Your way of thinking is … fascinating. Perhaps you would like to substantiate your claims? Not that you can.

Look, the US is a vital partner for Canada. It’s beyond belief that someone would want to argue against it. Canada enjoys a healthy trade surplus ($53 billion US in 2001). Two-way daily trade of the United States. between these North American neighbors surpasses $1 billion, representing the largest bilateral trading relationship on the planet. Practically ALL our jobs either directly or indirectly depend on trade with the US of A.

NAFTA has worked tremendously well by further increasing trade and ensuring prosperity – check out the trends yourself. Arguments about wood etc… are but a blip in the overall scheme of things.

Energy supply network is the result of the existing infrastructure. Nothing to do with “agreements” – good or bad. Would you rather spend billions on modifying it and damage the environment in the process? Note that you would add significantly to greenhouse gas emissions by transporting electricity over longer distances.

I am not involved in the current cross-border arrangements relating to agricultural emergencies, but I have no doubt whatsoever that they must be upgraded as the world around us has changed so much. With regards to nuclear emergencies – absolutely; improvements in cooperation are a must.

As luck would have it, the vast majority of Canadians have common sense to agree with me. A poll released in late 2006 by the Woodrow Wilson Institute verified that the US-Canada partnership is on the up-swing – getting even warmer and more productive.

The poll found that an increasing number of Canadians – 58% — viewed the U.S. as their closest friend and ally – that’s up 5 percentage points from last year.

85% of Canadians view the US as a friend – up from 73% who responded that way last year. Similarly, 90% of Americans called Canada a friend – that’s up 8 percentage points.

You are an extremist. This in itself does not make you wrong, but only someone from the past would talk about cooperation with the US in the light of “colonial and capitalist framework”. I am sure you have your reasons.

2 – the result of a bad agreement, there will be more if this proceeds.

3 – and cross border cooperation is so non-existent now isn’t it? Tell me how SPP would help with Mad Cow? Or softwood lumber?

4 – BMD

You’re right, we’re not gonna agree, but maybe someday you’ll wish more of us had.

1. EU countries are already benefiting from “giving up ability to set independent national economic and trade policy” (free trade zone)

2. “We have lots of energy, we have so much we export it. ” Right. We also import lots of energy. The system is integrated from north to south rather than from East to West. Tell Toronto with its brownerouts how much energy we have.

3. “Give me a real world example.” Epidemics like SARS or Foot and Mouth or a nuclear accident – any of these would require cooperation across the continent. It is necessary to put the systems in place before emergencies happen… I am telling this to you as an expert.

4. All civilized countries cooperate on securing their borders – check out the EU. It only makes sense that we would cooperate closer on our contenent.

We just aren’t going to agree if you consider the above items to be objectionable because they are “firmly rooted within a colonial and capitalist framework”.

Energy security? We have lots of energy, we have so much we export it. We have fossil fuel coming out the ying-yang, we have water, we have wind, we make nuclear reactors for petes sake – what is this security you speak of?

Emergency preparedness? Give me a real world example.

Secure borders? Shouldn’t we be responsible for securing our own borders? What does our secure border have to do with either Mexico or the United States?

How come there has been no parliamentary debate on the SPP? Why is it happening behind closed doors? Why has there been no public information or debate? Why has only big business been consulted on the matter? Why did the US army have anything at all to say about whether a town could/could not rent out a building for a public meeting? Why would even the Canadian government deny them that right?

Those questions are just a few of the ones that need asking?

– and add to those questions, just why do we need the level of deep integration with any foreign powers that this process envisions?

Economic freedom, energy security, emergency preparedness, secure borders… These colonial concepts would naturally upset all self-respecting commies, “anti-globalization” protesters and other assholes.