharply.

The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism contained in NAFTA’s chapter 11 grants investors the right to sue foreign governments without first pursuing legal action in the country’s court systems, in order to protect foreign investors from discrimination. Drafters of the 1994 treaty included the provision to protect U.S. and Canadian investors against corruption in Mexican courts.

Critics argue that the mechanism limits governments from enacting policies on legitimate public concerns such as the environment and labour or human rights, and that negotiations are often carried out in secret.

The CCPA believes the federal government’s strong commitment to Chapter 11 and its willingness to settle and compensate claimants is encouraging more cases against Canada. There were 12 cases brought against Canada from 1995 to 2005, while in the decade since there have been 23.

The 35 claims brought against Canada comprise 45 per cent of the total number of claims under NAFTA. That’s significantly more than Mexico’s 22 or the 20 brought against the U.S.

Canada has lost or settled six claims paying a total of $170 million in damages, while Mexico has lost five cases and paid out $204 million. The U.S.,meanwhile, has won 11 cases and has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.

“Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world,” said Scott Sinclair, who authored the study.

MORE: Six times Canada had to pay foreign investors under NAFTA’s Chapter 11

Even when countries win the legal costs of fighting an investor claim, it can cost millions of dollars. Sinclair estimates Canada has spent $65 million defending such claims over the past two decades.

About 63 per cent of the claims against Canada involved challenges to environmental protection or resource management programs that allegedly interfere with the profits of foreign investors.

The government has lost some of these environmental challenges and has been forced to overturn legislation protecting the environment.

In 1997, the Ethyl Corporation, a U.S. chemical company, used chapter 11 to challenge a Canadian ban on the import of MMT, a gasoline additive that is a suspected neurotoxin and which automakers have said interferes with cars’ diagnostic systems. The company won damages of $15 million and the government was forced to remove the policy.

A year later, U.S.-based S.D. Myers challenged Canada’s temporary ban on the export of toxic PCP waste, which was applied equally to all companies. Canada argued it was obliged to dispose of the waste within its own borders under another international treaty. However, the tribunal ruled the ban was discriminatory and violated NAFTA’s standards for fair treatment.

There are currently eight cases against the Canadian government asking for a total of $6 billion in damages. All of them were brought by U.S. companies.

Many of those current challenges involve domestic environmental protections such as the promotion of renewable energies, a moratorium on offshore wind projects on Lake Ontario and Nova Scotia’s decision to block a contentious mega-quarry.

In one case, a Calgary headquartered company that is registered in the U.S., Lone Pine Resources Inc., is suing the Canadian government for $250 million over Quebec’s moratorium on natural gas fracking, which applies equally to foreign and domestic companies. Lone Pine argues it was not consulted before the ban nor compensated for its wasted investment or loss of potential revenue.

Sinclair argues that the threat of challenges under chapter 11 has a chilling effect on public interest regulation, which will only worsen unless political and legal action is taken.

“Buoyed by their past successes, foreign investors and their legal advisors are now turning to NAFTA chapter 11 with increasing frequency and assertiveness,” he wrote.

“Unfortunately, compared to other parts of the world, there is surprisingly little political debate about the corrosive influence of ISDS on public policy and democracy in Canada.”

Canada is embarking on a new generation of multinational treaties such as the European Union free trade deal and the Trans Pacific Partnership, both of which contain investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) systems. While governments can be sued under ISDS, there is no similar recourse for states to hold foreign investors, often wealthy corporations, accountable for their actions.

Six times Canada had to pay foreign investors under NAFTA’s Chapter 11:

Case: Ethyl Corp. (1997)

Amount awarded: US$13 million, out-of-court settlement.

What happened: The U.S. chemical company challenged a Canada-wide ban on import and trade of the gasoline additive MMT, a suspected neurotoxin. Following a preliminary judgement against Canada, the government repealed the ban, issued an apology and paid a settlement.

2. Case: S.D. Meyers (1998)

Amount awarded: CDN$6.05 million, plus interest and compensation.

What happened: The U.S. waste disposal firm challenged a temporary Canadian ban on the export of toxic PCB wastes, something the country was obliged to do under an international environmental treaty. The tribunal ruled that Canada violated standards of treatment under NAFTA.

3.Pope and Talbot (1998)

Amount awarded: CDN$870,000.

What happened: The U.S. lumber company challenged Canada’s lumber export rules implemented under the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement. The tribunal ruled Canada violated NAFTA’s minimum standards of treatment.

4. Mobil Investments/Murphy Oil (2007)

Amount awarded: Not yet determined, but damages continue to accrue as long as violating guideline in effect.

What happened: The oil investors argued that Canada’s guidelines requiring energy companies to invest in research and development in Newfoundland and Labrador are inconsistent with NAFTA rules. The tribunal ruled in favour of the investors and Canada is liable to pay damages.

5. AbitibiBowater (2009)

Amount awarded: CDN$130 million in settlement — the largest NAFTA-related settlement to date.

What happened: The pulp and paper company closed its last mill in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2008 and the provincial government enacted legislation to return its timber and water rights to the Crown and expropriate some of its lands and assets associated with water and hydroelectric rights. Abitibi was to be paid fair market value for the assets.The company launched a NAFTA claim and the government decided to settle without going to court.

6. St. Marys (2011)

Amount awarded: $15 million.

What happened: The company alleges its Canadian subsidiary was the victim of political interference when it tried to open a quarry near Hamilton, Ont., after residents grew concerned about the groundwater. The provincial government issued a zoning order preventing the site from being converted into a quarry and the company claimed that was unfair and discriminatory. The parties reached a settlement in 2013 that saw the company withdraw the claim in exchange for compensation from the Ontario government.



Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:59 pm
 


That's laughable at best. The total lost in penalties combined with the legal fees spent to fight those cases doesn't even add up to the value of one day's worth of tariff-free Canadian products crossing the border for sale in the US. That's the cheapest sort of nationalism possible, the kind Trump himself is exploiting. Ignore altogether that an entire new economy involving millions of jobs in both Canada and the US has come into existence due to NAFTA, complain loudly about lost jobs (from industries that were already dying out before NAFTA anyway) are never coming back to either country thanks to outsourcing them to the Third World, and turn a few meaningless losses at a trade dispute tribunal into the equivalent of the attack at Pearl Harbour as far as insults to national pride go.

The time to oppose free trade was thirty to forty years ago, not now. There is no going back and the economic destruction that losing the trade deals will cause is a million times more lopsided than anything that will be gained by leaving the treaties. This is populism at it's most dangerous, from the left or the right, because it stokes cheap anger to annihilate logic and reason altogether.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11671
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2018 11:12 am
 


For sure, I was a big opponent in the beginning but all of Canada has adapted. We lost tons of jobs, but nobody here is stupid enough to think they'll be coming back if we rip up NAFTA.
Obviously GM knows its cheaper to build the Blazer in Mexico and pass any threatened tariff along than to make them is the USA. Shit these are the guys who just stuck LUV, Courier and RAM badges onto Japanese trucks to dodge a 25% tariff (that's still here 55 years later) years ago.

$1:
Canada is the most-sued country under the North American Free Trade Agreement and a majority of the disputes involve investors challenging the country’s environmental laws, according to a new study.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1455
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:23 am
 


Thanos Thanos:
That's laughable at best. The total lost in penalties combined with the legal fees spent to fight those cases doesn't even add up to the value of one day's worth of tariff-free Canadian products crossing the border for sale in the US. That's the cheapest sort of nationalism possible, the kind Trump himself is exploiting. Ignore altogether that an entire new economy involving millions of jobs in both Canada and the US has come into existence due to NAFTA, complain loudly about lost jobs (from industries that were already dying out before NAFTA anyway) are never coming back to either country thanks to outsourcing them to the Third World, and turn a few meaningless losses at a trade dispute tribunal into the equivalent of the attack at Pearl Harbour as far as insults to national pride go.

The time to oppose free trade was thirty to forty years ago, not now. There is no going back and the economic destruction that losing the trade deals will cause is a million times more lopsided than anything that will be gained by leaving the treaties. This is populism at it's most dangerous, from the left or the right, because it stokes cheap anger to annihilate logic and reason altogether.


It would be one thing if NAFTA was really about free trade-when, as John Ralston Saul points out, we just about had that anyway with how low tariffs were even before the 1988 agreement. No, the agreements have more to do with transferring power from elected officials and parliaments to unelected, unaccountable trade bureaucrats. Conservatives have complained for years about the "Court Party" of social groups using the courts to get social changes passed that they can't get legislatures to do...and yet when foreigners do the same thing (using recourses not available to Canadian investors!), the same conservatives are bafflingly silent.

And how many of those cases I cited even had anything to do with actual trade restrictions around the shipment of goods? Apparently we're not allowed to set our own stumpage fees or make environmental decisions for public health reasons, even though that's exactly what the government is supposed to be doing.

But really, it's telling that there's been so much alienation and frustration in countries like Canada and the U.S. since deals like NAFTA were signed, and the acceleration continued under attempts to further transfer power away from elected officials to unelected overseers. The economic changes haven't been all that great either-rising inequality and wage stagnation, to the point where even conservative-leaning think tanks like the C.D. Howe Institute and mainstream organizations like the IMF are increasingly leery about what's happening and discussing what to do about it.

So there's something clearly rotten in the state of Denmark here.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 329 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 18  19  20  21  22



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.