I'm with James Craven that Native's right to travel and trade across the Canada-US border must be defended. Sometimes there are explicit treaties on this; in other cases this right, like other national rights, they have not yet been recognized by the government, but they should still be unconditionally defended. (I also look forward to "a world without borders" - for everyone, but that is a slightly different issue...) On the other hand, I agree with Ken Hanley on defending the Wheat Board as a means of defending farmers against capitalist market irrationality and the Cargill-type monopolists of the world. Unfortunately, some farmers in Canada and in the U.S. mistakenly think the Wheat Board is the problem, just as some workers think the union is the problem. It does not help when the leadership is bad, but a bad union is still better than no union, and the point is to make it a good union. Also many Natives are farmers and many farmers are Native. Actually, what motivated me to write this was just picking up a fascinating book by Sarah Carter, _Lost Harvests_, which looks at how Indians in the prairies in Canada DID begin to farm (or tried to, but were defeated by the Indian Act., etc.). I don't know how, concetetely, this particular clash of rights should be resolved, but I think Ken agreed the Wheat Board should exempt such Native trade, which seems right. It is not likely to injure the larger interests of farmers. A phrase from Raymond Williams come to mind, quoted by David Harvey in his recent book: "The defence and advancement of certain particular interests, properly brought together, are in fact the general interest." I completely agree with Jim that Canadian nationalism has no place here. And IMHO the attack on the Wheat Board is not the result of the FTA or NAFTA but, primarily, Canadian capitalist interests. But I also think that saying "the Canadian Government is more often an out-and-out whore of US imperialism" is doubly wrong. Canada is itself imperialist, and this gets lost when terms like whore are used. I assume it is a derogatory reference here, which I also think wrongs whores. Bill Burgess
