46

It’s time to talk about North American integration

What’s at stake isn’t just security or trade but energy and climate change. Harper sees this.


 

It’s time to talk about North American integration

Now that Barack Obama has announced that he will make his first international visit to Canada, Stephen Harper should use the opportunity to rejuvenate an idea that has been shrivelling on the vine this past decade: North American integration.

For decades, the conventional political wisdom in Canada has been that it is never wise for a prime minister to get too close to the Americans, even when the sitting president is popular (as Bill Clinton was, for instance). You can put that wisdom to bed. Not only is our current Prime Minister about as popular as a Leafs jersey in a sports bar on Crescent Street, but the alternatives on display leave most of us cold as well. Meanwhile, Obama is far better liked up here than Stephen Harper will ever be. Harper’s best hope, if he wants a majority government, might be to get as close as he can to Obama and pray that some of the man’s popularity rubs off on him.

It is not only about cashing in on the President’s charisma. It is also about taking advantage of the fact that after almost a full decade of American isolationism and unilateralism, there is a window of opportunity for us to re-engage the Americans on some key cross-border issues. Yes, continentalism is mounting a comeback. As former ambassador to the U.S. Derek Burney puts it in the new issue of Policy Options, Canada and the U.S. don’t really trade things anymore so much as make them together. But a fully integrated economy needs, at some level, integrated governance structures to enhance coordination, collective action, and mutual benefit.

There’s a Groundhog Day element here. By the late ’90s, the excitement—and in some quarters, hysteria—over continental integration had reached an appropriately millennial pitch. This was the age of NAFTA, and North America was quickly becoming a trading bloc to compete with the EU and ASEAN. There was no doubt in anyone’s mind that continental integration would continue; the only question was how. Should the trade agreement be broadened to include free movement of labour, or even an outright customs union? Or should we focus on building a political layer on top of the economic agreement?

There was even a bit of borderless romanticism in the air. Anthony DePalma—a correspondent for the New York Times who had worked in both Canada and Mexico—captured the headiness of the times with Here: A Biography of the New American Continent. Released in the summer of 2001, the book was an attempt at exploring this emerging yet still indistinct continental identity. In its concluding pages, DePalma wrote: “Whenever I fill out an immigration form at an airport, I hesitate for a moment, just long enough to consider simply writing in the word ‘here’ for place of residence. I have come to feel like a Newlander, a citizen of North America, with all the opportunity for starting over that the concept entails.”

But in truth, enthusiasm on all sides for deeper continental integration moves in and out like the tides, and nothing much happened in the 15 years since NAFTA was signed, with Canada, Mexico, and the United States continuing to operate more or less as independently as ever. As Stephen Clarkson has recently argued, North America exists as “geography, not governance,” and continental free trade has done nothing to draw North Americans into a self-conscious political community like the one gradually emerging in Europe.

Still, there are two reasons to think the current North American moment will lead to more lasting change. The first is that Canadians have given up on the notion that progress requires that we bring Mexico along with us. NAFTA only arose after an anxious and insecure Canada elbowed its way into negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico. Now we are realizing the agreement is actually two bilateral deals, one between Canada and the U.S., the other between the U.S. and Mexico.

More importantly, the election of Obama offers the possibility of bringing the left on board. For decades, Canadian nationalists on the left have perceived every step toward integration as yet another sacrifice of our sovereignty to the Empire of Mammon; one of the biggest strategic errors they made, long ago, was ceding the ground of continental integration to pro-business lobby groups like Tom d’Aquino’s preposterously named Canadian Council of Chief Executives. By allowing the terms and conditions of continentalism to be dictated by the capitalists, the left found itself shunted into a reactionary and impotent localism.

But there is more at stake when it comes to building North America than the usual conservative obsessions of trade and security. We should consider climate change, energy and the environment, the economy—all of which were part of a pitch made by Harper to the new regime after Obama was elected. For an even more pressing example, think of how the Canadian government recently bent itself into a pretzel trying to put together a bailout for the auto industry. The bailout was motivated entirely by the need to ensure that American bailout money didn’t serve as a lever for drawing jobs and production out of Canada, and is evidence that integration is as necessary in a time of crisis as during boom years. These issues are mother’s milk for progressives, and the left has everything to gain by inserting itself into the process as quickly and energetically as possible.

But in the end, North America should not serve as a platform for socialists, any more than for capitalists. Continental integration is something that could benefit everyone equally, and with Obama in the White House we are in a unique position where we can actually make it happen.


 

It’s time to talk about North American integration

  1. This is rubbish.

    • Never, never and neverer! The only way this works for me is if we take over them, hence never gonna happen! The only people who champion this idea are our elites and not all of them, just the ones who like feeling stateless. AP can call nationalists of all poitical stripes reactionary and socialist if he likes ; I’ll wear that. Besides meaningful social integration hasn’t taken place. Take the phenomenom of the spread of the Bostonian dialect in the US, has it crossed the border, no. The fact that we haven’t been devoured culturally despite the howls from some of the left leaves me to conclude that at heart we don’t want it to be! So carry on being stateless Andrew, it has its appeal i’m sure but we’ll still be here to welcome you back, someone has to stay and look after the farm!

      • Although Churchill was merely fussed about prepositions, permit me paraphrase him to reject Mr. Potter’s implication;

        Ending Canada’s independence based upon this proposition is something up with which I will not put.

        • Potter is not to be up put with! :)

        • Said well, Bonnet Stede.

  2. Complete and utter nonsense!

  3. The impasse with North American integration has more to do with American attitudes than Canadian ones. Free trade (an important part of continental integration) is a dirty word in America at the moment. There’s little reason to believe that a country with such a negative view of this fundamental component of integration will be convinced to go even further down that path, especially with the party that is more protectionist at heart in power.

    • I think their aversion to “free trade” might be partly attributed to Mexican migrants. If there really are racial undertones to it, I think Canada can play up it’s half-whiteness, like Obama himself.

      I feel a little dirty for suggesting it though.

      • There are sometimes racial undertones to the immigration debate. Depends on who is talking. Often though it has more to do with economics. Although I don’t think that those economic ideas are correct exactly. You can find people of all races or national origins on both side of the illegal immigration debates.

        The reason that the dems tend to be more opposed to free trade has more to do with concern that production in developing countries tends not to be as safe, or democratic as it is at home. It is a concern for the little guy, the future of our children and the strength of our national production.

        Made in China supports the arsenal of Communist, Made in America builds the arsenal of democracy.

        If what ‘o’ says about Canada being mostly foreign owned is true Canadians should be concerned.
        I buy Canadian too, my car was made there. But we should all be concerned about buying products from nations hostile to democratic ideals and freedom of expression.

  4. This is friendly advice to a political party along the lines that Tom Flanagan was giving, right?

  5. “We should consider climate change, energy and the environment, the economy”

    These are all very good points, and all reasons why we should avoid further integration. If we had been less integrated, the economic crisis in the United States would have affected us less. On the issue of climate change, the more we integrate, the less of a say we have in the policies created and enforced.

    Let us assume, for a moment, that Canadians and Americans on the whole are at different locations on the political spectrum (I would suggest that Americans are, in general, to the right of Canadians, but it doesn’t matter). When we come to a dispute and the Americans would do it one way and the Canadians would do it the other, who do you think will win out on that? American has a larger economy and a larger population, so of course their wishes would win out over ours.

    “Continental integration is something that could benefit everyone equally”

    Even supposing that we agree that it could benefit everyone, it would never be equally.

  6. 50% of corporate Canada now foreign owned.
    60% mining.
    privatized hydro.
    selling forests,water,oil.
    not much left to sell.

  7. “Continental integration is something that could benefit everyone equally.”

    Well, if that’s true, it’ll be the first thing in history that ever has.

    “…continental free trade has done nothing to draw North Americans into a self-conscious political community like the one gradually emerging in Europe.”

    Wrong on two counts. First, there is no self-conscious political community gradually emerging in Europe, in the sense of people being Europeans first, Germans second. Not that I’ve noticed, anyway, and I live in Europe. People like the European Union thing, because it’s very practical, it prevents wars, eases vacations, allows for internships in other countries, and so on. But people very much remain British, or Francais, or Deutsch. The EU is a business deal, and a commitment to good neighborliness, but it is not particularly a focus of political or cultural identity.

    Second, I think NAFTA and related factors — millions of Mexicans working and living in the USA, and Canadians living in a US-dominated media environment — are indeed creating a sort of political community in North America, not on the level of governance, but on the level of political culture and awareness. Many Canadians arguably care more about who wins a US presidential election than they do about who wins a Canadian election. We know more about US celebrities than about Canadian ones (we’re not even sure there is such a thing as a Canadian celebrity). All in all, we’d almost be ripe for a takeover by our southern neighbors, except we’re too aware and afraid of their fascination with guns, Jesus, crime, corruption, and military-industrial imperial nastiness most of us want no part of. If two-thirds of Americans were antiwar liberal Democrats, and their polity reflected that fact, I think we’d be far more ready to embrace the next phase of the Monroe doctrine — which is, after all, what your piece is about, Andrew. Any continental union between polities the relative size of the USA and Canada will actually be nothing more (or less) than an Anschluss of Canada to the USA: Let’s not kid ourselves about that.

    By the way, how much did the CIA pay you to write this piece? Hey, just kidding…

    • CIE
      well put. As a European myself i can attest to your no real integration other than a business one argument. And i’d take yr pt about 2/3rds democratic a step further. Remember the old saw about why no US govt would want us. [ other than the Dems maybe] Who would want to inherate 30 million instant democrats? lol

      • Well, yes, our political demographics might give Republicans slight pause, but I don’t think it would be a deal-breaker. They might not want Quebec (and Quebec likely wouldn’t want in). But Anglo-Canada is a different story. I think most CPC voters are potential Republican voters. And just think of all that oil, gas and coal in Alberta, Sask and Nfld! Frankly, I’m surprised that the USA hasn’t pushed harder for a takeover. Though I have wondered whether Mulroney and Harper aren’t actually on the payroll, or at least covert fellow travelers, for the Monroe Doctrine agenda. I don’t think either of those gentlemen would lament an Anschluss.

  8. What does Obama’s election have to do with it?? Methinks Potter just wants left-leaning political leadership. Since he can’t get it here, he is suddenly all about ‘integration’.

    Let’s watch what Obama does, and then reassess the situation. His first few weeks have been a cluster-frak of the first order.

  9. If it wasn’t for the good ol’ USA, Kanada would be an arctic Brazil! As Goldwyn Smith stated in 1899 “Canada is a land of hewers of wood and fetchers of water!” He also stated that before the end of
    the 20th century , Canada would be taken over by the United States! Kind of off the mark, but very soon!
    One of the (few) good things Pierre Trudeau did was to abolish the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the military (where the RMC is still a WASP bastion) and to water down the British monarchial system!
    Another 10 (sorry now 12) stars on the American flag! North American Union-THE LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE! God bless George Washington! Kanadians don’t even know (Sir) John A.Macdonald’s birthday,where he’s stuffed,when he even lived! And nobody in Kanada cares! Obama-YOU WILL BE THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION and Canadians just can’t wait!

    • I can’t wait. And by the way it/s spelt with a C. But you knew that, you were just funnin’ right? In case you get lost we’re the ones to the North, yr North that is. It’s easy, if you get here and people don’t carry guns and are polite that’s us. Unless we speak French, but you want be able to tell anyway, so don’t worry.

    • Goldwyn Smith…1899…let me see, wasn’t that right before we kicked serious ass in WWI? Followed shortly thereafter with kicking more serious ass in WWII? Followed shortly thereafter with kicking even more serious ass in Korea? Kapyong ring a bell?

      Unfortunately you have point about the present though: most Canadians now wouldn’t know which end of a rifle to pick up if troops crossed the border and wouldn’t care enough to figure it out. And half of us apparently idolize the US since Obama got elected, Potter included. Sorry state of affairs. The other half of us, on the other hand…would kick some serious ass.

      • I think we’d still kick some serious ass if there was another mass war. Guess we won’t be able to find out, though.

  10. This isn’t in US interests. Americans enjoy more constitutional rights then Canadians. The first two amendments to our constitution alone provide for more rights then what is found under Canadian law. Further, no union with Mexico could offer the US a benefit unless Mexico entirely subordinated itself to US law. The corruption, inefficiency, rampant crime, and racism make the Mexican political establishment incompatible with the US system.

    This is not to claim perfection in any case, merely to point out that union would not be in our interest. Until such time as it is mutually of interest to all there is no way we’ll unite.

    • Well, that’s a relief. For a second there I thought we might be ruled by China, like you.

      • Rogers is right: in Canada we have no fundamental right to free speech (see the HRT cases with outright declarations to this effect if you doubt it) or to freedom of religion. So instead of assinine snark, try admitting that he has a point. It is not in the US’s best interest to integrate with Canada if they wish to preserve their founding principles.

        • It’s spelt “asinine,” as in “asinus.”

          Speaking of snark, you’ll have to clarify in what other dimension the USA would ever accept Canadian law on anything in the case of integration.

          Wonderful to see a Canadian leap to the defense of Manifest Destiny.

          • Yes, thank you for the spelling and latin tutorial. Asinus inflatus es.
            Speaking of snark some more, how about the dimension in which the case Roper vs. Simmons approved the practice of using non-U.S. law to adjudicate U.S. Constitutional cases. That was 2005. One can only imagine how far this concept would be pushed in the case of an international merger in the heady days of the coming decade.

            As for Manifest Destiny, its supporters would be advocates of North American integration by definition. I am opposed. I’ll let you draw the obvious inference as to where this leaves your status vis a vis your caput, your asinus, and the extent to which one is fitted inside the other.

          • Iam bene loquaris, amice. Quo in lexico talia verba invenisti? Tu mihi plurimum “snark” attribuis, quod Americano quodam, nobis suam Indicem Privilegium arroganter iactanti, vehementer responsus sum?

            Rideo te dicentem te Fata Manifesta detestari, quia videnter ea detestaris solum quod nos Canadienses illa fata dilueremus! O amor sacra patriae!

        • Freedom of religion – a delightfully oxymoronic concept. Yet we keep using this phrase, rather proudly, as if it made some kind of sense.

          Religion is about *giving up* your freedom and following some doctrine sold by a type of political con-man called a “priest” or “Minister”, who wants money from you, power over you, and not infrequently, access to the sexual services of your underage children. The priest gets his authority and social consent by pretending to speak for an all-powerful invisible Deity with whom he claims a Special Relationship, and to which he can serve as an intermediary on your behalf; this is easier and craftier than going to the trouble of getting elected, or building a legitimate business and getting rich, or making oneself leader of an army, and taking power that way.

          Religion is a con. You give away your freedom when you become a zombie in whatever cult it is you’re being victimized by (and yes, long-established religions are still cults). The relevant human right should be “freedom FROM religion”, not “of”.

          • Elizabeth Too,
            How is it an oxymoron to let people believe what they want? ANY ideology or belief system has arbitrary elements. Whatever you believe, at the core of it all are certain arbitrary elements that are not up for debate. Religions are no different only they tend to include some supernatural component. So what? If they respect your rights then respect theirs. Obviously there are theocracies… neither the US or Canada are theocracies however so the point isn’t really relevant.
            As to your description of priests, the same line could be thrown at most modern politicians. Aren’t most of them con men that want your money, power, and sexual services? Under US law religious leaders are supposed to be excluded from politics on the ground that they don’t have to pay taxes. That has been eroded in some areas and I would agree that has to be corrected. But that’s hardly a damning condemnation of the system as the issue is relatively minor.
            As to religion being a con, it’s certainly capable of being a con. It has been used as one many times. However, that’s more a flaw in belief systems and their administration then a fault of religions. Any organization can suffer from the same problem. We see cults all the time have no supernatural aspect to their belief system. It’s a flaw in human psychology. People are prone to imprint upon groups. Once they imprint on those groups their free will is often self limited. ALL successful groups have at least some members that have imprinted. Once your self identity has become wrapped up in the ideology you’re attached.

            I guess what I’m trying to say here is that you should probably take a wider view of the issue and see that the “problem” is everywhere. If you just banned religion you’d be no better off. Unless you just hate supernaturalism… I find it that sort of thing somewhat comforting… it’s easy to separate the supernatural from the natural. But it’s hard to separate common sense from ideological dogma.

            Something to think about…

          • Eh, ok, for the sake of argument let’s grant that all religious people are being conned, and all religious ministers/priests are con artists. Including the likes of JPII, Thomas More, Max Kolbe, MLK Jr., Mother Therese, etc. Even granting this absurdity, it still follows that people have the right to be conned if they so choose.

            But ok, perhaps you won’t even grant that. Fine. Nonetheless it still follows that because this right is listed in the US First Amendment, it is legally binding in the US and matters a great deal to Americans (being listed before freedom of the press or of speech, even). They really would not want to give this up.

            But ok, perhaps you won’t grant any of this despite how much you have to overlook to hold your position. Fine. Then the whole argument still applies to freedom of speech.

      • Jack, why can’t you address my point without acting like a fool? Ruled by China? Really? That’s the best you’ve got? No offense, but when other people say things like that, don’t you feel bad for them? I do…
        I was simply making the point that it was not in the US’s interests. It’s certainly not in Canada’s interests to unite with Mexico either. As to whether it would be in Canada’s interest to unite with the US… that’s debatable.
        In any case, the article we’re commenting on is stupid. The US is not going to unite with either of those countries for the listed reasons. I doubt Canada will unite with either as well. In fact, the only country that could use a union would be Mexico. Can we agree that Mexico is a basket case?
        Thank you for agreeing with me that Mexico is a basket case. In this economy no one is going to take Mexico under their wing unless Mexico gives itself up on a platter… which they’re too proud to do despite not having anything to justify that pride.

        • “Address your point”? Your point being, apparently, that you Americans would lose out by assimilating Canada! Oh, what a profound point!

          Some of us are quite proud of what we’ve achieved in defiance of Sacred American Ideals, thank you very much, and we don’t particularly want them.

          • Jack, sarcasm is not an argument. You can’t counter “Americans would not benefit from a this union” with “sarcasm”. The point is not perhaps “profound” but it is direct and to the point. Much as someone might say “that product is too expensive so I won’t buy it”… Nothing more to it. It’s a bad deal.
            As to your pride, that’s irrelevant. What would that matter to me? Your pride might be relevant if I wanted to integrate Canada, but as I don’t it simply doesn’t matter.
            Your hostility is misplaced and of no practical purpose any discussion. Please try to HAVE a point before commenting. Lots of people read articles and if the reader has nothing to contribute they generally don’t impose their half formed emotions on people in text form.
            I put forward that the article was stupid and gave a cogent reason. You responded with “at least we’re not ruled by China”. That makes no sense… It’s the sort of statement that crazy people make. I communicated that point and now all you’ve got is sarcasm apparently.
            So I guess the question is, are you or are you not wearing tin foil on your head waiting for the mothership?

            Seriously… will it be coming soon?
            Regards from United States, Bill.

          • *Yeesh*

            The USians do go on so, don’t they?

          • What do you want me to do, Bill, embark on a catalogue of all the reasons why I think your country is inferior to mine? Something tells me that would be good prose wasted.

            Your “point” was that your Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech and the right to bear arms more thoroughly than our Charter does. Well, it hasn’t protected them all that well this past decade, seeing as you guys came one terrorist attack away from nationwide martial law. Which I have no doubt you would have endorsed 100%: the “right to free speech” crowd is always keen to lock up Enemies of the State. Some emotional connection.

            Anyway, as I remarked in my original comment, there’s nothing for Canada to gain from the US, especially since the latter is quite simply in the pocket of the People’s Republic of China. If that makes no sense to you, you might want to check out who’s been paying for the American Dream for the last 15 years.

          • Jack, why do you feel the need to insult any country? It isn’t pertinent to the topic. You’re sounding like one of those people that is full of more hate then brains at this point. There’s no point in insulting my country. The basis of my point was that a union would not benifit the US. I made that clear. You have not countered any of my points. You’ve done nothing more then snear and make stupid comments.
            As to martial law, no I would oppose that and I don’t think we were anywhere near that. You’re exaggerating to the point where you’re argument breaks. Because you seem unable to make the point yourself, I’ll do it for you. Your point seems to be that because the US tightened security after 9/11 our rights are really not material. Well, with very few exceptions (most of which are justified) all our codes were obeyed. So I don’t see your argument as having much weight. As to free speech, it’s a fundamental right of any democracy. To the extent that you don’t have it, you don’t have a democracy. If your government controls the social dialog then the people don’t.
            As to what Canada has to gain. I think that’s debatable. Certainly one could make some good arguments for gains in Canada. As to China, you’re not making any sense. Just because China buys US bonds doesn’t mean China owns the US. If anything it makes China indebted to us. You’d know that if you knew how these bonds work. The worst thing they can do is sell them all at once. Which would only mean the US couldn’t sell new bonds for a little while… and China would lose a lot of money. That is the sum total impact on the US from that action. You’re clearly economically ignorant.
            As to the debt culture in the US. That was obviously stupid and has been remarked upon for many years. The debt issue however has nothing to do with china besides their buying of the debt. There is a deep and reliable market for US debt that is in no way reliant on the Chinese. I’d make an effort to explain this to you, but you sound like a conspiracy theorist… and general nut.

            Regards from reality, Bill.

          • The opposite of everything asserted in the above comment is likely closer to reality.

          • Why, Bill, did I feel the need to insult your country? (I refrained from doing so, actually.) Because your initial post said nothing but “Americans enjoy more rights than Canadians.” That’s both insulting and untrue.

            What on earth compels you to post comments on a foreign country’s blogs insulting that country? I don’t post comments at The Atlantic saying, “Ha ha, America, finally got what’s comin’ to ya.”

            As to the value of rights in America, the climate of fear in 2002-2003 would certainly have allowed Dick Cheney to declare martial law in the event of another attack. I’m pleased to learn you would have been against that, but the great majority of your fellow citizens would have been for it.

            Re: economics, you seem to imagine that Chinese assets are imaginary. They aren’t, and China has been spending a good deal of its US dollars buying up private equity in the Home of the Brave. Meanwhile, it’s absurd to claim that Chinese influence over US foreign policy (if not domestic policy) hasn’t gone through the roof in the last ten years, chiefly owing to their power over US trade and US solvency. But don’t worry, we’re used to it here in Canada and there are worse things than being bullied by a foreign power. You’ll get used to it.

          • Ti-Guy, either have a point or don’t burden us with your nonsense. The opposite? The opposite of what I said is mostly impossible. Try again.
            —————————————————-
            Jack, Canadians do have fewer rights then Americans. That’s not an insult because it’s true. Now you don’t miss rights if you don’t use them so doubtless that’s why you haven’t noticed. But objectively Canadians enjoy FEWER rights then Americans. It’s not an insult if its true.
            As to foreign countries, I read foreign publications. It’s called being informed. And as to why I commented, it was because I had a point… unlike you. All you’ve got is misplaced mindless emotion that you’re venting under the mistaken impression that emotion is valuable in any discourse. News flash… it isn’t. It’s childish. Again… none of the above are insults.
            As to the climate of fear, that is a baseless speculation on your part and not worthy of further consideration. If you want to day dream about that, that is your business. But the statement is not credible.
            As to the Chinese investing in the US economy, why exactly should that bother me? The Japanese did the same thing in the 1980s and that did nothing but help us. I really don’t think you have a very good grasp of how economics works. You should probably either make an effort to inform yourself… conspiracy leftist blogs don’t count (your apparent source of information)… or refrain from talking out of your behind.
            You say that the Chinese have a noticeable influence on the US government. Mind defining ANY influence and then explaining why it’s unreasonable? So far as I know the only influence the Chinese have exerted has either been regional which all countries exercise or trade based which any major economy can exercise. The Chinese have less power over the US government then the EU does. Actually, Canada might well enjoy nearly as much real power over our policy. The only Chinese power that checks our actions is the Chinese military. The consequences of that can be seen in the Korea’s, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Beyond that, the Chinese have a very limited impact on our policy. We tend to ignore them more then not.

            This is not a challenge for your make more silly comments but a plea for you to think outside of your box and see things from a different perspective. I have no interest in primate dominance challenges… In this case, there’s nothing to earn from the effort.

          • Bill, you are a sad case.

  11. If NA integration comes, I’m moving to Sweden

    • I’m moving with Sophie

    • Wow! I mean really….. WOW! First, Canada isn’t even united with itself. The French quarter has been pushing for independence for EVER!

      Second, Dick Cheney is a G** D*** criminal, and has been for at least thirty years. Does anyone remember Watergate? or Iran Contra? Dick had his grimy hands in both of those affairs.

      lets talk about fear, after 9/11 Junior got whatever he wanted just by mentioning 9/11, including an illegal war in Iraq, and he and all of his bushies made a killing.

      Here’s MY point; Most Canadians live within a few miles of the US border, and if we (US) weren’t as awesome as we are Canada would have gone the way of the native population when the first Europeans arrived on this continent. You’re lucky we’re not f***in’ NAZI’s.

      On the other hand, the majority of Americans are idiots. YES, from the latin idiotes! we don’t keep up with politics and believe whatever FAUX NEWS tells us. Which is exactly why the republicans keep slashing funding for education, to keep us dumb! The right to be intelligent is not one of our constitutional amendments.

      Nobody’s perfect. If the two of you would write to your representatives at the length you comment on this forum then maybe the world would be a better place, but it’s not, and i suspect that you wont.

  12. Don’t worry it is just a matter of time. The point is Canada is all about regionalism now there is no one political voice anymore no one in Ontario gives a fat fart about BC or vise verse. Also be honest does anyone under the age of 40 not feel more in common with the neighbors to the south than the rest of the country? I live in BC and I hate to say it but I care more about Seattle than Ont or PQ put together.

  13. This is garbage, dirty, stinky, and very toxic garbage.
    Between seemingly coherent, justified, and otherwise intelligent responses, there still creeps in a commenter who sees nothing wrong with Globalization. Obviously the person commenting just before drove that home, but do not forget that the agenda-laden journalist is making his paycheck on disinformation. The same folks who write and read and agree with these view points of Global problems and Global solutions are the same ones who believe the Amero is a good idea or that the North American Union will make us truly “Free.”

    The New World Order, as phrased by Bush Sr, and furthered by a few Pres’ before and every president since (yes, even Obama) will look to diminish our civil liberties, will further eradicate our freedoms enshrined to us by the constitution. Since the modern Trojan Horse of our time, 9/11, we have been losing the very rights (the patriot act alone violates more than just a couple) that our gov’t is suppose to defend.

    The market collapse is a contrived event, the Fed (They are not a part of the American Gov’t, and I hope you all know that) is above all forms of Gov’t in this and any other nation-state in the world, especially amongst NAFTA trading partners. The elite will tell you there are pressing global problems that demand pressing Global solutions. Global War on Terror, Global Warming, Global Market Crash… The solution is not one world government nor a North American Union. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, and look to the elites to use such rhetoric of global problems needing global solutions. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

  14. Oh Potter you little devil, stiring the pot so. Flesh it out for us a little more– when you mention further integration of governance structures, are you talking about stuff like NORAD and the International Joint Commission that watches water levels on the Great Lakes, maybe the creation of a joint SEC? Or are you talking about an actual democratically elected supranational debating/legislating body? It’s the latter idea that has everyone here in a tizzy. I’m not in a tizzy because it’s laughable. Both Americans and Canadians would never ever agree to the creation of such an organization and you well know that ;^)

Sign in to comment.