North American Relations

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I actually feel a bit out of touch with current events in Canada. How do you feel current relations stand? You mentioned Paul Martin was good for relations between Canada and the USA. When he was elected he certainly seemed like he wanted to build bridges. It was shortly after that that I came to Sweden.

I'm sure he and Bush must have met at least once since then.

After Chretien left office - Bush set up a meeting to meet with Paul Martin in Halifax - in addition to thanking the people of Nove Scotia for the kindness they showed on 9/11. Bush did not want to go to Ottawa because of the negativity there - such as Paris and others.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

After Chretien left office - Bush set up a meeting to meet with Paul Martin in Halifax - in addition to thanking the people of Nove Scotia for the kindness they showed on 9/11. Bush did not want to go to Ottawa because of the negativity there - such as Paris and others.

Too bad about Ottawa, but Halifax is a great place for a meeting.

Beautiful city eh? It's on my list of Canadian cities to visit. (I PMd you about cities because that was getting OT.)

Now... what do discuss... One important thing to Canada-USA relations is NAFTA (which has existed for 10 years). In 1990 it was just the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the USA.

Some Canadians, like the NGO (non-government organization) the Council of Canadians, do not like NAFTA. Others are completely for it. But I suspect that most people don't have an opinion because they don't know enough about it, or don't care.

I'm not quite sure what to make of it, but I do have an opinion about one part, the softwood lumber dispute. If NAFTA as a whole is worthwhile for the USA, Canada, and Mexico, then I think it's worth putting the effort to solve these disagreements. Otherwise, why not just throw it out the window?

A "Free Trade Agreement" implies to me that trade between our three countries will be duty-free. I guess my questions are:

1. Does this work? (It was pointed out earlier in this thread that both Canada and the USA have imposed duties on certain products anyway - I don't know about Mexico.)

2. Is it really a benefit? (Free trade seems beneficial, but is it really? I'm afraid my knowledge in this area is rather limited.)

Lastly, if you guys do want to talk about the softwood lumber dispute, here's the BC government's page on it: Softwood Lumber Home Page.

[EarthBound]

For our part I'd like to say thank you to Canada for Bob & Doug (How's it go'n, eh?), Rush, and Mike Myers. This is offered in the spirit of this thing termed "Relations" that everyone seems to be talking about...lol

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

from an english POV, all i can say is how could you give us cyndi lauper, canada?

[Nurvingiel]

This from the country that brought us the Spice Girls?

Besides, I like Cyndi Lauper.

[EarthBound]

goys and birls just want to have fun!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This from the country that brought us the Spice Girls?

Besides, I like Cyndi Lauper.

and BLACK SABBATH!!!!

[EarthBound]

See, I offer a bit of gratitude for a few contibutions and everyone sounds off without saying thanks for Jazz, Sargent (the painter), Norman Rockwell, Oregon Beer, Cali Wines, the Corvette, Moby, Mark Twain, Tractor Pulls Lawn mower races , Hemingway, Colt 45, John Deere Tractor, 55 Ford Pickup-Red, Fender guitars (vintage), 1980 US Hockey Team, JEEP, Life magazine, National Geographic Magazine, and of course...JD

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

oh yeah, thanks for fenders!

[Nurvingiel]

Erm.... yes. Well, after that pleasant interlude, if you guys don't actually want to talk about North American relations, we can quietly let this thread drift to the bottom.

But future posts chit chatting about various musical artists, cars, trips to Ontario, and other good times should find a home at the Café.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Erm.... yes. Well, after that pleasant interlude, if you guys don't actually want to talk about North American relations, we can quietly let this thread drift to the bottom.

I'm still interested in it - I'm just very busy. I'm putting together a major event for the Princeton Battlefield Area Preservation Society which I'm on the Board of Directors of. David hackett Fischer, author of Washington's Crossing, is coming to speak at the Princeton Public Library to talk about the need to preserve this battlefield and the threat by a proposed development.



So this is why I won't be on much for the next couple of days. I also have to meet with a potential sales person for AboutNewJersey.com on Thursday - and then on friday I have to meet with my marketing director. So - sorry Nurv - it's not that I'm not interested - just incredibly busy this week.

After the event we're going out to dinner with him and his wife.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

sounds really interesting, JD

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I'm still interested in it - I'm just very busy. I'm putting together a major event for the Princeton Battlefield Area Preservation Society which I'm on the Board of Directors of. David hackett Fischer, author of Washington's Crossing, is coming to speak at the Princeton Public Library to talk about the need to preserve this battlefield and the threat by a proposed development.

[img]nice image[/img]

[history nerd]quite interesting...wish I could come...maybe I should get the book?[/nerd]

Ah- N American relations...umm...? I don't really know what to say; not up on Canadian politics (tho I should be, knowing a bunch of people from Canada) nor Mexican. I could talk about the Mexican-American War, lol (1846-48).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

sounds really interesting, JD

I think it will be. I was trying to read his book before the event - but I haven't had any time. Maybe I can do a cram session and read 350 pages.

This is I accidently put into the accomplishments thread....

Nurv - there was just on C-SPAN3 a speech by the US Ambassador to canada with a question and answer period called - U.S.-Canada Relations. It was hosted by The Canadian Club Sadly I came in on it late and C-SPAN doesn't have the video on their site. I'm hoping they will rebroadcast it.

One thing he mentioned at the end to a question he was asked concerning the differences in canada versus america was that the American President - contrary to people's beliefs - has limited power and is co-equal to Congress.

[Nurvingiel]

No worries JD, I'm fairly busy these days too (maybe not that much though ). That talk sounds pretty cool, I hope it goes well, and your meeting too. (Happy cramming! Students everywhere are with you. )

The President is as powerful as the entire Congress? I didn't know that - many people don't I'm sure.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The President is as powerful as the entire Congress? I didn't know that - many people don't I'm sure.

Well yeah - that's why we have what is called checks and balances. Most people think that the president is the most powerful entity in the government - when that isn't true. The ambassador mentioned that it was misnomer to call the president the leaderr of the free world - when he doesn't have that much power even over the US. The president can do very little without Congress and the congress can do very little without the president.

I found this to be interesting by the way.

Chretien defends use of funds
Former Canadian PM testifies on national unity campaign
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 Posted: 8:11 PM EST (0111 GMT)

TORONTO, Canada (AP) -- A defiant former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, whose Liberal Party is under investigation for alleged misuse of public funds in the name of promoting national unity, testified Tuesday that the US$180 million program was necessary to win the allegiance of rebellious French Canadians.

The so-called "sponsorship scandal" outraged the public when it was uncovered in 2002, contributing to the party's loss of its majority in Parliament in June elections.

The program -- developed to promote national unity in Quebec following the narrow defeat of a separatist referendum in the French-speaking province in 1995 -- is accused of giving tens of millions of dollars to advertising agencies with Liberal ties in exchange for little or no apparent work.

Chretien, who led three successive governments from 1993 until December 2003, told the federal commission investigating the scandal that any mistakes in his program were made in "good faith."

"I personally committed myself as a Canadian, who loves his country, and because it was my duty as a prime minister to maintain our national unity," Chretien said in his heavy French accent. "I was not going to sin by not acting."

He acknowledged that some of the civil servants involved in the program erred, and said anyone who illegally benefited from the program should be prosecuted.

"Those mistakes that were made in good faith can be excused," Chretien said. "If some people acted in bad faith or for personal gain, they betrayed the prime minister, they betrayed my government and they betrayed the country."

The program plastered Canadian flags and federal logos at sporting and cultural events in Quebec to promote federalism. Prime Minister Paul Martin scrapped the program on his first day in office in December 2003 and ordered a federal review.

Martin is to testify later in the week before the commission, becoming the first prime minister to come before a public inquiry since Canada's first prime minister, John A. Macdonald, testified before a royal commission investigating a bribery scandal in 1873.

Auditor General Sheila Frasier has called the program a "blatant misuse of public funds." She said the Liberals approved multimillion dollar advertising and sponsorship contracts in Quebec from 1997 to 2003 to companies that had donated to the party.

Chretien's former chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, stunned the commission Monday by admitting he was involved in the purchase of 480 neckties with the Canadian flag on them for US$36,600.

The investigating commission also learned of purchases including US$10,000 for corkscrews that sported a Canadian logo and US$1,200 for golf balls embossed with Chretien's signature.

Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto, said the scandal initiated by Martin's demand for an inquiry is only hurting the prime minister, who was the Liberal Party finance minister during the sponsorship years.

"It stretches credulity to think that he didn't know anything," said Clarkson. "It's bad for the Liberal Party -- and Martin can only blame himself because he's the one who set up the commission."

The scandal has also led to a deep rift in the Liberal Party, in particular between Chretien and Martin. Last week, Chretien demanded the federal judge leading the commission step down after he criticized the program in the media, but Martin has stood by Justice John Gomery.

"Martin in his wisdom turned this into a major issue with which he seemed to want to define himself as different from his predecessor, and also stick a couple of knives in him just to make sure he was dead," Clarkson said.

In his testimony Tuesday, Chretien said the program was desperately needed after Quebec separatists nearly won the 1995 provincial referendum to secede from the country.

"I am certain that you recall in the aftermath of the referendum, the criticism, justified or not, of the federal government for having been too complacent, too absent, that I was sleepwalking, that I had almost lost the country," Chretien told Gomery. "For the next eight years, the unity of Canada was my No. 1 priority as prime minister. It was never an issue of party; it was always an issue of country."

Do you really think the seperatists changed their mind for long with the blitz of advertising? I have a funny feeling that in 5 - 10 years Quebec will again be in the same position of trying to seperate.

I still wonder what would have happened if Quebec left Canada - since there were about 4 provinces who publicly declared they would also leave - but they would join the US (BC being one of them). I'm sure we would have wlecomed them if they wanted too - but there would need to be a change the provincial governments - but I'm not sure how different they are. It would have been a hard transition for Canadians.

[edit]There is one thing in here that is always difficult for me to comprehend. Chritien says that they "betrayed his government". In the US it is NOT the president's government - it's not congress's government - it is the citizens of United States' government. So it's our government. It just seems like with PMs the government is disconnected from the people. it's not just canada either - it's all the parliamentary systems - Britain, Israel etc. When i was younger and heard that "such an such government fell". I always thought there was a revolution. because here - the only way our government can fall is by a revolution and we throw out the Constitution. We have had the same goverment for about 225 years. Our government isn't defined by the people holding office. [/edit]

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well yeah - that's why we have what is called checks and balances. Most people think that the president is the most powerful entity in the government - when that isn't true. The ambassador mentioned that it was misnomer to call the president the leaderr of the free world - when he doesn't have that much power even over the US. The president can do very little without Congress and the congress can do very little without the president.

Actually this sounds like the president is more powerful than I thought. I always thought he was the first among equals, as a Prime Minister is. Of course, there are differences, as their respective titles suggest.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I found this to be interesting by the way.

Do you really think the seperatists changed their mind for long with the blitz of advertising? I have a funny feeling that in 5 - 10 years Quebec will again be in the same position of trying to seperate.

Aaaaa, the Sponsorship Scandal! This was a complete and total embarassment for everyone even remotely associated with this horror, except Shiela Fraser, who rules. Paul Martin was the Finance Minister at the time, so he shares a significant part of the total mortification that is this scandal.
Excuse me, I'll be in the corner weeping and eating Tim Horton's doughnuts.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I still wonder what would have happened if Quebec left Canada - since there were about 4 provinces who publicly declared they would also leave - but they would join the US (BC being one of them). I'm sure we would have wlecomed them if they wanted too - but there would need to be a change the provincial governments - but I'm not sure how different they are. It would have been a hard transition for Canadians.

And the Understatement of the Year award goes to Jerseydevil for "A hard transition...". If BC had joined the USA, I can't even imagine how mind-bogglingly complex and difficult this transition would be. I would probably never really stop thinking of myself as a Canadian, though I would techinically be a US citizen.
The other side is - would you want us? I guess it would be worthwhile in the end, but there would be a lot of laws to be ironed out. Maybe we would need to write new ones, because some things are federal laws that are state laws for you, and we'd have to transfer them over. Plus, what would happen to our five national parks (Yoho, Mt. Revelstoke, Glacier, Pacific Rim, and Kootenay)? Currently, that's federal land. What about our Universities? Welfare laws? Provincial sales tax? These and a bazillion other things big and small would plague us for at least 5 years.
However, I doubt we would have separated. Our government or someone might have said we would leave, but I don't think a referendum would be successful. It wasn't (barely) in Québec, and they obviously had the most desire to leave.
I don't think Québec will want to separate in 5 or 10 years. Since the referendum, seperatist support has declined. For example, after three consecutive Bloc Quéquois provincial governments (the separatist party), the provincial Liberals were elected in 2003.
Another factor is different native groups, mostly in Northern Québec. There are a number of land claims and reservations , and the general feeling among native groups was that they wanted to stay in Canada. One spokesperson, IIRC, said that if Québec gets to seperate, then they get to seperate from Québec and rejoin Canada.
I also think it would be awkward for the Maritime provinces. How do Alaska and Hawaii find being so separate from the rest of the country? (Maybe they want to join Canada! While we're at it, can we have Maine? )

Québec government

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

[edit]There is one thing in here that is always difficult for me to comprehend. Chritien says that they "betrayed his government". In the US it is NOT the president's government - it's not congress's government - it is the citizens of United States' government. So it's our government. It just seems like with PMs the government is disconnected from the people. it's not just canada either - it's all the parliamentary systems - Britain, Israel etc. When i was younger and heard that "such an such government fell". I always thought there was a revolution. because here - the only way our government can fall is by a revolution and we throw out the Constitution. We have had the same goverment for about 225 years. Our government isn't defined by the people holding office. [/edit]

I think of the government as mine as well, even if I didn't vote for them ( ). They still represent me, and we at least elected by the majority (or close to) of Canadians. Chrétien was the leader of the government (though not the entire thing, there's still the Opposition, other members of the House of Commons not in his party, the Senate, etc.), so it's a little bit his, but mostly ours. Practically, it's the government of Canadian citizens.
When we elect new governments, we don't throw our Constitution out either - I'm not quite sure what you meant by that comment. We wouldn't say a government "fell" if they didn't get re-elected either.
I can see one difference though, we elect new governments, we haven't had the same government for the past 137 years. In that way, its members do define the government. But we've had the same Constitution for 137 years.

[edit]

Prime Minister Paul Martin scrapped the program on his first day in office in December 2003 and ordered a federal review.

I just wanted to add... duh! What else would he do, try to sweep it under the rug? Everyone knew about this and there's no way we would have let it slide. This was also one of his campain promises IIRC, due in part to trying to lessen the blight on his reputation. I give him points for facing the music, but only a few points because he really had no other choice. Without this scandal, the Liberals probably would have formed a majority government.
*relives fears of Stephen Harper as PM*
*hyperventilates*
*calms down*

[inked]

Nurv,

I understand the complexity of thought about Canada transitioning to be a part of the USA (were that to ever occur).

My own experience is that I am natally a South Carolinian (aka a "Sandlapper"), a Southerner (a regional designation of the re-unified United States of America post-1865), a Rebel (a person of heritage of the Confederate States of America in the War of Northern Aggression aka the Civil War of the USA), and a citizen of the United States of America. Throw into that mix 12 years of Virginian and 10 years of Texan with a dash (8 months) of Missourian, and you get that ecletic reality - an American (by the grace of God, dammit!) .

I think you Canucks could adapt!

[Nurvingiel]

And that's all within the same country!

We weren't talking about all of Canada though, JD had suggested that BC (and a few other provinces) were considering leaving if Québec left, and BC said they would join you guys.

[Valandil]

Hey Nurvi... Why'incha say somethun...???

Happy Canadian Flag Day!!