Conference kaosws::canada

    We already did vote it in (or at least our politicians did!). 
    Interesting that Clinton has promised to protect the US against imports
    of Canadian durham wheat, though.  Is this "free" trade or "restricted"
    trade to only those items the US sees fit to allow in?
    
    Truly a can of worms...
    
    Otto.

    
    Bummer, I was hoping Canada would not vote it in and we could put
    it back on the shelf (way in the back) for about 100 years.  From
    what I hear on the news I think Clinton is promising a lot to the
    congresspeople here in order to get their votes so we must have 
    a state that would not vote for it unless there were restrictions
    on durham wheat.  
    
    A Canadian, very close to the Mexican border and sliding...
    

    Well, I've always supported the idea of free trade, but now I'm not
    sure the NAFTA agreement is the right one.  With Europe moving to end
    barriers, and the global environment, any country that doesn't embrace
    truly "free" trade will end up the loser in the long run.
    
    However, in Canada we first must eliminate provincial barriers to
    trade, like not being able to sell beer produced in Ontario in Manitoba
    or Quebec, or milk produced in B.C. that exceeds quotas set by the Milk
    Marketing Board can neither be sold in other provinces or countries, or
    even given away to needy folks, and must be destroyed.
    
    And how about Japan's protectionism to imported goods?  Sure I can try
    to sell my Canadian-made frunglepluck there, but I'm forced to price it
    at twice the price of a Japanese higher model frunglepluck.
    
    So, NAFTA in principle is a necessity in my opinion, and would only be
    a prelude to a truly global free trade agreement, but a working model
    in my lifetime?  I doubt it...
    
    JMHO,
    Otto.

    Saw an expose on the wheat thing last night. Clinton is promising to
    force an International Trade Commision (ITC) investigation. The joke
    is that the issue has already gone bofore both an ITC and a bi-lateral
    commision and passed without incident. It is an empty promise, but
    gives the politicans an out if they are attacked for passing the NAFTA
    agreement.
    
    
    							Derek.

    Interesting comments on CBC Newsworld this morning on NAFTA:
    
    The comments were that Clinton is basically trying to protect those
    states/corporations which may be negativly affected by free trade 
    (re the Durham wheat tariffs) 
    On the other side of the coin he is promising states/corporations that may 	
    be positivly affected by NAFTA that they may receive gov't assistance
    of some type (no facts mentioned) to be able to capture a larger chunk
    of the marketplace in North America.
    
    It will be interesting. 

	re last few

	That should be "durum" wheat - a hardy wheat used chiefly in
	making pasta (according to my office dictionary).

	Tony

>
>        re last few
>
>        That should be "durum" wheat - a hardy wheat used chiefly in
>        making pasta (according to my office dictionary).
>

Often spelled both ways, but essentially from the latin "dur" meaning
hard ...  There is hard and soft wheat, which describes amongst other
factors, the ability of the  flour to absorb moisture.  A soft wheat
absorbs water easily and releases its gluten quickly ... good for cakes.
A hard wheat doesn't absorb water so quickly and therefore releases
its gluten more slowly ... good for breads and pasta.   Cakes made with
a hard wheat will have a dense texture, and breads and pasta made with
soft flour will be mushy.

Stuart

    
    	Gzowski's panel yesterday on Morningside (all journalists) had	
    some interesting comments about NAFTA,FTA and wheat. First , they		
    said the deals weren't truly "free" trade deals; they are deals for
    "negotiated access" to markets. The Wheat business has been before	
    international tribunals twice, and now Clinton has promised the Texas/
    Oklahoma congresspeople that they will have a kick at the can again
    (but likely to have the same outcome). The journalist said that in
    Canada we are like "boy scouts". When we win, like we do with softwood
    lumber, and pork, and steel, and wheat disputes, we think that is the
    end of the issue.  The Americans have a squadron of lawyers
    and lobbyists ready to deploy immediately to open the issue up again.
    It's a never ending battle, which is the irony of these "Free Trade"
    deals. 
    
    Candace
    
    

	Candace,

	Well, hello neighbor...[he says from over the fence]

	I noticed your name on the office next to mine in phase 4...hope
	you don't mind the sound of cursing; every time I read the
	political notes in this conference, I break into uncontrollable
	fits of yelling.

	Grins,

	Charlie

I'm a support of of AFTA (A Free Trade Agreement.) I believe
the agreement, in it's purest form, would be good for both the U.S. and
Canada, in the long run.

I don't support an agreement that includes Mexico. A side from the fact that
labour costs are so cheap, an even bigger concern is the lack of, and
enforcement of, environmental laws.  Mexico has almost no laws to limit the
dumping of waste into landfills sites, air or water.

Once NAFTA kicks into high gear, we will start to see the big corporate
polluters packing up and heading south to get away from stricker
environment laws in the U.S. and Canada.  That will put the environmental
movement back 20 years!!!

I can only hope some of the environmental groups can stop it in the courts
before it get's too far.


Dave.

	Wouldn't NAFTA accomplish the opposite?

	I would imagine that NAFTA would give the American's and
	ourselves more clout when forcing Mexico into cleaning up
	their act.

	Charlie

Regrettably, no ...

There was an article in the COlorado Springs paper last week about DDT
appearing in food grown in Mexico ...  Where did the DDT come from ?
US multinational chemical manufacturers who sell it freely and far
cheaper in the 3rd world than the safer chemicals in use in the USA,
Canada and Europe.  Where are they manufactured ?  In plants owned by
these companies in the 3rd world.

There are altogether too many potential Bhopal's in the 3rd world, where
major chemical companies seem to be involved.

Stuart

    
    	Today's news brought out a new wrinkle in the ongoing "free 
    trade" deals.  Chretien has laid it on the line to Clinton about
    wheat, water and....energy. Turns out that one of the most
    protectionist bunch of old cronies in NA is the MExican oil/gas
    producers...and NAFTA conveniently leaves them alone.   Chretien
    is acting like the 51st congressman that Clinton has to convince..
    or he won't proclaim the deal here (so they speculate).  
    
    	Candace
    PS Charlie:  Get the KUTIPS off the VAX and into your ears. The FMC	
    has been locked up by ourselves for 2 years and that has provided a
    fine environment for enlarging the vocabulary of curses and epithets.
    You'll be amused and entertained, I'm sure.
    
    

NAFTA may be a motivating factor for Mexico to establish new environmental
laws, however, enforcement of those laws is something altogether different.

In Mexico, the dollar speaks louder than any written laws.  I dont care
how many laws they make, any big pollutin', big bucks company can buy there way
out of any possible prosectution/detection/restriction they might run into.

Dave.

	You're right, Mexico is probably the most blatent out of the
	three countries for money buying corruption, but Canada and
	the US are certainly not innocent in this area either.

	If the Covernments of Canada and the US are truly committed
	to environmental issues then I am sure that regulations
	can be dictated to Mexico and upheld through inspection teams
	made up of members of all three countries.

	I know this probably will not happen, but it certainly is the
	proper way to proceed.

	Charlie

	ps Candace, the DECorators were by the other day and were wondering
	what color scheme you would like for your office. I mentioned that
	I could ask your preferences through this media. They had quite
	a selection to pick from so here are just a few; for a bold
	statement, the IBM ensemble includes blue walls with red, white
	and blue checkered carpet a tad too bold for my liking. A more
	fun setup was the macdonald scheme, red walls and carpet with a
	life-sized yellow statue of Ronny as the coat rack. And certainly
	the most striking would have to be the parking lot decor package,
	grass-green walls with the occasional lamp post illustration, and
	a pavement-black carpet with white parking lanes and weaved-in
	sea-gull guano facimiles.

    	I'm pretty flexible on the colour scheme for my office but 
    I'd hate to see the flesh-toned walls and the professionally
    designed "Kanata Operations" sign go.