To: Hawkmoon who wrote (12422 ) 12/2/2001 4:18:52 PM From: axial Read Replies (2) | Respond to Hi, Hawk - Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the different perspective from which they come.Canadian perspective - though I hope I have maintained at least some objectivity...Message 16733370 bought and paid for in a Canadian contractual arrangement - by the United States (probably, through Exxon, though I have never been able to establish that).successfully and at huge cost (through legitimate market mechanisms: nothing was "stolen") - established energy self-sufficiency.scathing criticism from the United States - both from the oil industry, and other SIGs - even though it was entirely legitimate, and in no way violated anybody else's interests."What IS apparent is that in exchange for gaining overall access to US markets (which was not reciprocal as stated by the author who stated that cars sold in Canada had to be manufactured there), we're seeking assurances that Canadian energy producers would not take advantage of energy shortages to withhold their shipments should US industry opt to depend upon Canadian energy rather than other sources (like Saudi Arabia)." Energy is the reason for NAFTA. It is the reason why Canada and the US entered into an agreement that permitted Canada equal access to many American sectors.NAFTA guarantees American access to Candian energy at world prices. Your comment..."we're seeking assurances that Canadian energy producers would not take advantage of energy shortages to withhold their shipments should US industry opt to depend upon Canadian energy rather than other sources (like Saudi Arabia). NAFTA IS the guarantee you seek. abrogation of the agreement.
