I'm not a Mulroney fan but I dont know how you can consider it sold out. Those in opposition acknowledged that were they in power, they too would be voting in support of it.

And our soldiers would agree with you, it's so rare for them to get equipment they need as it is...

I for one don't want my tax dollars going towards private industry to retrofit THEIR factories just so they can make MORE money on government contracts.

That's a recipe for disaster!

How is that a recipe for disaster?
It's a recipe for job creation.

There is no reason at all that we cannot produce the product in Canada other than cheap immigrant labour in the US or elsewhere.

We should not be subsidizing slave labour.
We should be supporting our troops while at the same time creating Canadian jobs and boosting Canadian production and industry.

Have to say that while I'm often supportive of the things mj posts here, this protectionist attitude is not one. Protecting jobs by trade restrictions is a fool's game.

As to who's responsible, I have to say that as ready as I was for Mulroney to leave office (and I was), I have to admire him for having the guts to buck public opinion and bring in free trade and the GST. I only wish Stephen Harper had a pair, instead of continually picking bad policy because an uninformed and self-centered electorate thinks its a good idea.

I may have used an incorrect term 'signed'. The agreement was signed in 92, but had to be ratified by each countries government. That did not happen under a Conservative Prime Minister. There were only two Conservatives in the House when the trade agreement was ratified. The agreement was ratified under the leadership of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who at the time had a very large majority and could have done as he wanted.

To quote another source on this great internet, "Chrétien had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA, but instead negotiated the two supplemental agreements with the new U.S. president." What we called at the time, another broken election promise.

Yesitsme:

It was not I, but the original poster who used the phrase 'sell out'.

So you are actually trying to blame NAFTA on Chrétien?

Really?

You are aware, are you not, that under Canadian law, an international treaty becomes binding once signed by a representative of the Canadian government? Parliamentary ratification is merely a formality. Something that Jean Chrétien discovered after taking office ... so his only option was to insist upon a couple of sub-agreements to better protect Canadian interests.

I am not blaming anyone for NAFTA, I was merely pointing out that it was not Harper as the original poster seemed to imply.

Also of interest is the following quote regarding the signing of the agreement in Dec. 92

In reading this quote, it is my understanding that it would not become binding unless the goverments of all three countries ratified the agreement. It would be completely pointless to have the agreement binding (or law) in Canada if it were not ratified by the other two countries involved.

If the above quote is correct, and a condition of 'subject to its final approval by the governments of the three countries' was included in the text, then the agreement does not become binding (law) until the condition is satisfied.

You can't see how uncompetitive government contracts handed to companies who received massive government funding to retrofit their operations to suit said contracts is a dangerous thing?

I am very much against direct government subsidization of big business. You end up with business getting dependent on tax dollars and too close relationships between government and business CEO's.

That is not correct. It had received parliamentary assent and needed to be proclaimed as an executive decision, which he could have delayed. But he didn't. All the while telling Washington that they were "on-side" anyway.

To say he did anything but try make it look like he was fighting it for optics is crap.

Perhaps PWGSC's Depository Services website is incorrect when it makes statements like the following?

Just as John Turner had the choice to refuse Trudeau's hostage letter, Chretien simply could have refused to sign NAFTA.



All he had to do was not sign it, and force re-negotiation. Why didn't he? Because he was for Free Trade.

I'm afraid that I am missing the point of what you are quoting above, or how it counters what I am saying.

Like any agreement amongst parties, there is a "start date" that the agreement comes into force. I could sign a mortgage agreement today but I don't start paying on it until the agreed upon date. However, once I sign, I am bound to start paying on that date.

The agreement had already been signed and ratified before Chrétien came to power. There was nothing for him to refuse to sign. The agreement had already been made binding and beyond further negotiation.

From the same website you are quoting from ...



That may be so, but his hands were tied either way by Canadian law.


The treaty was signed, ratified and made binding under the Mulroney government. Chrétien was simply there when the agreed upon date of it's commencement arrived.

Sharpen you knives if your going to be splitting hairs that thin.