News Sections
Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric
CTV News Video
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(113)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Wed. Feb. 27 2008 11:45 PM ET
Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been critical of the long-standing North American Free Trade Agreement over the course of the Democratic primaries, saying that the deal has cost U.S. workers' jobs.
Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.
But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico "that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards."
Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.
"Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn't intend to keep," the spokesperson said.
Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.
During Tuesday's debate, she said that as president she would opt out of NAFTA "unless we renegotiate it."
Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Wednesday that the candidates' criticisms of NAFTA were misguided.
"(They) should recognize that NAFTA benefits the U.S. tremendously," he said. "Those who speak of it as helpful to (just the) Canadian or Mexican economies are missing the point."
Liberal MP and finance critic John McCallum told Canada AM that the U.S. pulling out of NAFTA "would be a disaster for Canada."
But he added, "I hope and I believe that it's politics, because they're in a high-stakes contest. I believe after this nominee is decided, this issue will go away."
John Fortier, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise institute, said that in an effort to gain votes in the anti-NAFTA state of Ohio, each candidate might find themselves "locked-in" to their pledge to renegotiate NAFTA.
"Last night, both candidates really locked themselves in to at least doing some serious renegotiation," Fortier told Canada AM. "But how serious they are and what the changes (will be) . . . that's another question.
"But I don't know how Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton can get out of last night's very clear pledge that they are going to use the opt-out (clause) as a threat to do some serious renegotiation."
Crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas are just one week away.
During Tuesday night's debate, each candidate was quite specific about using the six-month opt-out clause in NAFTA, to pressure Canada and Mexico into renegotiating the deal.
The March 4 primaries are seen as vital for each candidate, but particularly Clinton. It's expected that without a decisive win in both Texas and Ohio, she has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
Clinton once had a large lead in each state, but recent polls are showing the candidates as close to even, with Obama surging ahead.
Early polls show that there is a strong possibility of a Democrat in the White House in January 2009.
Obama, in particular, is surging in popularity throughout the U.S. and some polls give the Illinois senator an almost double-digit lead if he were to run head-to-head against the expected Republican candidate, John McCain.
With a report by CTV's Tom Clark in Washington
User Tools
Related Stories
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(113)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
Two questions:
1) What does Mr Colvin personally have to gain by what he is exposing ?
2) What has the Goverment gain or protect by discrediting Mr Colvin?

Comments are now closed for this story
DM in NB
said
We export more than 2 million barrels of oil to the US daily. This is un-tarriffed. If NAFTA dissolves, we can either take our oil to China, where they would be happy to take it, or we could sell it locally subsidized first, to greatly reduce energy costs within our own borders. The US would not be in good shape economically if we did that.
Mind you, it would never happen. We would have to stand up to the US to do that...and that hasn't happened since 1812, as I recall.
P.A.
said
Nicole
said
Robinhood (formerly JF)
said
btw, seems I'm in the minority on social issues, hence the name change (hint hint where I stand, eh!?)
Derek
said
North Bayite
said
Destroying NAFTA will further erode American power over the world economy.
Andrea
said
They have the nerve to talk about job losses, when the US government has collapsed the entire BC coastal forest industry, shutting many of our mills, leaving thousands of workers without unemployment at their hands.
L out west
said
Craig W
said
Downey
said
Rob Z
said
Anonymous
said
Seriously though, if they're demanding concessions on some issues, it might be an opportunity to clarify in the treaty that our water is not for sale. Quid pro quo, right?
LDL
said
Laurie
said
sasha
said
Canada need to standup to the Bully anyways, and when has the US really followed the guideline to nafta, one just has to look to softwood for that. which canada finally caved in to their demands even though canada was in right not too.. . there are other markets out there and bigger faster growing markets.. we should be going after those..
dmcewen
said
MrBill
said
Despite its protection the US has punitively punished softwood lumber, hogs, and soft winter wheat exports; closed the border over BSE concerns; and broken the spirit of the international treaty governing fresh water leaving the Great Lakes Basin as well as sending unwanted contaminated water north into Manitoba from the Red River.
A protectionist Congress without NAFTA would be even harder to live next too.
However, where is the diversification in our trade relations? Do we really expect the PRC to give us a better deal if they know we have no alternatives?
Be realistic! NAFTA matters. We should negotiate as hard as we have to, including, as someone suggested, using export tariffs and taxes on non-renewables resources that the US needs for their own energy security.
Play hardball 'hard' for a change Canada. There is too much at stake to play the clueless Boy Scout just to make nice!
Gord
said
chaoshunter
said
George Van Dyk
said
with them next to us, I would prefer them to most other countries. We have had a peacefull co-existance for many years along the world's longest unprotected border, let's not wish and hope to upset this apple cart. We need to keep N.F.T.A. in place.
PBW
said
If only, they say. But the only "if only" that matters is the fact that the US Congress stood by and let American industry export itself to China and the Indian sub-continent. It is not Just Sam Walton who deserves the blame: it is every American who Wants It All and Wants It All NOW and will get It All by paying the lowest possible price to the detriment of their own economy.
Some of those same blame items also apply to the Canadian - or should I say Ontarian - manufacturing sector, where lack of foresight by organized labor and manufacturing companies has resulted in their products being unattractive compared to cheap imports.
However, Clinton and Obama both have votes to gain, and until they have those votes, like every politician, will say what it takes to get those votes, and then promptly forget those inconvenient promises.
Cliff
said
Sean
said
CTV Viewer
said
Its going to be 1812 X a million.
James
said
And should the US. decide they can't live with NAFTA or come to negotated resolution of their issues, then negating NAFTA is the only thing to do.
Canada has tried to live upto NAFTA, the same cannot be said of the Federal Trade Commission in the US.
Michele
said
Newfoundland power. Just to name a few. Energy for Canada first!
GW
said
Dick Varley
said
javid radfar
said
Ernie
said
Lorne
said
There has been continuous disagreement between Canada and the USA. The USA lobbyists have always complained about subsidies, etc., and appear to want things their own way.
I favour elimination of NAFTA.
Then we can take a firm stand regarding exports of oil, lumber, etc.,in order that Canadian workers can reap some of the benefits.
It would appear that the major job loss in the USA, is due to outsourcing to China, etc., and not Canada.
Exiled Canadian
said
And to those who think McCain has no chance, just wait and see.
Most Americans are not really looking at the substance of the issues until the actual campaign for the presidency begins. When Obama's record as the most liberal senator in the US is exposed, he will get beaten. He's also not one to reach across the aisly on big issues. McCain is and that will also be clearly shown.
Fact is, Obama is all talk and the media-driven euphoria of his eloquent "dreams" will wane with time, especially come October when folks want to get specifics about what these people will do once in office.
Everyone will then realize that there is absolutely no way he is ready to be the most powerful leader in the world.
Kevin P.
said
China is begging for Canada's commodities. Oil, lumber, steel, uranium, grain...The U.S. is our neighbor and usually our friend. The democrats are playing Politics with both our economies.
With European, Asian, South American free trade zones, killing NAFTA would decimate an already weak American economy.
Here's hoping the Dem's don't win...Too bad, I really enjoyed Obama's political freshness too!
Charlie
said
IAN
said
Danjal, Hamilton
said
Canada will suffer, big time, and we dont even foresee the consequences of their political ploy.
What can we do? Stop purchasing goods that you want and only purchase what you need.
VancouverDave
said
DE-negotiate NAFTA? Not a bad idea.
Irving Schwartz
said
To Rudman
said
Sad.
MS
said
Makes no sense at all !
J Colton
said
John
said
Brian
said
And worrying about the US military is all for not. As we are a part of the British Commonwealth we are more than protected.
Michael Demchuk
said
Herb
said
freedom lover
said
Imagine if Canada wanted out. No new deal would be allowed.
And many Canadians would, of course, submit to US dictates.
Greg from Kitchener
said
Then again, We would not be hurt that much if they opted to withdraw from it.
Keeping our oun Oil woulf be great, but it still amazes me that the one and olny Canadian owned Gas company (Petro Canada) is usually the highest priced.
Joe Szentirmay
said
Lorne
said
Plabo
said
Pam
said
Alex Sz
said
Pam
said
Gary
said
Mark
said
Gary
said
Gary,
NJ
Mary Carr.
said
There were very few items we looked at that were not "made in China", "made in India", "made in Mexico". We didn't see any "made in Canada" and had to search hard to find any "made in U.S." Wondering whether Obama or Clinton visit their retailers and check labels. Maybe NAFTA should have a hard look at the agreement.
Outraged
said
Call the European Union, the Chinese and the Indians to the table NOW and explain that our softwood and oil is up for sale to the highest bidder. this will serve notice on our "Buddies" to the south that we mean business....put great lakes water on the table as well!
Of course,this is just a daydream.......we will prolly answer to the American's with cap in hand agreeing to sell more oil and raw materials to them for some ridiculous price just to stay in their good books, regardless of the hardships it will cause in this country.
beth
said
I know it won't hurt anybody's feeling in my town - they just shut down our mill because a U.S. lumber company just flooded the market with cheap lumber, and we can't compete.
At least this way our water will be safe. The U.S. thinks it can come up here and take what they want, and don't want.
Albert Krivickias
said
Sam
said
Full protection of fresh water supplies
Export tax on oil to address environment
Strike the provision that forces Canadians and Americans to pay the same price for oil and energy.
Roady W
said
Edward in Vancouver
said
Allan Eizinas
said
Republican John McCain will pick the extremely popular Powell as his running mate. Barack will be the Democratic pick and lose to McCain/Powell.
McCain is a very old 72 and a battered soldier who is suffering the affects of being used for 5 years as a punching bag and a pin cushion by the Viet Cong while a prisoner. He cannot raise his arms above his shoulders and has had cancer surgery. He will not be able to serve out his term so Powell will take over.
NAFTA is safe.
Lart from Above
said
There is plenty of room for ongoing improvement of most treaties. If the US wants to add side agreements to ensure that labor or environmental standards are upheld, all three countries will have costs, but the benefits would outweigh the costs for everyone. The US will not grow or gain jobs in the long run if it tries to protect declining low-tech industries. Ideally, NAFTA should become irrelevant as global trade agreements improve.
Canada's historical competitive advantage contributed to the increase in value of the Canadian dollar. This presents an opportunity for American manufacturers and a challenge for Canadian ones. Canadians do have a history of becoming more competitive. If the US tries to put barriers on Canadian exports, that will shift jobs from Canada to Japan and China, not to Michigan and Ohio.
C. Bryce Code
said
Mary Rocco
said
Concerned
said
There was comments made in Congress a few years back about their nieghbours to the North (us) being so socialist we were close to being a communist state...
I wonder how long it will be before they decide to "rescue" us all from under the heel of socialism,Alberta first of course !
Mike Macdonald
said
Michele
said
GM
said
Phil in Ottawa
said
Thank you sir for your FTA that eventually became the NAFTA.
Because of your leadership, trade among our respective countries has increased our collective wealth.
You can rest assured that those of us that understand the critical importance of NAFTA will vigoriously defend it against its foes both here in Canada and abroad.
I remain your obedient servant,
Phil
Doug
said
That said,there is a lot of protectionist sentiment in the Democratic party.That's just another good reason for Canada to lower debt and work at productivity issues.
On energy,I can't speak for the rest of Canada,but BC is actually an importer of electricity.Raising the price would shooting ourselves in the foot.I also expect Ontarians would have no problem adding tarrifs to oil exported to the USA.It should be noted,however,that the resources belong to the provinces.Does anyone really think the provinces who produce oil are going to shut down their economies to support an auto industry that can't build cars we want to buy?
NAFTA as a whole is a benefit to both countries.But it also has to be remembered that Canadians gain access to a market of 300 million people with money to spend.The USA gets access to a market of only 30 million.
I think Canada and the USA need to focus on "fair trade" with low cost markets,rather than with each other.I expect some in any new administration will know that.
jeff
said
L out west
said
Robert Rudachyk
said
Wayne
said
dave
said
I can't see Clinton's logic, the dog peed on the flowers so you kick the cat?
Or does this mean they are too chicken to confront China instead? It seems to me that would get more votes because the Ohio voters read labels too.
Ray Jacques
said
I read many of your comments and there is a broad range of opinion.
I would really like to know exactly what the impact of cancelling N.A.F.T.A. would be to Canada ?
I tend to think that we couls not survive without it, but I really do not know if we could find other markets quiclkly enough ?
I was reaaly surprised whrn Harper went along with so lousy a deal on softwood lumber, especially after we had won 6 out of 7 rulings and the court chanllangs over the preious 6 years were coming to an end. Not tto surprisingly, the Americnacs look-out for themselves in spite of N.A.F.T.A sometimss geeting in their way.
The Conservatives and the Liberals should study this forthwith (without the partisanship) and provide us with an accurate report
DW
said
I agree we would have to stand up to them and like you said it has not happened since 1812.
Perhaps it is time we do again.
Adam
said
Robert De Fehr
said
Michael
said
Darren
said
Just wait until we get down to the one on one with McCain and the Dems policies really get exposed.
The US have never voted in anyone who ran on raising taxes.
GM
said
It is a fools paradise for those who refuse to let the truth get in the way of what they want to believe.
Melissa
said
I think what frustrates me the most is the fact that both governments, from the U.S. and Canada have been going down a path that is not in the best interest of THE PEOPLE; I mean, those of us who work hard, do our part, pay taxes, vote these idiots in, and do what we can to be productive parts in society. It used to be that we had a say in the direction the country goes....not anymore. Now, they control the media and allow us to see and hear what they want us to know. Those who stood up and tried otherwise, except for a select few, suddenly were off the air. That's just one minut example amoung many!!
It truly is scary to think of the direction that world is going.
PEACE, LOVE, AND HARMONY is the direction weneed to go. Instead we are more GREED, CONTROL, AND MORE GREED AND CONTROL!!
JessD
said
wc
said
Only Obama has specifically said he would remove tax breaks for companies who do this.
Canadian workers arguing about American workers and vice versa are missing the point.
31 Delta
said
RM
said
"NAFTA benefits the U.S. tremendously"????? Yea right, Mr. Flaherty. We haven't shipped all of it yet....
- A Torontonian
Nick
said
We cannot for the following reasons:
A) We would lose out on a lot of money from direct trade to Foreign Direct Investment
B) We would lose access to their market, the single largest in the world
C) China cannot make up the difference in consumption. Additionally, China is very worried about investing in Canada, look at how skeptical and reluctant Chinese firms are in investing in Alberta Oil
D) They would invade us the moment they felt threatened by our aggression of resources
For the revisionists out there like DW:
Canada didn't "stand up" to the US in 1812, the British did. Without the British we would be a part of America since their first attack against the colony.
Dave from Vancouver, B.C
said
Jasper
said
Just because many of you do not like Bush, it is not reason to wish for a Democrat in the White House. Bush will be gone at the end of this term. That is certain. Canada-US relations are better than they have been in several years. This latest posturing by the Obama-Hillary show is reason enough for Canadians to be nervous of the "change" that the Democrats are planning.
Robinhood
said
The only way we can ever pay less than the US for our "own" oil is if:
1) we nationalize the oil industry.
2) we get rid of NAFTA.. which effectively puts the control of our oil production and distribution in the hands of the US market (in case you Albertans did'nt know)
3) We put up military defenses against a George Style shock and awe invasion of our oil fields by the US Marines.
4) We convince western provinces to go along ( this point may actually be the most contentious).
Ain't happenin.
I also think that NAFTA is too sweet a deal for the US to really want to reopen.
btw, fyi: I recall some western senator or governer in US who actually effectively stated that the Alberta Tar sands actually belongs to the Americans and Canadians simply don't know it yet.
..no kidding!
Giovanni
said
Rona from Canmore
said
Western Midlifer
said
Linda in BC.
said
Have we forgotten the infamous "National Energy Policy" of a former Liberal government?A policy designed to have oil producing provinces subsidize oil consuming provinces by selling their oil at extremely low prices.
That is one reason why it's very difficult to be a Liberal in western Canada to this very day.
Once again it looks like some Ontarians are talking pretty big about how they could control "ALBERTA's",or any other producing provinces oil.
And all at a time when central Canada simply refuses to even discuss giving the west a place at the table by stonewalling about even modest Senate reforms.
When all is said,and the politics in the USA is over,I expect cooler heads to prevail.The USA will realize that Canada can be as helpful to them as they can be to us.Even if we want a "fair" slice of the North American pie,and to remain a sovereign country.
We are not your enemy Hillary.And most of us recognize you are not our enemy.Casting us in that light only makes your "allienation of our allies" comment of the Bush administration look like a policy that will continue under your administration.
Richard
said
DG
said
If the Americans want to negitiate a TRADE deal, fine. We should never again sell out to the US - wishful thinking I know...
As for North Bayite's concern that "destroying NAFTA will further erode American power over the world economy" - again I say, the sooner the better. Who says the US needs power over the world economy???
JDS
said
Is it really a surprise that the US is reneging on an international treaty? They have historically reneged on every one they've signed..without exception.
NAFTA was a painful experience for Canada but our national character carried the day and turned around an abysmal agreement. Too bad Americans don't have such character. Their's is always the "I'll take my ball and bat and go home".
Fine, go home.
GLENN
said
Are absolutely correct. If NAFTA was dissolved then Canada could subsidize Canadian sold gas sales by charging tariffs on oil sold to the states. Canada is either the number 1 0r 2 exporter of oil to the states depends who or what you listen too. And I also believe it is getting closer to 3 million barrels daily now. Under the free trade act we are forced to sell our oil to the States for the same price as to Canada. As for those politicians who go around accussing us of not honouring NAFTA saying we charged them more for certain products like steel or wood don't realize that we didn't charge them more. It was just simple they wanted to pay more for those canadian produced products because of their superior quality. That is why we canadians don't see nice sheets of plywood or there short falls in supplies of wood products at their local lumberyard, because the U.S. buyers for the lumberyards are outbidding the Canadian ones making it look like the U.S. is paying more.
Peter
said
Vincent V
said
These comments were made by 2 candidates who want to be the President of USA. They come they go trade will continue and we both would share this great land and border.
God Bless Canada!
God Bless USA!
Victor
said
McCain for President !!
Herb
said
Terry S.
said
Amy Dugan
said
Some people blame our weak job market and economic troubles on free trade; however what we really need is smart trade. Hillary Clinton will promote trade that has higher labor and environmental standards. As President, she will ensure that trade lifts up not only American workers, but also workers around the world. She will as President demand a total review of all existing trade agreements and will not sign any new trade agreements until she ensures that trade policies raise our standard of living, and they must have strong protections for workers and the environment. I am the daughter of a former Fisher Body employee and I know the issues of trade and job loss are very important here.
As an Ohioan, I have heard falsely, that Hillary is for NAFTA. Despite false claims regarding Hillary’s position on free trade, she always has and always will put the American worker first. Last summer I read Carl Bernstein’s biography on Hillary Clinton, who by the way is no fan of the Clintons, that Hillary actually opposed NAFTA behind the scenes. Importantly, in Ohio on February 24, Obama actually stated “I don't think it’s realistic for us to repeal NAFTA, that would actually result in more job loss". So I urge you to look at the facts before you cast your vote. To learn more about Hillary Clinton’s plans to help the Middle Class visit www.hillaryclinton.com
MHR
said
Calm down, this is promise that they probably will a broken promise. Let American be stupid as they wish to be and we just worry about ourselves. NAFTA can go away but Canada can start new one with Mexico and let Canada and Mexico getting richer. That work.
James
said
Pedro, Vancouver
said
Dana
said
Kellie from the USA the BEST nation on EARTH!
said