Thesis
Philosophy Behind the Thesis
Because of the dynamic nature of international business, due in large part to advances in technology, logistics, and communications, the world trade markets consist of countries that virtually have no borders. Trade agreements between various nations have created an interesting mosaic of trade activity, which is supposed to benefit both parties in the trade agreement. However, this has not happened in all cases since international trade began booming in the early 1960′s (Taussig). Because of a variety of reasons, trade agreements have hurt many nations large and small. One of the nations that has been particularly hurt is Canada. The thesis that the researcher would like to put forth in this paper is the assertion that protectionist measures are appropriate for a given nation to protect their own interests in the realm of international trade, but not across the board; for example, evidence of the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for Canada will be shown. With this thesis in mind, relevant literature will be discussed and cited and discussion will be presented to support the argument that the researcher has made. Upon the conclusion of this paper, the reader will have a rational, logical plan of the validity of this argument.

Thesis
Despite being the largest trade partner to its mega-neighbor to the south, the United States (McLaughlin), Canada has gotten the short end of many of the larger trade agreements that have emerged in current years. In contrast, however, the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, has lived up to its promises to Canada that were made when the agreement was first authored in the 1990s (Howell). In an effort to gain some rights and benefits in the international trade agreements that have come to fruition over the past several decades, Canada, among other nations, has taken protectionist steps to preserve their own best interests, lest they be pressured by unfair trade reform.

Antithesis
Origins of the Antithesis
For the sake of balanced and just research, the researcher will also put forth an antithesis and offer relevant documentation to show the essential flaws in that antithesis. Simply put, the antithesis that will be represented in this paper is that protectionist trade policy only serves to isolate the nations that enact them, and in the long run, actually hurt those countries more than help them. Briefly stated here, as an entrée to the bulk of the research, suffice it to say that there is an undercurrent in Canada that strictly opposes the protectionist trade policies that have been advocated because they limit the opportunities for many companies to offer their goods and services to a wide range of potential customers (Molot). In a sense, there is a feeling in the business arena of Canada that there is such a thing as too worthy protection, which ultimately serves to not only protect to a certain level, but also to suppress economic activity to the point where the protection causes more harm than good. As a closing thought to the antithesis, and transitioning into the subsequent portions of this paper, it must be understood that every effort will be made within this research to objectively present the facts of the matters discussed, clearly separate fact from belief or theory, and of course give reliable citation when the works of others are cited within the pages of the paper. By utilizing the information and works of others, an informative blend of quality research will unfold. With these parameters in mind, the research will now continue within the scope of the thesis and antithesis that have been previously identified and presented.

Personal Views: Canadian Trade in Modern Times
Before any personal views can be integrated into this paper, and before any valid conclusions can be presented, it is important to understand the modern history of Canadian trade policy. In the modern era of international trade (previously identified as the period of the 1960′s and forward), Canada has made an inconvenience to become a global force in terms of trade and commerce, challenging in major trade agreements and the like. One of the most significant of these is the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA), signed in 1989 in order to foster an effective and mutually profitable arrangement between these North American neighbors (Martin, et al). Without a doubt, CUFTA has been very successful for Canada, resulting in hundreds of billions of dollars in business for a wide variety of goods and services, the most vital of which is the automotive industry, whereby Canadian components are used in American cars, and vice versa. However, the tremendous gains of CUFTA have unfortunately made up the bulk of Canada’s trade revenue. In other words, the trade that has been engaged with nations other than the United States has not been exactly fruitful. Entering into trade agreements in good faith, Canada has not received benefits commensurate with the exertion and concessions the nation has put forward in the pursuit of free and equitable trade.

Canada’s Benefit and Lack Thereof from NAFTA
Another example of Canada’s terrible experience with organized, so called “free” trade agreements is the stumbling blocks that Canada hit with the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. Originally born in the 1990′s, the agreement was designed to benefit the United States, Canada, and Mexico by facilitating free and frequent trade among these nations without the restrictions of tariffs, border disputes, and protectionist measures (Foreign Policy). This agreement is said to produce 1 billion to 3 billion dollar gains in each country. NAFTA ensures that a certain amount of goods produced and traded between the three countries has to have a minimum percentage of its parts produced in North America. The Free Trade agreement is between the United States and Canada. The Free trade agreement came into effect in 1989 even though three fourths of trade between Canada and the United States was already free (Mcdougall). This agreement to Canada is huge because it set up a free trade zone between the U.S and Canada, which is the largest free trade zone in the world. The Free Trade agreement is huge to Canada because 20 per cent of Canada’s GDP comes from exports to the United States. This agreement eliminated all trade restrictions such as tariffs, quotas, and non tariff barriers. The Canadian economy gains access to the U.S economy that is ten times its size (Greenberg). Canadian Goals in NAFTA Canada’s goals in the negotiation of NAFTA were very simple. They wanted to improve their access for their goods and services to Mexico and the United States. Canada wanted to guarantee their position as a prime location for investors seeking to serve all of North America. The NAFTA deal has realized these objectives space by Canada and will supply Canada with a new and sharper edge to their international competitiveness. The agreement has set a path for Canada widening their trade horizons, while also giving them a bigger stage on which to demonstrate their economic expertise and leadership. Canadian-Mexican Benefit An advantage for Canada is that the reduction of Mexican barriers will provide new markets and opportunities for Canadian goods and services. Canadian firms will be able to participate in, and expand sales in, sectors that were previously highly restricted, such as autos, financial services, trucking, energy and fisheries. Mexican tariffs and import licensing requirements will be eliminated, some immediately and others over 5 to 10 years, providing barrier free access to 85 million consumers (Storer). The North American Free Trade Agreement covers virtually every field of business in Canada. NAFTA provides many provisions as well as both real and potential advantages to Canadians in all most all places in the work place. Agriculture products play a considerable role in Canada’s exports to other countries. Canada’s suited and fertile farming land has produced many titanic results. A very obedient livestock and excellent crops have contributed to a productive and prosperous trade of their agricultural products and services around the world. Canada’s total exports surpasses $13 billion a year (Gruen). Under NAFTA Canada and Mexico have worked out a separate agreement between themselves. Overall Canadian exports will bask in immediate access to the Mexican market under the deal. Mexican import licenses on wheat, barley and table potatoes will be eliminated over a period of time. Also tariffs on lentils, honey, dried peas, millet, raspberries, rye and buckwheat will be dropped. All these items are important crops to Canadian farmers and with these costs cut they will enjoy a greater profit and more trade. NAFTA also opens up broad opportunities for livestock farmers. Because Mexico lacks an adequate fresh water supply their livestock operations aren’t very big. Therefore Mexico must rely on imports from Canada. NAFTA helps Canadian farmers and farm related businesses to a considerable greater ease to an ever growing market that will benefit them in the future. There are well over 140,000 Canadians employed in the auto manufacturing Industry. As well, approximately 32 per cent of Canada’s manufacturing exports is directly related to the auto industry (Taylor). The Mexican market however, is highly restricted, while 95 per cent of Mexican automotive imports enter Canada completely duty free. NAFTA addresses this imbalance, and more importantly corrects it. By the year 2013, Canada will have open access to the fastest growing automotive market in North America. Canadian Service Industries and NAFTA Canada’s service industry is the fastest growing sector of its economy. More than nine million Canadians, which is about two thirds of their work force, are employed by the service sector. Cross border trade in services was dealt with for the first time in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The NAFTA deal has included provisions for this type of trade and spells out procedures aimed at encouraging the recognition of licenses and certificates through the development of mutually acceptable professional standards and criteria such as education, experience and professional development. Under NAFTA a temporary entry across the border will be available for about 60 professions. Oceanographers, geographers and statisticians are three groups who can abet from the NAFTA agreement.

Canadian Financial Markets and NAFTA
More than 500,000 Canadians are employed in the “four pillars” of the financial industry. These pillars consist of banking, insurance, securities firms and trust companies. Mexico’s financial markets have opened up for Canada due to the NAFTA deal. Canadian banking, insurance, and security firms will be able to operate wholly owned subsidies that will allow Canadian businesses to service their clients throughout the NAFTA region. Canada’s financial sector, which is already strong and hearty, will realize new opportunities under NAFTA that will allow it to further expand and flourish. Canada’s financial institutions have a lot to offer Mexico. Canada’s strength, such as its technological know- how and it’s experience in operating large, integrated banking networks, are areas in which Mexico needs immediate and consistent strategic advice. Foreign investment has played an important role in Canada’s development as a nation. Investment is an indispensable tool for Canada’s growth and prosperity. It will continue to aid Canada’s goal of maintaining and enhancing their competitiveness in the world marketplace. Under the free trade agreement with the U.S., Canada agreed to raise the thresholds for the review of foreign takeovers by U.S. investors. With NAFTA Mexico will enjoy the same access as the U.S. investors. Canada has reserved its suitable to review large foreign takeovers. In addition, the NAFTA allows Canada to continue safeguarding key factors like culture, social services, basic telecommunications and some modes of transportation by permitting Canada to maintain restrictions on foreign participation. Canadian Telecommunications and NAFTA Telecommunications is definitely going to play a crucial role in integrating the North American economy under NAFTA. A smooth transfer of data and the instantaneous electronic exchange of information via telecommunications networks are an essential tool of international trade. This will benefit Canada; for they are a recognized world leader in the telecommunications field. This will directly provide a market for Canadian developers in services such as electronic messaging, advanced data networks, and electronic mail. Mexico is in the process of modernizing its services so that they are compatible with Canadian and U.S. networks. By the year 2010, Mexico’s question for imported telecommunications products is expected to grow by 42 per cent (Taylor). Anyone can plainly see the potential opportunities here for Canada. Transportation in Canada and NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement has “streamlined” transportation between the three countries involved. Within six years, trucks and buses can crisscross the North American continent with virtually no border restrictions. Under NAFTA, for instance, a Canadian driver can take a load from Calgary, to Mexico city, with a stop in Texas for more goods. And on the arrangement home, the same driver can deliver Mexican goods to both Canadian and U.S. destinations. NAFTA Caveats It should be noted, in all fairness however, that the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement may have many negative connotations towards social and environmental issues enthralling the trading nations. One effect from the enactment of NAFTA is the loss of manufacturing jobs which would occur from the shift of multinational corporations to Mexico. This will cause many corporations to move their plants over the border. By doing this, it will let them produce goods at lower costs. This is because Mexico has cheaper, unskilled labor due to non-existent minimum wage rates. In almost every case money usually leads the way. The problems that the US and Mexico have encountered since embarking on NAFTA are a lesson that Canada is better off for not having been fervent in this agreement at all. What can be said is that trade agreements are a double edged sword that must be carefully evaluated before being musty. Having shown examples of trade agreements gone bad, and more specifically Canada’s poor experiences with trade agreements, the thesis that supports the exercise of protectionist policy will now be explored in greater detail, first considering what protectionism represents and its suitability as a protection against the sometimes crushing weight of the trade agreements that often pit large and small nations against one another in an disaster to do them equal, when evidence suggests that the smaller nations frequently end up being taken advantage of or worse off than they were when they entered into the trade agreements in the first place.

Protectionism Defined
Protectionism, in the context of this paper, of course refers to the protection of a nation’s financial interests from the intrusion of foreign competition, which usually invades the borders of a given country under the guise of trade agreements, which ostensibly attempt to provide a level playing field for those who are engaged in the trade. By installing a protectionist policy into the laws of a given nation, that nation can be protected from the disadvantage of other countries claiming a piece of the economy. Different Types of Protectionist Measures Protectionism, within the realm of protecting the economic interests of a given nation, do not have as powerful to do with physically sealing the borders of a given country, but rather trying to stem the tide of foreign goods that are entering the country and taking away revenue and jobs from the home nation itself. Some measures that have been undertaken as protectionist measures in the past include tariffs, which charge other nations a tax for importing their goods into a given country, limits on imports, which of course restrict the entry of foreign goods into a given country, and embargoes, which totally ban foreign goods. Embargoes are typically employed between nations when the given nations are at war or some type of a heated dispute. Specific Protectionism in Canada Despite the complaints of such giant global trade forces as the World Trade Organization, Canada has made attempts to protect its own interests by implementing specific protectionist measures that are aimed at preventing huge losses to foreign competitors. Over the years, Canadian tariffs and restrictions have protected their interest to a certain extent. Canada is certainly justified in utilizing protectionist measures, and at least in the case of Canada, it can be said that the nation wears protectionism on its sleeve. For decades, the WTO has been accused of using back room protectionist moves to support its largest members such as China (Cuddy), thereby showing that there is a basis for the argument in favor of protectionism even among the largest players in the global trade game.

What Happens Without Protectionism?
A compelling argument for the use of protectionism lies in the story of what has happened in the United States, Canada’s largest trade partner and powerful neighbor, from the overuse of free trade agreements and policies. Consider these two real life examples of problems that the United States has encountered for the sake of free trade: 1. Over the next three years, a major New York securities firm plans to replace its team of 800 American software engineers, who each earns about $150,000 per year, with an equally competent team in India earning an average of only $20,000. 2. Within five years the number of radiologists in this country is expected to decline significantly because M.R.I. data can be sent over the Internet to Asian radiologists capable of diagnosing the problem at a limited fraction of the cost (Scuhmer). What conclusions can we gather from these examples? First of all, the fact that a mega nation like the United States has seen such an invasion is remarkable and sunless at the same time. There are several reasons for the predicament of foreign invasion from an economic standpoint; first of all, the proliferation of education throughout the world, as well as the fact that nations such as the United States have opened their borders to people from other countries for educational purposes. Once those individuals have received an education, they are willing to collect their professional reputation by working for wages that are much lower than their competing counterparts; moreover, in those nations, many times the standard of living and prevailing wages are much lower; therefore, the workers can beget a given job at a lower rate than someone in a more developed nation. Going back to the examples that were cited previously, what occurred was a sort of exporting situation, albeit a location where labor and services, and ultimately jobs, were exported to another country. When this occurs, the nation that loses the jobs of course loses just a little bit more economic freedom in the form of lower living standards due to unemployed or displaced workers, the loss of tax revenue for the government and of course the loss of the buying power within the country that the wages would have produced domestically. The bottom line is that whether a physical good is coming from a given country at the expense of another country, or in this case, as jobs bleed from the country, a tall deal of damage is done. At the risk of an excessive quote, this statement from Schumer says it all: “if the case for free trade is undermined by changes in the global economy, our policies should reflect the new realities. While some economists and elected officials suggest that all we need is a robust retraining effort for laid-off workers, we do not believe retraining alone is an answer, because almost the entire range of “knowledge jobs” can be done overseas. We do not believe that offering tax breaks can compensate for the enormous wage differentials driving jobs offshore”. The exiting of jobs from nations must not be allowed to occur, which is a caution that must be stressed within the scope of trade agreements.

Where Does Canada Stand on Immigration?
Where Canada stands on the policy of immigration also plays a key role in the protection of domestic financial interests. Throughout its history Canada has maintained numerous immigration policies, many not surviving the life span of the government under which they were created. In 1976 Canada adopted a points-based system, where potential immigrants were assigned various points based on such things as age, education, and secure worth. This system was designed to prevent immigrants from being barred entry into the country based on race, religion, or creed. Essentially, those immigrants with sufficiently large personal savings, or with jobs skills listed under the government’s General Occupations List, would be awarded more points, thus increasing there chance of being granted admittance into the country. Of all the immigrants coming to Canada, most fall under the skilled worker category. These are immigrants who posses work skills which are deemed wanted by the Canadian government’s National Occupational Classification. Such skills often include technical skills, in the fields of science and medicine, but also quite frequently labor skills, to fill labor gaps that the current Canadian population either cannot or is unwilling to fill. It has always been the current Liberal government’s policy to limit immigration to Canada to 1% of the current population (Pettigrew), but does this hold in practice? The Canadian government needs to adopt a system of quotas which it is both willing to support and enforce, since the Liberal’s do not appear to be enforcing their one-percent philosophy. The Reform Party of Canada has suggested in their Blue Sheet that immigration levels should be established at a maximum of 150,000 (for all immigrant groups. A figure slightly less then the Liberal 1%) per year in any year where the unemployment rate exceeds 10%, with increases in immigration as the unemployment rate falls below 10%. Such a system would be more reasonable than the Liberal’s one percent, since it would ensure that in times of high unemployment that the potential exists for Canadians to procure any new jobs, as opposed to them possibly being filled by cheaper immigrant labor. It also takes into account the fact that Canada may not need so many skilled worker immigrants, since it already has a sufficiently stout skilled workforce already in plot. To allow so many immigrants in without a scheme similar to that of the Reform Party’s may in fact be causing the increase in unemployment. Yet, like the Liberal philosophy, this policy would require a system to prevent the quota from being exceeded. A simple policy would simply stop accepting immigration applications once the quota has been reached. Any immigrants turned down after this point could always reapply in the following year.

Entrepreneurs from Other Countries in Canada
The “Entrepreneur” is required to make a substantial investment in a business in Canada that will make a vital contribution to the economy. The business must get or continue at least one job in Canada for a Canadian citizen or permanent resident other than the entrepreneur and dependants. The applicant must also intend and have the ability to provide active and ongoing participation in the management of the business (Drover, et al). One of the other larger groups admitted into Canada are sponsored immigrants. Sponsored immigrants are essentially those who have family already in Canada and can come by those family member’s to sponsor their immigration application. The Liberal government encourages family relations and development, as it sees family and family life as a necessary facet of an immigrant integrating into Canadian society. With this goal in mind, the current government encourages immigrants to sponsor their family members, provided those members meet the same health and security restrictions applied to all other immigrants. Statistically, the number of sponsored immigrants arriving in Canada has gradually declined in proportion to the number of immigrants arriving in Canada, to the point where the number actually arriving rarely reaches the maximum number of sponsored immigrants planned for by the government. Yet despite this proportionate decline, the number of sponsored immigrants arriving is still significantly high. Refugees in Canada’s Economy The other group of immigrants frequently admitted into Canada, and the ones that receive most of the media attention, are refugees. Since World War II, Canada has resettled or granted asylum to over 800,000 refugees and other people in need of humanitarian solutions. It was originally stated that immigration has always played an well-known role in Canada’s history, and it should continue to do so. But immigration must be limited to those who possess the human capital necessary to adjust quickly and independently to the needs of Canadian society and the job market. Canada should strengthen their restrictions on immigration by providing a stricter and more effective way of filtering out security or medical threats, by enacting the novel proposals to ensure that potential immigrants are fluent in either of the official languages, and that they have a needed occupation according to the National Occupational Classification. Canada should also provide better training for visa officers abroad in order that they may better assess an applicant’s eligibility for immigration. Other restrictions Canada should impose include a much tighter and enforced quota system for skilled worker immigrants, based on Canada’s modern employment needs, they should encourage business immigrate immigration, and they should limit who an immigrant can sponsor for similar immigration. As for refugees, Canada must adopt a policy more consistent and similar to that of the United Nation’s, a policy that can much better determine which refugee applications are legitimate, and which are not. It should also guarantee that all refugees have the potential to quickly integrate themselves into the workforce so that they may become economically independent. All of these proposals are for the economic and social benefit of Canada and Canadians. Although immigration is a vital role in our development, we must also ensure that Canada puts Canadians first, and ensures that immigration will not adversely affect the existing economic system, by either causing increased unemployment, and/or increased use of social programs. The immigrants Canada accepts should be those with the best potential to adapt to our society and become independent, and those with the best potential to give something back in return. Antithesis In support of the thesis, the researcher now offers the antithesis that protectionist trade policy may isolate nations to the point of starvation, rather than protecting them overall from adverse competition and foreign undercutting. From the standpoint of a mega nation like the United States, Free trade is enormous by creating new jobs and making the U.S. the global leader in economy. Whereas, Switzerland refused to join the European Economic Area (EEA) for personal reasons. It should also be noted that “free trade” can cause a loss of sovereignty, protection of a nation’s resources, etc. The view that international trade can facilitate economic growth by expanding the size of the market is as old as the economics profession itself, tracing back to Adam Smith’s 1776 discourse on the gains from specialization of trade (Summers). Nevertheless, along with the idea of international trade, another concept of commerce runs called protectionism. A century and a half ago French economist and statesman Frederic Bastiat presented the practical case for free trade: “It is always beneficial,”’ he said, “for a nation to specialize in what it can produce best and then trade with others to acquire goods at costs lower than it would take to produce them at home” (Barton). A case for protectionism must also be remembered when 1977 AFL-CIO President, George Meany said, “Free trade is a chronicle. Foreign countries subsidize their manufacturers, which enables them to undercut United States companies and take the jobs of American workers … This is not competition – it is a stacked deck, stacked against the American worker … If we pursue the policies that have gone on for the last few years, we’re going to be a completely service nation” (Gray, et al). Many advocators of protectionism are always willing to claim that free trade is a myth. Those who search for these and other fallacies of free trade often turn to the economic theory of protectionism for answers. In short, protectionism can be defined as a system of policies and devices created by governments in order to acquire or preserve domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition, usually through duties imposed on importations. The theory of protectionism, similarly to that of free trade, has many strengths and weaknesses that must be examined and weighed carefully in order to determine the best economic trade policy.

Should Canada Keep its Money at Home?
If Canada wishes to retain its status, it must keep its money at home in domestic industries instead of supporting foreign firms. Trading with countries that violate human rights will only strengthen and support their industries. They must instead support domestic firms to keep the money and power in their own country. However, this concept can pain the national economy also. If a country does not spend money on imports, they will not be able to export goods to countries that would otherwise patronize the merchandise. Also, through buying imports, a country or industry will give up an intangible asset (money) in order to gain tangible assets (imported goods) that they can use and profit from (Crookell). Another argument for protectionism is that this economic system will not only protect key industries but more-so safeguard developing infant industries. Protectionism is especially strategically effective today for many developing countries. The key to national power is manufacturing. When industries are in developmental stages of production, their prices may be higher due to additional costs for initial investment. Protectionism will give these firms an equal field instead of trying to compete with already developed companies. Soon the infant industries will be able to raise their productivity rate so they can lower their prices but they must have protection until they can get off the ground. On the other hand, this case cannot always be used to support protectionism. Adam Smith argued that, although this case is the only kindly argument for tariffs, a more efficient way to retract care of this problem is through government subsidies. This way the infant industries will be put on a level trading field with large foreign companies and will still allow free trade to flourish in the global economy. One final argument to serve protectionism is it can establish Canadian jobs. Whenever a cutback in production for an industry is made, some workers must lose their job and unemployment increases. According to the general supply and quiz theory of economics, cutbacks in production occur when the product made is not in as great of demand. If consumers lift foreign goods because their prices are lower to due government subsidies, Canadian companies will suffer which eventually leads to the rise of unemployment in Canada. Economist Mehrene Larudee reminds us that, “In a primitive system, perhaps people would spread the work and enjoy more free time. But not in the contemporary world of the 9-to-5 job” (Sam). In addition, placing tariffs on foreign goods cause foreigners to put their own tariffs on Canadian goods so net exports are not respectable. Free Trade? In the past decade, free trade has become more and more an integral concept with globalization and world trade. Free trade can be defined as international trade free from governmental restrictions or protective duties and subject only to such tariffs as are needed for revenue. The world free trade allows producers to assign their product on the market in direct competition with other producers and allows consumers to buy any product they so choose. Supporters of free trade argue that protectionism is especially corrupt in the late 1990′s. Free trade benefits include increased domestic competition and thus lower domestic product prices. In a free market, consumers can assume the best product at the lowest price, which puts the burden of true competition on each industry. Buchanan treats the free trade process mainly as a zero-sum game: one country’s gain is another country’s loss. If this were true, there would not be much global trade and investment. When losers recognized their losses, they would withdraw from the market. What is true, of course, is that individual companies or individual workers can lose in trade. But what is bad for a company or an industry is not necessarily unpleasant for a country. Many countries now gain and trade the same things. Japan makes and trades cars, computer chips, and telephone switching centers; and so do the United States and Germany. The result is bigger markets that enable efficient producers to achieve greater economies of scale by spreading costs across more buyers. This allows prices to consumers to drop. Boeing, Microsoft, and Caterpillar all have lower unit costs because they are selling to a world market. Domestic competition also intensifies because imports compel domestic rivals to improve. Chevrolets and Chryslers are now better and more efficiently made because Americans can buy Toyotas and Hondas. In many industries American firms and workers have had to adapt to the best foreign practices and technologies.

Economic Patriotism
Although patriotism can be an important aspect to the success of any nation, the world is becoming more globally aware so a new economic system must comply with this sense of globalization. In a modern-day world society, government-run economics are out of date and old-fashioned. The consumer should be free to patronize and buy any product they choose, whether it is for reasons of price, quality, or national pride. In a free market, consumers are still able to turn away from one industry to another in order to support their own domestic firms but there should not be restrictive laws eradicating other consumers’ rights to buy a product at the lowest price. In the end, free trade gives consumers the greatest consumption possibilities with lower product prices, a greater product variety, and increased industrial competition. Free trade puts the burden of economic competition where it belongs, on the industries, not on the patrons of the world. In the post-9/11 world, even beyond the borders of America, there has been a huge push toward Economic Patriotism, which is to say that the people of nations are trying to purchase goods that are made within their gain borders in an worry to provide wealth and revenue within their own country, which they surmise will strengthen their country and make it less vulnerable to the threat of global terrorism (Cody). While this is true to a certain point, there are other, admittedly more creative scenarios that must be considered within the case of Economic Patriotism: • If other nations are impoverished due to trade imbalance, they may become unstable, adding to discontent in those countries, and fostering terrorism • Trade disputes could lead to terrorist acts in retaliation Taken with a grain of salt, admittedly, these scenarios must be considered in the big picture of international trade and restrictions.

Export Opportunities in Canada
In fairness, the possibility of viable export opportunities for Canada needs to be considered. It is feasible that Canada can be on the winning end of export agreements because of some of the unique natural resources the country possesses. importance of mining is definitely essential to Canada. As an ideal example, mining is an important industry, and Canadians are very advanced in their mining technology, but during the mining process, there is a sure level of pollution produced. The Canadian government and the mining companies have very good plans and controls toward this problem, while ensuring the smooth running of the industries, and also helping to create strong economy and employment. The world of today could not exist without mineral products. Canada produces about 60 minerals and ranks first among producing countries (Canada Magazine). In a typical year, the mining industry is responsible for a big fraction of Canada’s total export. Mining is very distinguished in Canadian life. Not only do the products power the family car and heat the family home, the manufacturing sector, the high tech industries and even the better known resource industries are all dependent, in some way, on the mining industry. The mining industry will continue to be an important support to the economy. Mining is taking full advantage of the lickety-split expansion of computers and microelectronics. These technologies are found in nearly every aspect of mineral development activity – from exploration methods, through production, mineral processing and even marketing. Computers and related equipment now have a lot of different applications in geophysical logging, geochemistry, geological mapping, etc. The above example is not to say that the entire nation of Canada should become a mine, but rather to execute an example that there are viable opportunities out there for Canada to expand exporting activities. Moreover, with smart planning and strategic relationships that are well planned, the country can explore new and better opportunities. Earlier portions of this paper detailed the advantages that Canada has in telecommunications, finance, and more. Using those as examples as well, of course, there is a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that Canada can step out of its acquire borders for opportunities in the world market. Entering Future Trade Agreements Within this paper, we have shown the advantages and disadvantages of trade agreements in general, as well as the good and the bad that Canada has gotten from involvement in various trade agreements. This leads us to the question of whether or not Canada should enter into trade agreements in the future. The question is not as easily answered as one might think. If nothing else, we have shown in this paper that given the complex nature of today’s world situation and economy, nothing is absolutely good or bad. Therefore, it is impossible to say that Canada should always or never take in trade agreements in the future. More appropriately, what we can say is that there are a few cautions that must be considered in general before entering into any recent agreements in the future: 1. Look at the big picture- while not all of the elements of the agreement may be ideal for Canada, there may be trade offs within the agreements that will allow Canada to give something in order to get something else. 2. Beware- Agreements are easy to enter and hard to leave….the stunning print must always be read in the agreements themselves. 3. Consider the strategic elements of the agreements-for example, homeland security is a key wretchedness in today’s world, so as an example, if Canada enters into an agreement with the United States, they will have an interest in protecting Canada from a dollars and cents standpoint. The point that is being made here is that trade agreements must be approached carefully and evaluated before being jumped into. Thesis or Antithesis? This research has certainly covered a great deal of material regarding Canada in terms of its domestic situation, international trade, immigration, industry, the war on scare, and much more. As the research began, there were a thesis and antithesis that were put forth with the blueprint of clearly proving the thesis and disproving the antithesis. Ironically enough, in the tradition of impartial research, the researcher has uncovered elements of both the thesis and antithesis that are proven and disprove, valid and invalid, given the complex details that this research ended up identifying. Therefore, what follows as a conclusion to this paper are a re-stating of the thesis and antithesis, as well as points under each statement which prove or disprove it, depending upon the case. In addition to merely proving or disproving them, recommendations will be made that will be useful either for future researchers or for the sake of simple argument. With this in mind, the research now comes full circle as follows:

Re-presentation of the Thesis
“Protectionist measures are appropriate for a given nation to protect their own interests in the realm of international trade, but not across the board” At the risk of sounding like a confusing mess, the thesis stands up in general; in other words, protectionist measures are appropriate some of the time, given a particular situation. Referring back to earlier portions of the paper, Canada has taken action to curb the flow of immigrants and imported goods into the country that would hurt the economic interests of the country as a whole; conversely, the U.S. has been afflict very badly in the occasions when free and open borders for people and product have been promoted. Therefore, nothing can be evaluated in an always or never category; rather, discretion must be taken to protect the interests of the nation of Canada without isolating it. Some possible steps for protectionism are as follows: • Restriction on imports and immigration • Tariffs to curb the flow of imports that are coming in • Lawful to refuse unfair trade agreements

Re-Presentation of Antithesis
“Protectionist trade policy only serves to isolate the nations that enact them, and in the long run, actually hurt those countries more than help them”. This antithesis has been disproved for several reasons; going attend to the conclusion that there are no absolutes in world trade, there are occasions, relating support to the thesis, where protectionist movements are necessary and beneficial. Therefore, these are some recommendations: • Protectionism should be kept as a viable option if needed to protect interests • Protectionism should not be confused with isolationism • There are no absolutes in Protectionism Final Thoughts As a final thought, the reader should realize that global trade is very dynamic, given the world situation in the current day, and nothing is guaranteed. Now more than ever, nations need to work together to enact their individual and group goals for the good of the nations, their people, and our planet.

Bibliography and Works Cited

“Agreement on Safeguards”. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (1994) http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/25-safeg.pdf

Atkinson, Glen. “The Political Economy of Liberalization and Regulation: Trade Policy for the Unique Era.” Journal of Economic Issues 32.2 (1998): 419+.

Barton, Richard L. Ties That Blind in Canadian/American Relations: Politics of News Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990.

Bering, Helle. “Losing Faith in Trade.” The Washington Times 16 July 1998: 23. “Broken Promise of NAFTA.” The New York Times 6 January 2004.

“Canadian businesses tapping into South America’s economic powerhouses are finding rich rewards”. Canada World Plan 8. (2005) http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canada-magazine/issue28/10-title-en.asp

Cody, Howard. “U.S.-Canada Trade, Defense and Border Issues since September 11: The Thought from Canada.” Canadian-American Public Policy (2003): 3+. “Consumers Speak out on Trade.” The Washington Times 14 Sept. 2003: B03.

Crookell, Harold. Canadian-American Trade and Investment under the Free Trade Agreement. New York: Quorum Books, 1990. Cuddy, Kevin J. “Crouching Tariffs, Hidden Protectionism.” Foreign Policy Jan.-Feb. 2003: 74+.

Deutsch, Klaus Günter, and Bernhard Speyer, eds. The World Trade Organization Millennium Round: Freer Trade in the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge, 2001

Doran, Charles F., and Gregory P. Marchildon, eds. The NAFTA Puzzle: Political Parties and Trade in North America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994.

Drover, Glenn, and K.K. Leung. “Nationalism and Trade Liberalization in Quebec and Taiwan.” Pacific Affairs 74.2 (2001): 205.

“Drug Death a Fear in Canada; Cheaper Prices Lure Americans.” The Washington Times 20 Oct. 2004: A01. Gray, Richard, and Mel Annand. “Grain Trade in Contemporary Canada-U.S. Relations.” American Review of Canadian Studies 28.3 (1998): 253-71.

Greenberg, Michael H. “Chapter 19 of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement: Implications for the Court of International Trade.” Law and Policy in International Business 25.1 (1993): 37-49.

Gruen, Nicholas. “Towards a More General Approach to Trade Liberalization.” Economic Record 75.231 (1999): 385. “Happily Ever NAFTA.” Foreign Policy Sept.-Oct. 2002: 58+. How Nations Grow Rich: The Case for Free Trade. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Howell, Llewellyn D. “Free Trade Agreement Mustn’t Ignore Canada.” USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education) May 1993: 51.

Johnson, Demcey. “U.S. Perspectives on Grain Trade with Canada: A Critical Appraisal.” American Review of Canadian Studies 28.3 (1998): 273-86. L.Anderson, James. The International Seafood Trade. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Woodhead Pub., 2003.

Martin, Larry, Vincent Amanor-Boadu, and Fiona Stirling. “Countervailing and Antidumping Actions: An Evaluation of Canada’s Experience with the United States.” American Review of Canadian Studies 28.3 (1998): 315-34.

Mcdougall, Allan K. “Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada.” American Review of Canadian Studies 34.3 (2004): 580+.

Mclaughlin, John. “Trade Winds from Canada.” National Review 30 Dec. 1988: 21. Bibliography and Works Cited Molot, Maureen Appel. “The Trade-Security Nexus: The New Reality in Canada-U.S. Economic Integration.” American Review of Canadian Studies 33.1 (2003): 27+.

O’Neill, Kate. “How Two Cows Make a Crisis: U.S.-Canada Trade Relations and Excited Cow Disease.” American Review of Canadian Studies 35.2 (2005): 295+.

Pal, Debashis, and Mark White. “Mixed Oligopoly, Privatization and Strategic Trade Policy.” Southern Economic Journal 65.2 (1998): 264+.

Pettigrew, Pierre. “Quebec City Lessons Arm WTO Nations for Post-Seattle Trade Talks.” Canadian Speeches May 2001: 24.

Pettigrew, Pierre. “Trade Talks: Reversing Seattle’s 1999 Failure, Solving Lumber Dispute.” Canadian Speeches Nov.-Dec. 2001: 57+.

“Protection.” The Columbia Encyclopedia. 6th ed. 2004.

“Razing the Barriers for Africa; in Cancun, End Agricultural Protectionism.” The Washington Times 29 Aug. 2003: A23.

“Rx for Trade Policy.” The Washington Times 19 Oct. 2005: A19.

Sam, Corinne. “World Trade Organization Caught in the Middle: Are TEDS the Only Way Out? .” Environmental Law 29.1 (1999): 185.

Sauvé, Pierre, and Robert M. Stern, eds. Gats 2000: New Directions in Services Trade Liberalization. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institutuion, 2000.

“Second Thoughts on Free Trade.” The New York Times 6 January 2004.

Storer, Paul. “A Trading Nation: Canadian Trade Policy from Colonialism to Globalization.” American Review of Canadian Studies 34.1 (2004): 144+.

Summers, Lawrence H. “America Overdrawn: The U.S. Economy Is the World’s Economic Engine. but” Foreign Policy July-Aug. 2004: 46+.

Taussig, F. W. Free Trade, the Tariff and Reciprocity. New York: Macmillan, 1980.

Taylor, Lawrence D. “NAFTA in the Fresh Millennium.” American Review of Canadian Studies 34.1 (2004): 171+.

Weston, Ann. “Success and Failures Both Mark Doha.” Canadian Speeches Nov.-Dec. 2001: 55+.

“Which Way? Free Trade or Protection.” Challenge 37.1 (1994): 17+.