That is what 'aa' claimed that MP Harper would do if he were Prime Minister. Much of this seems to be based on the National Post lead story today. I would encourage you to take a look at the full content of MP Harper's speech(oh the irony, as I pull out snippets). The Conservatives are clearly not advocating withdrawing from NAFTA.
...Let me be as clear as I can. The NAFTA panel process is supposed to be binding. It is supposed to trump domestic American politics. The danger of a failure to uphold this decision goes far beyond the impact it will have on towns dependent on the lumber industry in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia or anywhere else.
If U.S. industry is able to pressure the government not to return duties when it has lost its last NAFTA appeal, it does not matter if most trade is dispute-free. If the rules are simply ignored, then the very basis of a rules-based trading system threatens to come unraveled, and the future of all Canadian-American trade relations could be profoundly affected.
...while the Chretien and Martin Liberals have gained the revenues and benefits of Free Trade, they have done precious little to advance it.
I suppose we can be thankful that they did not tear up the agreements, as they had initially promised, but it is a sad commentary that since 1993, we have been stuck with the trade status quo. There have been no major improvements or expansions to NAFTA, and only three bilateral trade agreements accounting for less than one half of one percent of the Canada-US trade relationship.
...This government’s lack of competence and vision in the Canada-U.S. relationship has led Canada to lose influence and relevance with our most important trading partner. Now, we are threatened with having to have a passport to cross the border by 2008 – a change that would slow
border crossings to a crawl, greatly hamper both trade and tourism and threaten jobs particularly in the manufacturing sector.
...I would also not hesitate to point out that Canada possesses the right to retaliate in the case of non-compliance. At the same time, I would admit – in fact I would stress - that cycles of non-compliance and retaliation are not likely to serve the genuine interests of either of our countries.
...It is possible that 17 years after the original Free Trade Agreement and 12 years after NAFTA, it is time for a new relationship – I would hope a stronger one, with closer trade ties, and a dispute settlement mechanism that is firmly binding and not subject to the vagaries of domestic politics.
That is a pretty good way to sum things up. The Conservatives want a stronger relationship, that involves more trade and a stregthened dispute settlement. An absolutely correct and reasonable postion.
