evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (11/13/88)
Somehow I don't think the free trade deal is EITHER as bad as opponents say it is, nor do I think it's as good as its proponents claim.[ So far I have seen BOTH sides spread fear at every opportunity. This election has turned into "who do you trust?", with the voters being asked to decide which leader they distrust least. Brian Mulroney treads on *very* thin ice calling ANYONE a liar. In this newsgroup I have seen pieces of the campaign itself. Rudeness, opinions denouced as lies, and rabid exagertaion of both the deal's plusses and minuses. I will be voting against the Tories this time, but not because I am against free trade. I am against the way the Tories have negotiated and implemented the FTA, I am appalled at the Conservative desperation "man on the street" radio ads, and I am disgusted by what I remember of the past four years' administration. More than anything, I am saddened that there is no "Plan B". The Conservatives have pinned all their economic strategies on unbridled trade with the country which may conceivably be led by Dan Quayle. Why have we not been talking to other countries or economic blocs about free trade? Have we been lobbying the EEC? Japan? ANYONE else but the U.S.? What if we implement the FTA, and STILL become subject to US Omnibus Trade Bills? Frankly, out of sheer curiosity, there's part of me which would like to see a Conservative minority. Would Turner and Broadbent gang up on Mulroney the way Peterson and Rae did it to Frank Miller in Ontario some years back? Couldn't happen to a nicer guy... -- Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly If Jesus was a Jew Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario, Canada how come he had evan@telly.on.ca -or- uunet!attcan!telly!evan a Mexican name?
tjhorton@csri.toronto.edu (Tim Horton) (11/14/88)
In article <410@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >Somehow I don't think the free trade deal is EITHER as bad as opponents say >it is, nor do I think it's as good as its proponents claim. [...] > >More than anything, I am saddened that there is no "Plan B". The Conservatives >have pinned all their economic strategies on unbridled trade with the country >which [ridicule applied here]. Why have we not been talking to other countries >or economic blocs about free trade? Have we been lobbying the EEC? Japan? >ANYONE else but the U.S.? Does 'Plan B' with anyone else make sense? Would it be worth the hassle to set up a free trade agreement with Japan? with the (many countries in) the EEC? Say you had a small company out in Mississauga selling flour mill control systems (why do I pick this example, you may ask). You and all your employees speak English, are comfortably settled within 40 miles of Toronto, and know a smattering of French. Are you going to fall head over heals to make moves into Spain and Belgium? Not likely. These are much smaller economies than the US, much much farther away and less accessible, and with 2 minor exceptions having different languages. We already maintain a huge proportion of our trade around the US. Free trade or no, we earn something like 1/4 of every dollar of our income in dealings over the American border. We can make it easy, or we can make it hard... The only thing I can see that's bad in this agreement is the purported access to Canadian energy resources. But then, I personally think we've already sold them. Consider the enormity of a federal deficit grossing in the hundreds of billions of dollars and a population on a par with California. I think the main reason anybody continues to invest in Canadian debt is Canada's natural resources (and underexamined image). Surely we won't be able to get out from under the debt we've accumulated (yet our socialist complacency ignores such realities; it can't be 5 years before we sink like some Brazil). I honestly fear people may misread the impending economic impact of our debt as a consequence of this agreement. We have to face the fact that Canadians are incredible ignorant of governmental deficits and their coming ramifications, and upheavals will be common as a result of the agreement. Proximity of events is quite likely to finger the wrong cause, in that atmosphere.
cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (11/14/88)
In article <410@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >More than anything, I am saddened that there is no "Plan B". The Conservatives >have pinned all their economic strategies on unbridled trade with the country >which may conceivably be led by Dan Quayle. Why have we not been talking to >other countries or economic blocs about free trade? Have we been lobbying the >EEC? Japan? ANYONE else but the U.S.? Frankly, this is a stupid argument. The premise is that an increased level of trade with the US is in itself a bad thing. Nonsense. Increased trade with ANYBODY is a good thing. The question is with whom to get a free trade deal first, and the three obvious answers in order of priority are the US, EEC, and Japan. The US comes first because we are infinitely more with their market, we speak the same language, think roughly alike, have similar cultural background, and share a very long border. From Ontario, the eastern seaboard of the US is about as convenient as Manitoba for shipping purposes, and 50-100 million people live there. Europe comes second because the size of the market is larger -- about 350 Million people, a lot of the people speak English and/or French, and they ARE our cultural background for the most part. However, shipping costs are automatically boosted by one Atlantic Ocean. Japan is in third place due to its relatively small size (100 million), an almost total lack of consumer demand, plus N hundred non-tarriff trade barriers that amount to a wall of protection. Negotiating with them will be hard work. >What if we implement the FTA, and STILL >become subject to US Omnibus Trade Bills? The dispute settlement mechanism is able to enforce equal treatment regardless of national origin. >Frankly, out of sheer curiosity, there's part of me which would like to see >a Conservative minority. Would Turner and Broadbent gang up on Mulroney the >way Peterson and Rae did it to Frank Miller in Ontario some years back? Yes. No question about it. If the PC's get a "minority", you can bet there will be a Liberal government. >Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (or via watmath or ubc-vision) University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !
clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) (11/14/88)
Because I'm picking on a single article that doesn't deserve to be picked on, at least not more than any other, I omit the attribution: In article ...: >>The dispute settlement mechanism is able to enforce equal treatment >>regardless of national origin. >> >... [speculation about court mechanism] ... Isn't this how the famous >"notwithstanding" clause could be exploited? ... The "notwithstanding" clause is part of the Meech Lake agreement, isn't it? > Inquiring minds want to know! What inquiring minds want to know is, why is this stuff in can.general instead of can.politics? I can get all the biased flame-throwing I want from the Toronto Star or the Calgary Herald; if it's to be on this network too, let it at least appear in the designated snakepit. Or at least, if it's to appear in can.general, let the article not contain errors that *I* can correct. -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 BITNET,CSNET: clarke@csri.toronto.edu CDNNET: clarke@csri.toronto.cdn UUCP: {allegra,cornell,decvax,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke
drforsey@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Dave Forsey) (11/15/88)
In article <1826@pembina.UUCP> cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >In article <410@telly.UUCP> evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) writes: > >>What if we implement the FTA, and STILL >>become subject to US Omnibus Trade Bills? > >The dispute settlement mechanism is able to enforce equal treatment >regardless of national origin. > Does this really follow? Company X doesn't like the settlement mechanism, or some ruling made by them. Cannot company X exercise it constitutional rights by airing its grievance in the supreme court, thus forcing the Canadian gov't to plead its case there? Isn't this how the famous "notwithstanding" clause could be exploited? Since the Canadian gov't will not want to tear up the agreement over individual cases, what is to prevent the gradual erosion of the FTA? (This last question is not meant to be "fear-raising". It is meant to ask about what specific mechanisms are in the FTA to circumvent such an occurance). Can anyone answer these questions with authority? Chris raised an excellent point about the debt is well taken, though the comment about "socialist" seems a bit out of place when you consider the largest debtor nation in the world is the greatest self-avowed anti-socialist nation. Dare anyone speculate on what happens to Canada if the good-old USofA goes down the tube because of its trillion-dollar deficit? Will the FTA help or hinder? Or is Canada already too inextricably intertwined with the US economy? Would it be better to be part of "1992" in Europe (to whom the US owes a lot of this money)? Inquiring minds want to know!
nixon@ai.toronto.edu (Brian Nixon) (11/15/88)
The Constitution Act, 1982, enables legislation to contain a notwithstanding clause.
850181p@aucs.UUCP (STEVEN E. PARKER) (11/15/88)
In article <6761@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, drforsey@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Dave Forsey) writes: > In article <1826@pembina.UUCP> cdshaw@pembina.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: > > Chris raised an excellent point about the debt is well taken, though the > comment about "socialist" seems a bit out of place when you consider the ^^^ You were very kind to say that the comment seemed only a bit out of place! > > Dare anyone speculate on what happens to Canada if the good-old USofA goes > down the tube because of its trillion-dollar deficit? Will the FTA help > or hinder? Or is Canada already too inextricably intertwined with the US > economy? Would it be better to be part of "1992" in Europe (to whom the > US owes a lot of this money)? > > Inquiring minds want to know! Dave has raised some excellent questions. For me the greatest question is: WHY would Canada want to become partners with an economy that is free falling?? Why don't we look into "hooking up" with economic partners that are on the upswing? i.e. Japan. If the U.S. continues its slide we will probably be hurt, but not as much as if we are linked in a contract (even with the six month "get out clause"). I like the idea of signing with a creditor of the U.S., what a great way to pull our economy back into the black. Let's see a trillion dollars divided . . . :-) George Bush: Vegetable or Noxious Weed? ----------------------------------------------------------- Steven E. Parker Acadia Univ. School of Computer Science Wolfville N.S. Canada BOP1XO USENET: {uunet|watmath|utai|garfield}!dalcs!aucs!850181p BITNET: 850181p@Acadia Internet: 850181p%Acadia.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU -----------------------------------------------------------
nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) (11/15/88)
Anyone know what Australia's trade arrangements are? Seems I heard a while back that Oz was booming. And what about New Zealand? Are there any lessons to be learned from these countries? neil
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/16/88)
In article <610@apss.apss.ab.ca> nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) writes: >Are there any lessons to be learned from these countries? Yeah, having an ocean between you and the United States helps! :-) -- Sendmail is a bug, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology not a feature. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
gordan@maccs.McMaster.CA (gordan) (11/16/88)
In article <610@apss.apss.ab.ca> nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) writes: | |Anyone know what Australia's trade arrangements are? Seems I heard |a while back that Oz was booming. Don't know about Oz, but what about Norway? In 1973 (?), voters in the UK and Denmark opted for EEC membership, but Norway voted no (and has in fact never joined). Any Norwegian expatriates knowledgeable about Norway's economy?
lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) (11/19/88)
In article <8811142039.AA19223@harbord.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: >What inquiring minds want to know is, why is this stuff in can.general instead >of can.politics? I can get all the biased flame-throwing I want from the >Toronto Star or the Calgary Herald; if it's to be on this network too, let it >at least appear in the designated snakepit. Or at least, if it's to appear >in can.general, let the article not contain errors that *I* can correct. It strikes me, Jim, that *you* are the first person to indulge in biased flame throwing - at people who are expressing honest doubts, and more to the point, asking questions. You are right in one sense about the dispute settlement arrangement: the free trade agreement does provide a mechanism that establishes a panel not slanted to one country or another to settle disputes. Fine. However, the larger problem lies in the rights guaranteed to any citizen of the US by their constitution, which allows them to appeal *any* ruling affecting a US citizen in that country to the US Supreme Court. It is a point of concern to those aware of the ramifications of constitutional law that trade laws and agreements in the US do NOT fall outside the potential jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because of this basic constitutional guarantee. I say "potential", because civil laws in both countries depend heavily on precedent, and i do not know the precedents in the US in such matters (if indeed there are any yet). To be fair, one wonders how the Canadian negotiators could have gotten around this basic inequitable arrangement since of course the US constitutional provisions are inviolate. My own opinion (sorry, Jim, but i feel i have the right to put an opinion in this newsgroup :) ) is that they should have used this as a bargaining point and forced more concessions. My personal concern lies in the area of environmental protection. Even before the agreement is in place, American companies have already demanded a loosening of Canadian restrictions in two crucial areas: emissions and dumping. The agreement states that each country must accord the other's citizens/businesses equal treatment. I feel that the danger here is that we will have to let the Americans do here as they do there - dump and spew. Think of the ramifications in a case such as the Wabigoon-English River mercury poisoning case in northern Ontario. This would remove the legal restriction on such companies and force the poisoned to take it to litigation - which takes years, millions and lives.
clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) (11/19/88)
In article <6848@watcgl.waterloo.edu> lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) writes: > [quoting from me:] >>What inquiring minds want to know is, why is this stuff in can.general instead >>Toronto Star or the Calgary Herald; if it's to be on this network too, let it >>at least appear in the designated snakepit. Or at least, if it's to appear >>in can.general, let the article not contain errors that *I* can correct. > >It strikes me, Jim, that *you* are the first person to indulge in biased >flame throwing .... Hmm. I thought I'd effectively hidden what I think about the free trade agreement. I have an opinion, but I do *not* plan to discuss it here. I read the Toronto Star; it strikes me as heavily anti-free trade. I see occasional excerpts from the Calgary Herald (in the Star!), which leave me with the impression that it is equally heavily pro-free trade. My point is that I do not think any of us have a right to put our political opinions in this news group. In can.politics, yes, but not in can.general. But I shouldn't have bothered to say so. Complaints about what goes where seldom reduce the overall flow of inappropriate material -- I certainly didn't! -- and besides, I obviously left the impression that I was trying to say something about the agreement itself, which I certainly wasn't. -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 BITNET,CSNET: clarke@csri.toronto.edu CDNNET: clarke@csri.toronto.cdn UUCP: {allegra,cornell,decvax,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke
twltims@watmath.waterloo.edu (Tracy Tims) (11/19/88)
In article <6848@watcgl.waterloo.edu> lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) writes: > My personal concern lies in the area of environmental protection. >Even before the agreement is in place, American companies have already >demanded a loosening of Canadian restrictions in two crucial areas: >emissions and dumping. The agreement states that each country must accord >the other's citizens/businesses equal treatment. I feel that the danger here >is that we will have to let the Americans do here as they do there - >dump and spew. As far as I can tell (I've read the FTA), there is nothing in it that says that we have to allow U.S. companies to behave as they do in the United States. What we have to do (more or less) is allow U.S. companies to behave exactly as we would allow Canadian companies behave. There are however, a number of articles which require the eventual harmonization of U.S. and Canadian standards on a wide range of issues, including pesticide certification and testing, and other environmental issues. The articles do not say HOW the harmonization should take place, nor does it give deadlines or penalties. The risk lies in the pressure U.S. interests will be able to bring to bear through their economic links.
soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley) (11/19/88)
In article <22267@watmath.waterloo.edu>, twltims@watmath.waterloo.edu (Tracy Tims) writes: > In article <6848@watcgl.waterloo.edu> lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) writes: > > My personal concern lies in the area of environmental protection. > >Even before the agreement is in place, American companies have already > >demanded a loosening of Canadian restrictions in two crucial areas: > >emissions and dumping. The agreement states that each country must accord > >the other's citizens/businesses equal treatment. I feel that the danger here > >is that we will have to let the Americans do here as they do there - > >dump and spew. > >As far as I can tell (I've read the FTA), there is nothing in it that says >that we have to allow U.S. companies to behave as they do in the United States. >What we have to do (more or less) is allow U.S. companies to behave exactly >as we would allow Canadian companies behave. There are however, a number >of articles which require the eventual harmonization of U.S. and Canadian >standards on a wide range of issues, including pesticide certification and >testing, and other environmental issues. The articles do not say HOW the >harmonization should take place, nor does it give deadlines or penalties. > >The risk lies in the pressure U.S. interests will be able to bring to bear >through their economic links. An even greater risk is the pressure Canadian companies will be able to exert against environmental controls. Take for example the recent situation with Kimberly Clark in Marathon. The Ontario Ministry slaps them with a control order to stop direct discharges to Lake Superior within a set period, they go to the preimier and say "revoke the order or we close the plant, Marathon become a ghost town", for a change the Government did'nt back down, although they did agree to subsidize the capital costs of the treatment plant. Under free trade relocation to the US would become a third option for such companies. And our subsidy of the waste treatment facilities could result in countervailing duties. Also consider the MISA program (MISA stands for Municipal Industiral Strategy for Abatement) when it comes on line, (the first phase begins in January) it will be the toughest environmental legislation in the world (in it's area, it applies only to direct dumping to rivers and lakes). The pressure from forces saying, it's too tough, we can't compete will be immense, and what company in it's right mind would build new facilites when they can do it across the border for much less cost in treatment facilites. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"
louis@auvax.UUCP (Louis Schmittroth) (11/20/88)
In article <22267@watmath.waterloo.edu>, twltims@watmath.waterloo.edu (Tracy Tims) writes: > In article <6848@watcgl.waterloo.edu> lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) writes: > > My personal concern lies in the area of environmental protection. > >Even before the agreement is in place, American companies have already > >demanded a loosening of Canadian restrictions in two crucial areas: > >emissions and dumping. The agreement states that each country must accord > >the other's citizens/businesses equal treatment. I feel that the danger here > >is that we will have to let the Americans do here as they do there - > >dump and spew. > > As far as I can tell (I've read the FTA), there is nothing in it that says > that we have to allow U.S. companies to behave as they do in the United States. I really beg to differ with you on your offhand statement that U.S. companies are allowed to dump and spew, and here in lily-white and pure Canada (especially ALBERTA) there is no dumping, no effluent, no air pollution. My assessment is that the U.S. is at least as far ahead in the game of environmental protection as Canada, again, especially ALBERTA. In the past, except for attempts by Reagan to wreck the EPA in the U.S., the record has been good and getting better. I know for a fact that my former home state of Montana has made enormous strides in protecting the environment since I grew up there smelling smelter smoke, fishing in waters polluted with mine tailings, and allowing miners to die of silicosis. I have seen some hair-raising incidents of pollution and even breaking of the law by the people who are supposed to enforce it -- I refer to the way the Oldman dam was forced thru, and the many times the Athabasca River has been polluted by Suncor and Syncrude. I also know that it was in the U.S. that the production of dioxins and furans from pulp mills was first discovered, and that the banning of 2,4,5,T was done in the U.S., then Canada followed suit. Come off it, and quit seeing all the environmental evil in the U.S. and none in our own backyard. You've got a chance with Bush to start over again with the acid rain problem -- especially since he just appointed the Governor of N.H. as his Chief of Staff, and N.H. is as damaged by acid rain as Quebec. -- Louis Schmittroth My employer has no opinions. Computer Science Athabasca University ...{ubc-vision, ihnp4}!alberta!auvax!louis
nmm@ers.uucp (Neil McCulloch) (11/22/88)
Companies in Canada and the US will relocate to Mexico and south America
because of the more stringent controls we have here. Everything being
relative of course! Plants in Brazil (no pun intended) are among the
worst polluters in the world. And did I hear someone say Bhopal?
What we need is sweeping legislation which enforces environmental law
on companies based at home and operating abroad, as well as local ones.
It should be extended to imports too. Any imported chemicals must be
shown to have come from plants which meet local environmental standards.
It would be a bit difficuly with manufactured goods of course, but
something could be done with the major components. There might be
a blanket exemption for goods coming from countries with E laws as
tough or tougher than our own.
What price Free Trade?
cheers,
neiltrivia@watcsc.uucp (Dave Nuttall) (11/23/88)
In article <6761@watcgl.waterloo.edu> drforsey@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Dave Forsey) writes: >Dare anyone speculate on what happens to Canada if the good-old USofA goes >down the tube because of its trillion-dollar deficit? Will the FTA help >or hinder? Or is Canada already too inextricably intertwined with the US >economy? Would it be better to be part of "1992" in Europe (to whom the >US owes a lot of this money)? One thing that people should look at, in my opinion, is that Canada has an annual deficit of about 30 million, while the States pick up over 1 billion dollars of additional debt last year. Canada has around 25 million people, while the USA comes up with 250 million people. Therefore, the states with 10 times the people, has over 30 times the annual debt. (Hmm...) Another point I've noticed involves the crime rate. Toronto has about 2 million people while Ney York has about 10 million. New York has a lot more than 5 times the murders than Toronto. This is also valid with other crime types as well. \sg{David Nuttall}
trivia@watcsc.uucp (Dave Nuttall) (11/23/88)
In article <6761@watcgl.waterloo.edu> drforsey@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Dave Forsey) writes: >Dare anyone speculate on what happens to Canada if the good-old USofA goes >down the tube because of its trillion-dollar deficit? Will the FTA help >or hinder? Or is Canada already too inextricably intertwined with the US >economy? Would it be better to be part of "1992" in Europe (to whom the >US owes a lot of this money)? One thing that people should look at, in my opinion, is that Canada has an annual deficit of about 30 million, while the States picked up over 1 billion dollars of additional debt last year. Canada has around 25 million people, while the USA comes up with 250 million people. Therefore, the States, with 10 times the people, has over 30 times the annual debt. (Hmm...) Another point I've noticed involves the crime rate. Toronto has about two million people while Ney York has about 10 million. New York has a lot more than 5 times the murders than Toronto. This is also valid with other crime types as well.
rimajpruz@watsol.waterloo.edu (Rick Majpruz) (11/23/88)
In article <1988Nov22.164836.8598@watcsc.uucp> trivia@watcsc.UUCP (Dave Nuttall) writes: >One thing that people should look at, in my opinion, is that Canada has an >annual deficit of about 30 million, ^^^^^^^^^^ I heard that Wilson reduced the deficit but this is fantastic! No wonder the Tories got re-elected.
grant@looking.UUCP (Grant Robinson) (11/24/88)
In article <1988Nov22.164836.8598@watcsc.uucp> trivia@watcsc.UUCP (Dave Nuttall) writes: > >One thing that people should look at, in my opinion, is that Canada has an >annual deficit of about 30 million, while the States picked up over 1 billion >dollars of additional debt last year. Canada has around 25 million people, >while the USA comes up with 250 million people. Therefore, the States, with >10 times the people, has over 30 times the annual debt. (Hmm...) > The way economists prefer to look at it is the ratio of debt to total GNP, ie. ultimate ability to pay. Looked at that way, the US fares much better that Canada (sorry I don't have the exact figures) Much of current economic theory deals with the idea of "outgrowing" the deficit, ie. if the rate of growth of the GNP is consistently higher than the growth of the deficit, the deficit (and hence total debt) will shrink as a percentage of total GNP. Free trade will foster this process. While this may not be the best method of managing debt, it currently seems the only workable method due to the inability of our goverments to cut spending and/or raise taxes to a level that will reduce the deficit. Note that this method does not reduce the debt, it increases our "ability to pay". > >Another point I've noticed involves the crime rate. Toronto has about two >million people while Ney York has about 10 million. New York has a lot more >than 5 times the murders than Toronto. This is also valid with other crime >types as well. > As several people have pointed out, we currently have 80% free trade. Why don't we have 80% of the crime rate? Maybe crime isn't covered under the GATT? :) - grant
derome@ai.toronto.edu (Philippe Derome) (11/24/88)
In article <1988Nov22.163030.8480@watcsc.uucp> trivia@watcsc.UUCP (Dave Nuttall) writes: >One thing that people should look at, in my opinion, is that Canada has an annual deficit of about 30 million, while the States pick up over 1 billion dollars of additional debt last year. Canada has around 25 million people, while the USA comes up with 250 million people. Therefore, the states with 10 times the people, has over 30 times the annual debt. (Hmm...) >... Perhaps you should multiply your deficit numbers by 1000, and then it will sound right. Philippe Derome
jimr@hcr.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (11/24/88)
In article <1988Nov22.163030.8480@watcsc.uucp> trivia@watcsc.UUCP (Dave Nuttall) writes: >One thing that people should look at, in my opinion, is that Canada >has an annual deficit of about 30 million, while the States pick up >over 1 billion dollars of additional debt last year. Canada has >around 25 million people, while the USA comes up with 250 million >people. Therefore, the states with 10 times the people, has over 30 >times the annual debt. (Hmm...) The above firgures are *way* off. Canada's deficit is ~ 29 *billion*. The US's deficit is (and I could be wrong by severeral ten's of billions) ~ 150 billion (US). Hmm... >Another point I've noticed involves the crime rate. Toronto has >about 2 million people while Ney York has about 10 million. New >York has a lot more than 5 times the murders than Toronto. This is >also valid with other crime types as well. Darn smart of Reisman (sp?) and all to refuse to allow crime and criminals to be included in the FTA :-). Seriously, however, it's getting tiresome to be constantly told that an economic agreement with the US is going to somehow turn Windsor into Detroit and Toronto into NY. Plan B? We don't need no steeeeenking plan B! J.B. Robinson
atbowler@watmath.waterloo.edu (Alan T. Bowler [SDG]) (11/29/88)
In article <4228@hcr.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >The above firgures are *way* off. Canada's deficit is ~ 29 *billion*. The >US's deficit is (and I could be wrong by severeral ten's of billions) >~ 150 billion (US). Hmm... Actually, according to the guest editorials on the Nightly Business Report the figure is actually about 250 billion. The difference is that between current collected and paid out for social security is being counted as a "surplus" and subtracted from the rest of the budget deficit. The "surplus" is actually supposed to be put aside and used to pay pensions of the people currently contributing when they eventually retire. Apparently, at some time in the next decade the accounting rules for reporting the US deficit are going to change to separate out social security. Does anyone know how the Canadian government handles the Canada Pension Plan in relation to the rest of the Federal budget? In the past I have seen criticisms of the way the CPP funds have been handled that implied that Canada already reports this separately (i.e. the 29 billion should be compared to the 250 billion), but I have no hard evidence.