Maybe we have it all wrong.....

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by peter12

We should just sign free trade agreements with most of the developing world and save our aid dollars for emergencies, like famine.

The problem is that a lot of the aid that we provide now is aimed at giving developing nations the tools that they need to prevent famine and disease and improve infrastructure so that these places can function better both in times of national emergency and in times of relative calm. If we don't provide them with aid relief, chances are that famines and disease outbreaks are more common and more devastating. That said, I think Ford's points about the current state of the aid industry are really good.

Domestically, I think the collapse of the maritime fishing industry is probably the single biggest cause of social ills (huge unemployment out east, and an influx of migrant workers to central and western canada which our infrastructure isn't equipped to handle), and this is a problem that you can't fix by throwing more money at. And sure, you can buy more hospital beds, but paying doctors and nurses more will not necessarily result in a large increase in the number of health care practitioners.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

How will Canadian commodities possibly take a hit with free trade agreements? Potash Corp controls 60% of the world's potash supply, outside of OPEC Canada is the only major oil exporting nation expecting sustained increased oil production. If anything restrictive trade will hurt the price we get for commodities (Anyone remember the phrase "Made in Canada price").

Also what's so bad with letting the premises of 'Competitive Advantage' dictate trade (including the labor market)?

Also isn't closing off countries from participating fairly in our economy but then patronizing them by giving them table scraps a disservice to the development of third world countries?

Home-grown commodities will take a hit. Manufacturers and other resource purchasers will by less Canadian produced resources, with the distinct possibility of cannibalizing a part of our economy. You'd simply be shifting output and labor around primary and secondary resources, with no definitive outlook on the country's success as a whole.

Further to that, you have a large chunk of our labor force based in primary resources; to suddenly open up to free trade requires a complete revolution of our labor structure, which frankly, we are ill-equipped to face. There would have to be a long-term, multi-generational focus on re-shifting the labor structure and accounting for displaced workers as universal free trade would inevitably call for. This is, in addition, not to mention the drastic overhaul of our education system to train / re-train new and existing workers.

I'm not saying free trade is a bad idea (I quite like it actually), but be realistic. Free trade is NOT something you can jump the gun on.

This is in addition to the idea of foreign exploitation, which has reared its ugly head in the past.

Also, is not a "competitive advantage" only applicable to countries that exclusively have free trade deals? You advocate every country should have one with Canada, but if that was the case, there's no advantage left except for the country with the lowest price to sell at. Therefore, free trade deals with everybody is redundant. It would be a free for all. You're contradicting yourself.