Canada-USA issues to watch during this Presidency

What we hosers hope will get resolved

Published on November 6, 2004 By sunwukong In International

There are a few bright, burning issues of contention that exist between the good neighbours in North America. Hopefully these will get resolved amicably during GW Bush's second term:

1. Lumber tariffs -- though the Canadian stumpage rules do need reform, the tariff regime imposed by the US is way out of line since they can't even prove to their own FTC that anyone has been substantively harmed. This has been going on for over a decade now (almost two) and every multinational dispute panel has sided with the Canada. At stake are several thousand jobs lost, billions drained from the economy, and seized funds in the billions.

2. Beef -- despite all scientific evidence and reasoning, the USA refuses to open its borders to Canadian beef. Over a billion dollars has been lost to the Canadian economy (mostly the province of Alberta, which happens to be the most USA friendly of all). There was a theory that Kerry would have preserved the closure and that Bush is actively working on ending it. Let's see what happens.

3. Intellectual Property -- currently, Canada has far more protections, both legislatively and in common law (i.e., court rulings) for the protection of consumers rights with respect to intellectual property fair use. Provided we don't sell or actively distribute content we have purchased in one medium, we are free to copy it to other mediums for our own use. This is being actively fought by the current, dominant players in the "old media" on both sides of the border.

4. Missile Defense -- besides being ridiculed from both a scientific and military (and financial) point of view, Canada is being pressured to assist the development of active missile defense. Opposition sees this as a scientific boondogle with a serious chance of turning into a fiscal black hole -- a very sensitive issue since Canadian military spending is so proportionally low. However, the current minority government is showing signs of caving in just to ease US-Canada relations.

5. Gay Marriage -- this is pretty much a done deal in Canada. Our courts and (most) legislatures are on their way to allowing homosexuals the same rights under marriage (and divorce) as hetero couples. A large majority of the population in all regions supports this effort. A huge cultural gap between the two countries.

6. Decriminalization of Pot -- mixed feelings about this throughout the Canadian population and various levels of law enforcement. Currently the balance is in favour of so-called "weak decriminilization" of small amounts. Law enforcement on both sides of the border aren't so pleased.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Nov 06, 2004

#1 and 2 should be resovled as you say. But the hysteria of some Americans is putting pressure on every admministratrion against it. That Hysteria is whipped up by the yellow journalism that is practiced by the mainstream media. I have no problems with Canada Beef, because I have researched the issue. And the Lumber issue is purely protection due to the greens preventing harvesting of lumber down here. So in response, in order to stay in business, the lumber companies cannot compete with Canada, and seek protect. That is just not right.

#3: I wish we were as smart. Indeed, here in the USA, we do have a bipartisan effort, headed by a democrat to make our laws more like yours. I Hope Rick Boucher suceeds.

#4: That one is being debated by scientist on both sides. I dont see it as a boon doggle, and with the breakdown of the soviet Union, and the rise of rogue states like NK, it is essential that not only Canada and the US,but all civilized nations work towards this. America has already said it would work with Russia and many European nations to make this work. I dont believe it is a question of if, but of when.

#5: I think in the end, the US will have gay unions. if they are not called Marriages, so what. I think it is a matter of sematics anyway, but if conservative christians dont like the term marriage, placate them and call it Civil unions. With all the benefits of what we now call Marriage.

#6: The US started to decriminalize it long before Canada thought to. But then people stepped in and campaigned against it. And they are not conservative, or liberal. organizations like MADD. I am ambivalent on this. In the end, I dont want my children smoking pot, but I dont see wasting a lot of money trying to bust a bunch of pot heads when our murder rate is so high. So I am neutral on this one. I go with the flow.

in short, I dont see a lot of difference between the 2 countries on domestic issues. The main source of friction seems to be on the Foreign issues. And in time, as in the past, they will come together somewhere in the middle.

I will be glad to discuss this further with you over a Canadian Whopper (I am sick of McDonalds since I had 4 kids! And you know what they always want! !)

sunwukong

on Nov 06, 2004

So in response, in order to stay in business, the lumber companies cannot compete with Canada, and seek protect. That is just not right.

Even worse, people like my sister-in-law (lives in Indiana) has seen the cost of building her "dream house" shoot through the roof [sorry for the bad pun]. Steak isn't so cheap either.

#3: I wish we were as smart.

The sad thing is that you as people certainly are but your system has handed a lot of the power to the old media interests who're making the equivalent of the buggy whip laws -- though far more damaging and punitive.

#4: That one is being debated by scientist on both sides. I dont see it as a boon doggle

To me the tragedy of missile defense systems, to put it in economic terms, is that the attacker can always outspend the defender when they start with the same budget. During the Cold War era, fortunately, the Soviet Union went bust trying to match the potential of the Star Wars program. But this current effort is based on the hypothesis that someone is putting together a missile attack rather than a known enemy. Do you scale it only for North Korea? Iran? China? Stolen Soviet technology? Stolen American technology? What would be their objective targets? Do you protect them all? To the same level? What if they're not spending on missiles at all but portable devices?

Worse, from a Canadian perspective, is the drain on our limited military resources such a project would have. I'd rather spend the money on upgrading and enhancing our current armed forces. Wouldn't the USA be better protected by a more vigilant and capable northern neighbour than the same pathetic one with a couple of Patriot missile batteries?

#5: I think in the end, the US will have gay unions.

You're probably right, but on what timescale I have no clue.

#6: In the end, I dont want my children smoking pot, but I dont see wasting a lot of money trying to bust a bunch of pot heads when our murder rate is so high.

I agree but it's not as clear up here what our crime prevention priorities should be -- probably organized crime.

I certainly hope so -- though it'd be unfortunate if it waited until another tragedy like 9/11 or a World War.

I will be glad to discuss this further with you over a Canadian Whopper (I am sick of McDonalds since I had 4 kids! And you know what they always want! !)

I have two young ones (and have been advised never to let them outnumber you) but as much as I'm able, you're certainly welcome to come and talk this over. What say I'll treat you to an Alberta prime rib instead?

Mitch21

on Nov 06, 2004

another issue we should resolve is the majority of our population wanting to take you over.

sunwukong

on Nov 06, 2004

Reply By: Mitch21Posted: Saturday, November 06, 2004another issue we should resolve is the majority of our population wanting to take you over.

... your knee and spank us?
... and cover us in chocolate?
... and give us a full body waxing followed by dinner and a movie?

Dr Guy

on Nov 07, 2004

I heard that about the out numbering. Too late of course! And you are on!

historyishere

on Nov 07, 2004

I remember seeing a political cartoon from the 1980's that sort of put this whole thing in perspective.... an active missile defense system would be a preventative measure against ICBM's, but not against things like Cruise Missiles, Suitcase nukes and a whole host of other nuclear options. So basically, this new system would be something that would work against probably the least likely option at the moment....

Dr Guy

on Nov 07, 2004

very true. But Then we did not have NK with Missle technology back then. So yea, it wont protect against OBL, but it will against kim Jung Mentally Ill

historyishere

on Nov 07, 2004

So yea, it wont protect against OBL, but it will against kim Jung Mentally Ill

So would a well-placed sniper at a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost.

Dr Guy

on Nov 07, 2004

So would a well-placed sniper at a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost.

Not quite, but close! You never know about KJI the sequel. That will always be there. But if you got the scope, I know how to get you an interview for the cheap solution! !

Grim Xiozan

on Nov 07, 2004

Think of it this way Missile Defense is just another preventative measure to a nuclear holocaust, if the people who have nukes can't assure just our destruction they will not attempt it.
They seek to blow up an ICBM before it can go nuclear or before it reaches any place that could cause great damage.
Personally I would rather hear "Our missile defense system is working and has taken down the incoming ICBM missiles..." than "ICBM Missiles are incoming and we can only hope they don't kill to many people..."

Though surely it must be a silly waste of technology when China is rising in power, North Korea has the tech, India, Pakistan, France, etc.
Let's just go for non-military preventative measures you know they always work!!

Plinko for Episode III!!

hitparade

on Nov 07, 2004

"He whose reflective pure spirit sinks into Atman
Knows bliss inexpressible through words."

Siddhartha.

In the spirit of discourse by the riverside...

Responding to the suggestion that Canada boycott the American market place, sunwukong wrote:

"Certainly impractical in the short term. It's the same reason people rob banks, "Because that's where the money is." Until India and/or China exceed the USA's market power, the convenience of selling/buying from you is too great. "

This statement implicates the inevitable rise & fall of world powers.

Queries:

When precisely (define long term) will China &/or India exceed the market power of the USA? What will the respective market share of these powers be? What will be their respective strengths & weaknesses? Will political & social issues affect this propsoition; should such considerations factor in to Canada’s expected convenience in shopping at Chinamart?

Concerning Canada’s healthcare system, sunwukong wrote:

"Now you're going for surreal -- remember that corporate America's R&D is in the USA. Why aren't your national measures of health (e.g., infant mortality, life expectancy) higher than ours? Are you saying that somehow Canada has the economic clout to siphon off the benefits of your R&D to benefit us greater than yourselves?"

My pregnant sister had a horrific time while in Canada. At one urgent point, she was told she would have a 5 week wait to see a doctor. Her husband (now an American citizen) had to drop everything to drive across the border to get the urgent care my sister and nephew required. I have heard of penicillin shortages, etc… Are you really sure Canada's healthcare system is all that you pretend?

Mitch21

on Nov 07, 2004

... your knee and spank us?
... and cover us in chocolate?
... and give us a full body waxing followed by dinner and a movie?

The last one, of course!

sunwukong

on Nov 07, 2004

Think of it this way Missile Defense is just another preventative measure to a nuclear holocaust,

I'm very skeptical of the science behind Missile Defense (having struggled with the physics equations for the simple case and the game theory pursuit scenarios) and, as I've said before, the economics of any single attack are always behind the attacker.

That said, it's very much a large scale research project that I don't believe either country should realistically want Canada's early participation. The political reality on the ground here limits the amount of military spending relative to things like health care and education -- no government stands a chance in trying to get defense spending anywhere close to these top two.

However, increasing what we spend on the military/defense is heavily supported. Given that there're real improvements that can be made to make the US-Canada border much more secure by securing Canada's territory (e.g., ports, air/sea patrols, intelligence networks etc.), wouldn't this be a better target for any money?

Grim Xiozan

on Nov 07, 2004

However, increasing what we spend on the military/defense is heavily supported. Given that there're real improvements that can be made to make the US-Canada border much more secure by securing Canada's territory (e.g., ports, air/sea patrols, intelligence networks etc.), wouldn't this be a better target for any money?

That stops an ICBM Missile how?

Plinko for Doctor Strangelove!!

historyishere

on Nov 07, 2004

That stops an ICBM Missile how?

It doesn't necessarily... but it would make getting a lot of other things over the border a bit more difficult....

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!