Our Addiction to Balanced Budgets May Need an Intervention

“There is always a storm. There is always rain. Some experience it. Some live through it. And others are made from it.” Author Shannon L. Alder

Recently NDP candidate and former Saskatchewan finance minister, Andrew Thomson, stated on Power and Politics, that cuts were inevitable, in order to balance the budget.

In Saskatchewan, he cut funding to education, though it still didn't balance the books.  He had to take money from the province's contingency fund, including almost a half million dollars for advertising, that he had balanced the books, when in fact, he had not.

Hiding deficits for politicians is not uncommon.  Jim Flaherty did it in Ontario and Joe Oliver is doing it now.

But in defence of Thomson, Flaherty and Oliver; we have become the enablers of their addiction to the high of being good economic managers.  They had to hide their red eyes and red ink, so they didn't have to come before us in shame, or ruin their chance for re-election.

The question we need to be asking ourselves, is why balanced budgets are so important.  Does it really matter if the federal government runs a deficit?

Political consultant and commentator, Will McMartin, discussed this recently in the Tyee.  He begins with the announcement that the Conservatives would present a balanced budget.  However, he implies, so what?

A closer look at the country's finances, however, raises a simple question: why all the fuss? The budget is a thin slice of the Canadian economic pie, and interest costs on our debt are shrinking to near-giveaway size. Ottawa is just one of three government levels, and taken as a whole our government spending is very much under control. 

The federal budget represents just 15% of our overall economy.

The Blame Game

There has been a lot of debate recently, over what political party is responsible for our perceived debt/deficit "mess".  Since only Conservatives and Liberals have ever formed government, it narrows the debate down to those two.

The biggest targets are Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau.  However, John Diefenbaker, also ran consecutive deficits, but that is not how their legacies should be judged.

Diefenbaker was a visionary, who fought for a united Canada.  He gave us the Canadian Bill of Rights and stood up to the Americans, who wanted us to join their missile defence program.  He may have made mistakes, but his deficits were created in part, by a new universal hospitalization program, and an enhanced Old Age Security.

Lester Pearson also left a deficit, but what defines him, are the many contributions he made.  He expanded Diefenbaker's hospitalization plan, to give us universal health care and introduced student loans and the Canada Pension Plan.  He also created the Order of Canada, and moved toward abolishing capital punishment.

There's no denying what Pierre Trudeau did to move our country forward, as he also expanded social programs, and created a more just society, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Even Brian Mulroney, whose tenure was mired in corruption, left his mark on making Canada a better country. He created eight new national parks, finalized the U.S.-Canada acid rain treaty, and brought in the Environmental Protection Act.

He is also credited with giving us NAFTA, not necessarily a good thing, but it did help Canada in the short term.

All of these men were big idea guys, who had the courage to make things happen.

Diefenbaker's idea:  a united Canada with a focus on human rights.

Pearson's: nation building and making Canada a diplomatic player on the international stage.

Trudeau's:  nation building with a focus on rights and freedoms, and an inclusive society.

Mulroney's:, a desire to bring Canada into the 21st century, with a focus on business and international trade.

Who cares if they left deficits when those deficits represented only 15% of our GDP?  Look at what we got in return?

I know that a lot of people are critical of NAFTA.  I'm one of them.  Not only did it hurt our manufacturing sector, but it has forced subsequent governments to adopt programs of deregulation, to meet the terms.  Unfortunately, more deregulation may be required, since we are now the country most sued, for not meeting our nefarious commitments.

Election 2015: a Psychedelic Trip to Bizzaro-land

When Thomas Mulcair was the environment minister in Quebec, and wanted to privatize water, shipping it in bulk, he said that "the environmental laws protecting water are considered barriers to trade." (The Press, Charles Cote and Mario Clouthier, June 16, 2004 ).  Mulcair helped to draft NAFTA.

Everything has become a "barrier to trade", that will exacerbate with even more international trade deals.

But what about the barriers to helping Canadian society?  We were told that these deals would lead to economic prosperity.  Where is it?  I guess we should have read the fine print, that said only economic prosperity for the top 1%.

During the 2008 economic crisis, the Canadian government bailed out our banks with over 100 billion of our money.  They bailed out companies, and sprinkled largesse over Conservative ridings.  They built libraries and indoor soccer fields for private religious schools and set up an advertising campaign called the Canada Economic Action Plan that would have rivalled Joseph Goebbels propaganda ministry.  (Yes I said it).      

We found money for that, by adding to our deficit and debt.  Adding it to the 15% stake in our country's GDP.  So why can't we do the same for the Canadian people?  

We need a National Housing Strategy, a National Food Program, and we need to expand our healthcare to include dental and prescription drugs.  We need a subsidized tuition program, help for our seniors and our veterans, and an environmental plan that works.

Those things are not drains on our economy, but a viable way to grow our economy, that will create good, full time jobs, while reducing poverty and homelessness.    We will see the value for the dollars we spend.

A recent poll shows that Canadians are OK with deficits.  They have different priorities and Justin Trudeau has tapped into that:

That suggests that it’s Mr. Trudeau whose position is in sync with the majority’s mood. The Liberal Leader has refused to rule out running a deficit, arguing he’ll have to see the extent of the “mess” the Conservatives have left in the public finances. 

It is the NDP, traditionally to the left of the Liberals, who have launched the most blistering attacks on Mr. Trudeau for opening the door to running a deficit. Under Mr. Mulcair, the New Democrats have sought to allay concerns about their economic policies by insisting they will balance the books, despite the slowdown in the economy.

What an odd turn of events. 

I'm glad that Trudeau is bringing the Liberal Party back to its roots, that put Canadians first. Now the NDP have to find their way back to the days of Tommy Douglas.

Many people have called me a socialist, but like Will McMartin, the author of the first piece I linked, I'm a conservative.  Although actually a liberal/conservative.  Common sense solutions to social problems.  Grow the economy and the budget will balance itself.

Or maybe I'm just a Diefenbaker, with a dollop of Pearson and a splash of Pierre Trudeau.

Not such a bad thing to be.

Mulcair's Environmental Record #1: Have the NDP Sprung a Leak?

On August 25,  1988;  then federal Minister of the Environment, Tom McMillan, tabled Bill C-156, in the House of Commons:  the Canada Water Preservation Act

The reason for the bill was to give teeth to an announcement made the year before, by the Mulroney government, that they would not consider large-scale water exports from Canada.  

Unfortunately an election was called on October 1, 1988, and the bill died on the Order Paper.

In my opinion, Canada has had three very good environmental ministers; two Conservative: Tom McMillan and Jean Charest; and one Liberal, Stephane Dion.

McMillan was not only known for his attempts to protect our water, but also for drawing attention to the damages caused by acid rain.   It's interesting to note that he also had a very eager assistant working in his department, who would go on to become a strong  voice on environmental protection. The assistant's name? Elizabeth May.

Fast Forward

So here we are, more than 25 years later, with the issue of bulk water sales, still not settled.

Maude Barlow, global water expert and NDP supporter, has been addressing this issue for years, more recently, as it pertains to the selling of Canada, with Harper's aggressive trade deals.

In a piece entitled  Why is Harper Selling Canada's Fresh Water Supply to French Companies?, she raises concern over the increase in meat exports, that will put a strain on our water supply, but also the proposed bulk water sales to France, under the new European trade agreement.

... this deal will give French companies Suez and Veolia, the two biggest private water operations in the world, access to run our water services for profit. Under a recent edict, the Harper government has tied federal funding of municipal water infrastructure construction or upgrading to privatization of water services. Cash-strapped municipalities can only access federal funds if they adopt a public-private partnership model, and several cities have recently put their water or wastewater services contracts up for private bids.

The NDP has always supported Barlow's endeavours, as have I.  However, if Thomas Mulcair were to become prime minister, she would assuredly find resistance in his government,

That's because Thomas Mulcair not only promoted the bulk sale of water, but often boasted, when he was Quebec Environment minister, that he helped to draft NAFTA.

From Le Devoir, June 15, 2004:  

The Quebec Minister of the Environment Thomas Mulcair questioned yesterday one of the pillars of the national water by reopening the door to bulk water export policy to create jobs in the regions, a door closed by Quebec by law after a public debate and a commission of inquiry.  

Yesterday morning invited as a speaker by the Unisféra International Centre of Montreal, the minister said he was ready to reopen the debate on this issue despite the election commitment of his party to fully respect the National Water Policy. The Quebec environment minister was asked to draw up the balance sheet of the management of environmental policies under NAFTA. 

"For water, said Thomas Mulcair, there is an important debate to be held on it." He says he does not share the fears of those like Maude Barlow, Council of Canadians, who believe governments will lose jurisdiction over the management of their water resources on the day they will set a precedent by making commercial goods, while giving precedence to the rules of free trade on their legislative and regulatory powers. 

"He doesn't share the fears of those like Maude Barlow"?  Well he should.

Further from the Montreal Gazette: Kevin Dougherty, June 16, 2004 

Environment Minister Thomas Mulcair doesn't understand why it is a "mortal sin" to export Québec water in bulk, while exports of bottled water are allowed .... 

"This isn't religion," Mulcair said in an interview....... "We'll make sure that we know the resource is being renewed," he said. "The big advantage of water over copper and zinc or iron is that once the metal comes out of the ground, it doesn't comb back. "With water, once you've taken it out, if you are doing it properly with appropirate permits and with appropriate supervision and scientific analysis, you can make sure that the resource is being renewed". 

André Bouthillier, président of the water-protection lobby Eau Secours!, called Mulcair's proposal "completely crazy ... it can take 3,000 years" for a body of water to renew itself. And since 1984, he said, Québec has had a water shortage. "

Not the first or last time that Mulcair would use pseudo-science to justify the privatization of a resource or promote a policy.  Gaeton Breton, author of Tu me water pumps - Stop privatization, said that Mulcair was talking through his hat.  They also challenged his notion that it would create jobs.

Many were actually surprised by the appointment of Mulcair, to the environment portfolio, in the first place. He had no science background and was a neoliberal.  They chose to take a wait and see attitude, but they came, they saw, and realized that they had been right not to trust him.

If he really thought that water would simply renew itself, he'd clearly spent too much time in the boardrooms and not nearly enough reading books and essays from people who knew what they were talking about.

This is just one example of the mess that Mulcair created in his post. Next topic will be the truth behind his much touted environmental protection as part of Quebec's Charter of Rights.

We need a change from Stephen Harper.  Not just more of the same.

Wikileaks Reveals the North American Integration as Being a Real Possibility

Conspiracy theories of deep integration have been circulating for some time, and now we learn that the rumours actually have merit.

Some details of the schemes were exposed in a secret 2005 U.S. embassy cable from Ottawa signed by then-Ambassador Paul Cellucci. The document was released by WikiLeaks on April 28. But so far, it has barely attracted any attention in the United States, Canada, or Mexico beyond a few mentions in some liberty-minded Internet forums. Numerous topics are discussed in the leaked document — borders, currency, labor, regulation, and more. How to push the integration agenda features particularly prominently.

Under the subject line “Placing a new North American Initiative in its economic policy context,” American diplomatic personnel in Canada said they believed an “incremental” path toward North American integration would probably gain the most support from policymakers. Apparently Canadian economists agreed.

The new border security deal must be part of that.

"Its a Loss of Sovereignty"

The Politics of Ballyhoo: David Emerson and the Soft on Sovereignty Trade Deal

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

When the RCMP boss Giuliano Zaccardelli, interfered in the 2006 election campaign, there was an immediate drop in Liberal support. They had been clearly headed toward victory, but plummeted as a result of his questionable actions.

Recognizing that they were in trouble, Paul Martin fought hard to keep some of his strongest MPs from going down in defeat. And one he threw himself and his party behind, was David Emerson, whose narrow victory in 2004, suggested he could be in trouble.

Liberal campaign workers .. were being pulled out of races across the Lower Mainland - from ridings in Vancouver, the North Shore, the Tri-Cities and elsewhere - and ordered to Vancouver-Kingsway, where cabinet minister David Emerson was desperately fighting to hold his seat. Whatever the fate of the Martin government, whatever the outcome of nearly a dozen close races in B.C., the Liberals were anxious to save Emerson, their west coast star. The efforts of those many Liberal volunteers were rewarded on January 23 as Emerson won re-election. (1)

Which made his defection (2) all the more troubling. All of those volunteers who worked so hard on his behalf must have been devastated.

Just as all of those party workers and volunteers had trekked across the Lower Mainland to Vancouver-Kingsway in January - to work the phones, to knock on doors, to pound signs into the ground, to scrutineer on election day, to drive voters to the polls - surely Emerson would now be happy to return the favour, to toil on their behalf, to make a personal sacrifice for a year or two ... (1)

It was suggested that he broke ranks because he was lured by the perks of a cabinet post, but I don't think so. Emerson had been an executive at the lumber giant Cancor. He could afford the good life, and the extra $ 70,000 in salary would have been a drop in the bucket.

I think there was something else that lured this robber baron. Stephen Harper's views on trade that heavily favoured the corporate sector.

As successive Liberal and Conservative governments have opened the doors too wide, allowing the takeover of our country's resources, there was always at least a pretence of protecting Canadian sovereignty. Maude Barlow in her book Too Close for Comfort, speaks of the 2004 rivalry for the Tar Sands between China and the U.S.

Paul Martin cautioned that the federal government may have to step in, since this could be deemed a threat to national security. And David Emerson agreed. "The government thinks it should be concerned about the overall position of our natural resources and the degree to which we want to lose control of our natural resource base." (3) (Of course Alberta's premier Ralph Klein blew a gasket, seeing it as more interference from Ottawa.)

And yet after betraying those who voted for him, and those who had worked so hard to get him elected, Emerson would do another 180. When he was hammering out the Softwood Lumber Deal, he lashed out at those who criticized it, as being "anti-American".

Softwood Lumber and Conservative Ballyhoo

I was a bit disappointed in Lawrence Martin's view of the Emerson defection and the Softwood lumber issue, in his new book Harperland. I like the book and found that he did a pretty good job of keeping balance. And yet he used Conservative talking points on this issue. Very odd.

With their defeat, the Liberals also left behind the long-running softwood lumber dispute with the United States. Harper assigned the trade portfolio to his newest Tory, David Emerson, who had worked on the file as a Grit, to prove that the Conservatives could get an agreement their opponents could not. The dispute had intensified in 2002, when the U.S., alleging that Canada unfairly subsidized producers, imposed 27 percent duties on the lumber.

Under the terms of the Free Trade Agreement, a joint trade panel was to settle the problem. All the rulings went Canada's way, but Washington, to the consternation of Canadian negotiators, was not prepared to let those verdicts stand and insisted instead on a negotiated settlement. Having run the Canfor Corporation, B.C.'s giant forestry company, Emerson knew the file well. He had come very close to getting a settlement for the Liberals, which may well have helped them do better in B.C. in the 2006 election*. "But the problem," recalled Emerson, "was that there was an element in the agreement that would have required higher tariffs on western B.C. producers than on eastern producers." That, he said, would have caused too much discord. Under the Tories, however, he engineered his way around that obstacle and secured the deal. The new bilateral accord required the U.S. to pay back about $4 billion of the more than $5 billion it had collected on lumber imports. The missing billion prompted some complaints, but the consensus was that a flawed deal was better than none at all. Harper was pleased. His much-derided floor-crosser got the job done. (4)

Unfortunately "his much derided floor-crosser" only got the job done in favour of the U.S., but the deal was devastating for Canadians, because it once again tied our hands in terms of what we can and cannot do for the industry. The U.S. resented the fact that our lumber sector was subsidized, meaning that we could lower our price when the markets demanded it. This new deal put an end to that, and it was tested in 2007, when Quebec and Ontario introduced aid packages to benefit their forest industries. (5) U.S. officials complained and it went to arbitration.

Paul Martin in his book Hell or High Water, describes what really took place.

George Bush had been after him for a settlement, but Martin explained to him that much of the Canadian timber used for our lumber industry is on crown land. Therefore, all Canadians are in partnership with them. The U.S. counterparts, on the other hand, are mostly private concerns. He spoke of this at a meeting.

Afterwards, Bush came up to me and thanked me for my remarks. I took the opportunity to make a point. "Lookit, I am out there making the case for free trade – something that you want – and yet you aren't respecting that principle with your NAFTA partner in the face of judgment after judgment against you on softwood at international tribunals. How can you be credible on free trade of the Americas when you won't respect the deals you've already signed?" It was the first time I felt the message really penetrated. (6)

And they were very close to reaching a deal, though they were adamant that all of the money the Americans had collected in tariffs, the full 5 billion, had to be returned. Then the election writ was dropped.

When the Harper government picked up the thread of our negotiations in the spring, they yielded on this point, settling for an agreement that returned a billion dollars less than what had been improperly collected, and inexplicably allowing half a billion dollars to flow directly Into the pockets of our American competitors. This was blood money the Americans had won through a policy of harassment.

The Harper government said there was no alternative. But there was – even if the negotiations fell through. The American policy on softwood lumber did not even conform to domestic American law, and ultimately we could have taken the matter to court in the United States. We would have won, and won in a way no U.S. administration could ignore. (6)

But can you imagine Stephen Harper saying no to George Bush, or George Bush saying no to his corporate sector?

During the 2008 election campaign, Jack Layton vowed to scrap the deal:

Layton said the agreement -- hammered out in 2007 under the carriage of former International Trade Minister David Emerson -- was a betrayal of Canadian lumber producers. The "softwood lumber sell-out to the U.S. gave up on years of trade rulings in Canada's favour," Layton said in Kenora, Ont., putting the blame squarely on Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. After the deal was arranged, Layton said, "Harper then broke his promise to provide loan guarantees for struggling producers, and to find ways to help support forestry communities." He added: "Instead, he gave a $50-billion tax gift to profitable banks and oil companies that don't need the help." (7)

This brings us to a more recent issue from South of the border, that is becoming an election issue in their upcoming mid-terms. With the housing market in the U.S. drying up, Canadians have had to look elsewhere for trade, and have found a lucrative market in China. But the Americans are protesting because of our increase in output, which is lowering the price and making competition tougher, as they also tap into the Chinese market. (8)

This was something that Paul Martin wanted included in the deal, because at times accelerated production was necessary, when pine-beetle infestations prompted immediate harvesting. We are supposed to be allowed to compensate for that, but now the Americans are suggesting that we are "cheating", and only using it as an excuse to dominate Chinese trade.

More arbitration. (9)

We should not have signed this deal that has meant the loss of jobs and the loss of our ability to protect our citizens. But in true fashion, Harper bullied everyone into doing his bidding.

The Harper government's excuse was that the Canadian companies couldn't hang on any longer. They had to settle quickly. Of course they had to settle, but that was because David Emerson as a Conservative minister accepted a deal he had rejected as a Liberal minister! His new prime minister in essence threatened a very reluctant Canadian industry: "Knuckle under, because you won't get any help from us if you don't." (6)

So What Was behind All the Ballyhoo?

While the Conservative line remained that Emerson did with them, what he wasn't able to do with the Liberals, there is another story here. There always is, isn't there?

In March of 2006, during the summit in Cancun Mexico, when the media was distracted with the shiny zipper on Harper's hunting vest (something that would never have been part of his wardrobe), a trilateral working group was formed, called the North American Competitiveness Council, another deal giving corporations more power over everything from "trade laws, economies, defense, (and with that foreign policy), emergency response, education, transportation, immigration, health and environmental regulations, resources, energy, law enforcement, intelligence gathering ..." (10)

Signatories to this included Michael Chertoff and Condoleezza Rice, who let it be known that the softwood lumber issue "was a sour spot for them". Stockwell Day, Maxime Bernier, Peter Mackay and David Emerson (who also represented the Canadian Council of Chief Executives) endorsed the deal, so the push was on.

Can you imagine if the headlines in our papers read "Stephen Harper enters into agreement with Michael Chertoff and Condoleezza Rice", both part of the Bush administration. So instead Harper took one for the team and the headline was "Harper's big game hunter look a fashion faux pas, expert says." That's how far our media has fallen. That was the news.

The editors must have weighed the stories: Aggressive deal that hands our country over to American and multi-national corporate interests, or our doofus PM in a hunting vest? And Fashion Faux Pas won the day.

According to author Andrew G. Marshall:

The idea is that they want to move this process of integration so far along without public knowledge that by the time the public becomes aware .. it will be far too late for the public to oppose it, as it will have already become a reality. (10)

And I think it may already be a reality with the Buy American/Sell Canada deal that Harper signed during his two and a half month prorogue vacation. The media meant to warn us of that, but Rhona Ambrose just bought a new pair of shoes, and you know, they had to prioritize.

It just makes me so damn mad.

Footnotes:

*Lawrence is wrong. He did better because of the extra efforts of volunteers who were moved from other constituencies to make sure that he did better. A poll held prior to the election showed less than 20 per cent of residents in the riding knew Emerson by name. (See above)

Previous:

The Politics of Contempt: The Nixon-Harper Ticket

The Politics of Hate: Where Will it Lead?

The Politics of Conceit: "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"

The Politics of Opportunity: Election Tampering

The Politics of Jabberwocky: As Canada Plummets Down the Rabbit Hole

The Politics of Ballyhoo: David Emerson and the Soft on Sovereignty Trade Deal

Sources:

1. Emerson: The Power and the Tory. His betrayal, his perks and some context for the outrage, By Will McMartin, The Tyee, February 9, 2006

2. Former Liberal David Emerson defects to Tories, By CTV News Staff, February 6, 2006

3. Too Close for Comfort: Canada's Future Within Fortress North America, By Maude Barlow, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 2005, ISBN: 0-7710-1088-5, Pg. 200

4. Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 49-50

5. U.S.-Canada Trade Dispute: 1982 to present, Random Lengths, May 5, 2010.

6. Hell or High Water: My Life in and Out of Politics, By Paul Martin, McClelland & Stewart, 2008, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5692-5 5, Pg. 381-383

7. Layton would cancel Tories' softwood lumber deal, CTV News, September 24 2008

8. Chinese lumber demand fueling B.C. industry improvements, By Autumn MacDonald - Quesnel Cariboo Observer, October 12, 2010

9. U.S. trade officials take step toward reopeining softwood lumber dispute, By Derrick Penner, Vancouver Sun, October 8, 2010

10. Tyrants and Traitors: The “Evolution by Stealth” of a North American Union, By: Andrew G. Marshall, August 7, 2007

Stephen Harper Again Shows That Multi-Nationals Come Before the Canadian People

News this week is that Stephen Harper handed over 130 million dollars of taxpayer money to a multi-national corporation, AbitibiBowater Inc., that was guilty of environmental crime, and the exploitation of our natural resources.

Of course, that's not how our corporate media is selling it. Instead, they are allowing the premier of Newfoundland, Danny Williams, to shoulder all of the "blame", while Stephen Harper is made the hero for coming to the "rescue". What a strange world we live in.

And of course Jason Kenney's Canadian Taxpayer Federation is leading the charge.

Taxpayer watchdogs didn't exactly see it that way. “Danny Williams has managed to put taxpayers in Toronto, Weyburn, Vancouver, Kamloops, Halifax on the hook for his big ego,” said Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Williams should have been congratulated for standing up to a company who reneged on it's agreement with the province, when they closed up shop in Grand Falls-Windsor, throwing 750 people out of work, yet still demanded water and forestry rights. They also refused to clean up the mess they left behind.

"Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect them to honour their historic commitments to the province. If they cannot do that, then they have no right to assets that rightfully belong to the people of the province." He was right. But not according to Stephen Harper. To Harper, Williams was threatening a large corporation, despite the fact that they threw Canadians out of work.

It used to be that we fought against multi-nationals on behalf of our citizens. Now we are being asked to fight for multi-nationals, regardless of their impact on our citizens, our environment and the well being of our country.

AbitibiBowater Inc.

AbitibiBowater Inc. came about with the merger of Bowater and Abitibi-Consolidated, in January of 2007.

A union representing forestry workers said the move by Abitibi and Bowater should cause concern in government and community circles. "There are many issues underlying this announced merger which should raise alarm bells in Ottawa," said David Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. "Our forest-based industries and communities are already in crisis with the loss of some 10,000 jobs over the past few years. "Our history with mergers and acquisitions has been that so-called 'synergies' really mean more mill closures, job losses and devastation in our communities," he said. The union called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to convene a national summit on the future of the forestry industry.

Within months of the merger, the company was also at the center of controversy in Canada's Boreal Forest over the loss of old-growth and intact forests, and related impacts on threatened wildlife including woodland caribou.

Greenpeace launched an aggressive campaign, resulting in a number of major customers either reducing or cancelling their contracts, to reduce their exposure to environmental and reputational risk. A deal was finally reached in May of this year.



But Stephen Harper did not step in until the corporation was being denied access to resources, after the predicted layoffs and environmental damage was done. The company has since filed for bankruptcy protection.

The 130 Million Dollar Gift

So why did they get 130 million tax dollars?

Canada’s federal government made an important announcement this week. It was kept deliberately quiet: with a news release issued at 4:45 pm on a calm Tuesday in the middle of the late-summer news “dead zone.” But it should set alarm bells ringing for anyone concerned with the anti-democratic direction of global trade law. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government reached a $130 million out-of-court settlement with the bankruptcy trustees overseeing the restructuring of AbitibiBowater Inc., a failed forestry and paper giant. The settlement relates to a claim that Abitibi brought against Canada under NAFTA’s notorious Chapter 11 process.

Since NAFTA is an international treaty, it is the federal government who speaks for Canada - even when the claim is directed against a provincial government. Usually these Chapter 11 cases drag on for years. Amazingly, however, Canada’s federal officials settled the case out of court this week. They agreed to pay damages of $130 million, only 6 months after Abitibi formally filed its NAFTA complaint.

There was no “national treatment” aspect to the seizure of Abitibi’s rights (it was Abitibi’s socially irresponsible actions, not its nationality, that sparked the Newfoundland action). Indeed, Abitibi is functionally headquartered in Montreal, Canada, and is, for most intents and purposes, a Canadian company (its U.S. “identity” merely reflects a Delaware incorporation - no doubt for tax avoidance reasons). This makes it all the more bizarre that it could use the NAFTA process (rather than normal courts) to sue its own government. There should have been plenty of grounds to fight the case as a dramatic over-reaching of NAFTA’s rules.

Harper didn't even try to fight this, and would instead say that this was a one of, and that from here on in, provinces would pay for their own lawsuits, if they even try to put their citizens first.

There is a clear message here. You don't challenge Harper's multi-nationals. The battle lines have been drawn and we are on the losing side.

One more reason to get rid of this man before he completely destroys us.

Alphabet Soup and Hunting Vests: Canada's Race to the Bottom

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In the spring of 2006, when Stephen Harper met with George Bush and Mexican president Vicente Fox, in Cancun; he was there to intensify trade talks between the three countries, in particular the controversial Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Believing that the Canadian media would be all over it, and he might have to answer questions about the details of any deals, he showed up for the first press conference, wearing of all things, a hunting vest.

And true to form, the media forgot all about the important summit and focused on that damn vest.

The Globe and Mail asked : Stephen, what the heck are you wearing? Ceri Marsh, editor-in-chief of Fashion magazine in Toronto, sighed deeply into the phone. "Oh, this is bad. This is terrible. Fox looks great. Bush is fine. But Harper is a total embarrassment. He looks like their assistant. Could he not do his zipper up? It looks like his belly is too big. And I believe those appear to be pleated brown trousers. No one has worn those in 10 years.

Jeff Farbstein, vice-president of Harry Rosen, all but howled in disgust. "He's wearing a utility vest!" he lamented. Asked for some professional fashion advice, Mr. Farbstein barely knew where to begin. "He's not the best-dressed guy to begin with, but this is obviously an important international event. One of his consultants should have told him what to wear, and how. If he were wearing a beige cotton suit with no tie and a crisp linen shirt, that would have been the way to go.

The Ottawa Citizen suggested: Harper's big game hunter look a fashion faux pas, expert says Sartorial note to Prime Minister Stephen Harper: lose the vest. And get an assistant to do what high school girls do -- find out ahead of time what everyone will be wearing.

The headlines across the country were much the same. But you'd be very hard pressed to find information on the talks, or decisions made on our behalf. It's what David McGowan might call the Politics of Illusion or better yet, a bit of Morton Blackwell's conservatism 101: "Controlled Controversy".

Stephen Harper did not want to answer, or be expected to answer questions about specifics, so instead he controlled the media and thereby controlled the message.

We didn't see cunning, we only saw doofus. And if we thought of him as a doofus, or a country bumpkin, how could we possibly believe that he was there representing the interests of the world's largest multinational corporations?

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” Joseph Goebbels

Free Trade and the Decline in Democracy

Citizens beware. An unprecedented corporate power grab is underway in global negotiations over international trade. Operating under the deceptive banner of "free" trade, multinational corporations are working hard to expand their control over the international economy and to undo vital health, safety, and environmental protections won by citizen movements across the globe in recent decades. The megacorporations are not expecting these victories to be gained in town halls, state offices, the U.S. Capitol, or even at the United Nations.

They are looking to circumvent the democratic process altogether, in a bold and brazen drive to achieve an autocratic far-reaching agenda through two trade agreements, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade deal (formally known as NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement) and an expansion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), called the Uruguay Round. (1)

GATT was signed in 1947 to encourage free trade between member states, by regulating and reducing tariffs on traded goods and by providing a common mechanism for resolving trade disputes. There were many clauses to the agreement, including a Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment, that Diefenbaker tapped into, that allowed Canada to export oil to the U.S., avoiding the Mandatory Oil Import Quota Program, introduced by Eisenhower in 1959.

In exchange we allowed multinationals in Montreal to continue to import oil from Venezuela and the Middle East, at a lower cost, while Ontario was forced to buy oil from Alberta at a 33-50% higher price. The importing of oil from these places, kept the U.S. from getting into trouble with these trading partners over the Canadian exceptionality.

GATT expanded over the years, but the Uruguay Round of 1986, was the most comprehensive deal since the initiative began. For the first time things like services, capital, intellectual property, textiles, and agriculture were added.

The Fortune 200's GATT and NAFTA agenda would make the air you breathe dirtier and the water you drink more polluted. It would cost jobs, depress wage levels, and make workplaces less safe. It would destroy family farms and undermine consumer protections such as those ensuring that the food you eat is not compromised by unsanitary conditions or higher levels of pesticides and preservatives. (1)

But that's only for the industrialized countries. The large global companies have an even more ambitious set of goals for the Third World. They use GATT and NAFTA to capitalize on the poverty and exploit their generally low environmental and safety standards, and low wages, to increase profits. And they do this in part by playing one off against the other.

A bidding war where the prize is the one who allows foreign investment with the least expected return. It's like the old colonialism, where workers are slaves. And even if you are unconcerned with those being oppressed, remember, the more jobs outsourced the fewer there are here.

And if you think that bullying is not our way and that Canada would never be privy to such things, guess again. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty have been doing a lot of bullying lately, using Canada's once excellent international reputation to exploit disadvantaged nations.

At the WTO, Canada heads a group of delegations pressing developing countries to open their economies to the supposedly superior services of foreign financial institutions. The world's major financial conglomerates are claimed to have sophisticated risk management capabilities that can stabilize economies. You might think these days such a claim would not pass the laugh test, but that did not stop financial liberalization from being pushed at the WTO ministerial meeting held in July 2008.

The enormity of what's at stake in the WTO financial sector negotiations is revealed in a February 2006 bargaining request sent from Canada's Department of Finance to developing countries. Canada asked that foreign financial institutions be guaranteed rights to "establish new and acquire existing companies" in all financial sectors. This would mean among other things that countries would have to allow 100 per cent foreign ownership of their banks and insurance companies. (2)

They are demanding that they allow "100 per cent foreign ownership of their banks and insurance companies". Exploiting countries that need trade and financial assistance to survive.

And what's worse, they have also dropped all of our own environmental regulations in the latest Omnibus bill. They say it's in the interest of removing "red tape", but the fact of the matter is it's about removing all safety and environmental safeguards that Canada once enjoyed , in the interest of multinationals.

And it's all been done in almost total secrecy, which is exactly the way it's supposed to be done. Ralph Nader knew it in 1993:

The Uruguay Round expansion of GATT and NAFTA would establish a world economic government dominated by giant corporations, but they do not propose a democratic rule of law to hold this economic government accountable. It is bad enough to have the U. S. Fortune 200s along with European and Japanese corporations effectively ruling the Seven Seas of the marketplace, which affects workers, the environment, and consumers. But it is a level of magnitude worse for this rule to be formally expanded over entire political economies without any democratic accountability to the people.

Secrecy, abstruseness, and unaccountability: these are the watchwords of global trade policy-making. Every element of the negotiation, adoption, and implementation of the trade agreements is designed to foreclose citizen participation or even awareness. (1)

So when the 2006 summit took place he controlled the media. Later, in 2008 at Montebello, he controlled us. All to "foreclose citizen participation or even awareness".

We are being sold off to the highest bidder, and the saddest part is, we don't even know it. But the good news is that we are winning the race to the bottom.

Sources:

1. The Case Against Free Trade: GATT, NAFTA, and the Globalization of Corporate Power, Introduction: Free trade and the Decline of Democracy, By Ralph Nader, Earth Island Press, 1993, ISBN: 1-5643-169-4, Pg. 1-5

2. How Harper Gov't Pushed Financial Deregulation Here, Abroad: Way cleared for US mortgage firms and easy credit, insured by Canadian taxpayers. By Ellen Gould, The Tyee, October 8, 2008

Why is the Irish Government More Concerned For our Workers Than Stephen Harper?

You don't really have to answer that question because I already know the answer.

In yet another proposed trade agreement being entered into by Stephen Harper and his neoncons, on Canada's race to the bottom; we learn from Ireland that our water is being privatized and our public services being put on the chopping block.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Our fascist dictator doesn't hold press conferences, so we can't ask him. Maybe we need to call Ireland to find out what's happening in our own bloody country. This is totally unacceptable.

Our new ferries are being made in Germany, Canada Post's new vans in Turkey, and now our public service is being privatized for the benefit of multi-nationals.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA? SOON IT WON'T BE ANYONE'S!

New 'Block' Canada Movement May End NAFTA

So Mr. Fat Cat may not have clinched such a great deal for himself after all.

I posted last week that there was a group of American law makers who are trying to put an end to the NAFTA agreement, that has been devastating for Canadian sovereignty.

Their plan is to give us and Mexico a six month notice, that the deal would be terminated.

Dare we dream?

Apparently it has also cost jobs in the U.S., as much of the production has been outsourced to Mexico.

I don't know how Harper's Buy America/Sell Canada deal will fair, though given that he sneakily made our health services part of NAFTA, we may be saved from that.

It will still hold that provinces and municipalities must allow the Americans to bid on their projects, so I doubt they'll end that one.

That's what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. They are scrambling like mad, looking for new trading partners, but I don't know that they will be able to make up for the lost U.S. trade. Mind you it doesn't mean that business will stop, it just means that it won't be as arbitrary.

The Canadian impact of cancelling NAFTA is likely to have little sway with the sponsors of this bill, their concern is the health of the U.S. economy. Rep. Taylor is quoted by Reuters as saying, “At a time when 10 to 12 percent of the American people are unemployed, I think Congress has an obligation to put people back to work.”While supporters have long credited NAFTA with helping boost trade and create jobs, opponents like cosponsor Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, say the trade treaty has cost American jobs, “I remain opposed to NAFTA because it continues to hurt the U.S. economy and put Americans out of work. I am pleased to join my colleagues to propose a repeal of this failed trade policy. NAFTA has failed to deliver the benefits that were promised and has cost Michigan hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing jobs.”

Obama has never really like the deal anyway:

President Obama has promised to support freer trade and NAFTA in particular since coming to office, yet he was known for critiquing the pact while campaigning to be president. During a speech two years ago in Ohio, then candidate Obama was critical of rival Hillary Clinton and her support for NAFTA saying the United States can’t keep passing unfair trade deals. “One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA" Obama told his audience, "including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have.”

What we need is some good 'Buy Canada' marketing. And we need to end these ridiculous corporate tax cuts that are sinking the rest of us. Harper said recently that he wants our corporate taxes to be lower than America's.

If I honestly believed that that would inspire companies to set up here, I might think it was wise, but the cuts come with no strings. And most companies are using research and development grants to phase out jobs. Instant tellers, self check outs, computer generated phone calls.

Enough is enough.

Will it Be the Americans Who Pull Out of NAFTA?

With all of our concerns over Stephen Harper's implementation of his plans to create deeper ties with the United States, who would certainly appear to be getting the better end of any deals; not everyone south of the border is impressed.

A small group of U.S. lawmakers unveiled legislation on Thursday to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement in the latest sign of congressional disillusionment with free-trade deals.

The bill spearheaded by Rep. Gene Taylor, Mississippi Democrat, would require President Barack Obama to give Mexico and Canada six months notice that the United States will no longer be part of the 16-year-old trade pact.

So the NAFTA leak from Harper's office that hurt Obama's campaign, and our government's actions for privatization, making all of our services open to NAFTA bids; could be for not.

We may instead be getting a six month notice from the U.S.

I certainly hope so. NAFTA has been horrible for Canada. And it would appear from the Reuter's article, that it hasn't been a walk in the park for the Americans either.

"At a time when 10 to 12 percent of the American people are unemployed, I think Congress has an obligation to put people back to work," Taylor said.

He argued NAFTA has cost the United States millions of manufacturing jobs and hurt national security by encouraging companies to move production to Mexico. The high unemployment rate makes it the "perfect" time to push for repeal even though past efforts have failed, he said.

"You'll see the American people rally behind this, in my humble opinion," said Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who is one of about 28 co-sponsors of the bill.

King Stephen's head will pop off if his precious NAFTA is abolished. And me? I'll be dancing in the street.

I may not have to work to get my Canada back after all. Maybe the Americans will just give it back. Do you think we could make one more deal though? Stephen Harper for future considerations?

How We Will Get Rid of Tony Clement Next Election

Tony Clement is the Reform-Conservative Member of Parliament for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

He has been a long time member of the National Citizens Coalition, and Alliance Party of Canada (formerly Reform Party and now Conservative Party of Canada).

He was also a member of the horrendous Mike Harris government; that turned Ontario inside out, with privatization schemes, scandals and incompetence.

In 2006, Clement took the riding by just 28 votes, but in 2008, ended up with double those of his nearest (Liberal) competitor, garnering 50.16% of the ballots cast. But he also spent more than all the other candidates combined. Money talks.

Another factor of course, was the low voter turnout last election. This riding has approximately 68,577 (as per 2006) eligible voters but only 43,524 showed up, an almost 3,000 voter drop from the last election.

So it won't be enough to just work on exposing Clement's corruption to those politically engaged, even if it's just at election time; but we'll have to encourage more people to come out. We can do that not just with anger, but by presenting a positive message.

Neoconservatism relies on convincing people to go with the devil they know or not bother at all. We need to change that.

So here's how we will win this riding back. Since strategically the Liberals are the best option to take out Clement, I'm throwing my efforts into promoting them. Their new candidate is Shawn Pudsey, and the Liberal Riding Association in the area, have a great website set up, that appears to be very current. You can check them out here. Their president is Tim Dunn and you can contact him here: tjdunn@sympatico.ca or contact Shawn here: shawn@shawnpudsey.ca

If you live in this riding, here's what you can do:

1. Join the Liberal Party. It's only about $10.00 and is a great way to show your support. They will keep you up to date with what's happening in the community and on the federal scene.

2. If you are able to find a bit of time, volunteer; perhaps with canvassing or some other promotions.

3. If you can afford it at all, donate a bit now and then. I'm set up to contribute a regular monthly donation, but it's whatever you feel comfortable with. Remember that the Conservatives have a lot of wealthy backers and it takes money to launch a campaign.

4. Join Catch 22 Harper Conservatives to learn more tips, and encourage others to join. They also have a website that is currently under construction.

5. Join Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament. There are more than 30,000 links, and a real time feed to stories with reasons to vote the Reform-Conservatives out. The better informed you are the more motivated you will be.

WHY WE NEED TO GET TONY CLEMENT OUT!

Visit this page. It will link you to all of my archived pieces on him, including those that just mention his name.

1. He made disparaging remarks to the region when he referred to is as "the Valley of Death", and then refused to apologize, only suggesting that he shouldn't have used the term.

2. He refused to intervene in Sudbury's mining job losses, prompting the United Steelworkers to call for his resignation.

3. His entire handling of the sell out to Vale and refusing to help out with the labour dispute.

3. He Travelled to the United States in July 2009, with Peter Van Loan and Lawrence Cannon, to protect the 'proportionality' clause in the NAFTA agreement. This clause ties Canada's hands when it comes to marketing our natural resources.

4. He avoided having to deal with the Listeriosis outbreak, leaving it to the agricultural minister, who made a joke of the whole thing.

5. He Showed loyalty to the National Citizens Coalition who helped to launch his career, instead of protecting good union jobs in the area.

6. Pork Barreling for votes.

7. Took part in a questionable deal with a former business partner.

8. While Parliament was prorogued, he and his party went on a mission of destruction.

9. He has displayed an arrogant attitude when dealing with members of Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament.

10. He has been working to close down a facility designed to help addicts in Vancouver.

We are taking this country back one vote at a time, and you can do the same.

And remember, if Mr. Clement wants to use the tired old 'prorogation is routine, he's right. However, historically abuse of prorogation in the Westminster Parliamentary system has only been done three times. All three in Canada. Once by Sir John A. to avoid answering questions on the Pacific Railway Scandal, and twice by Stephen Harper.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA? IS TONY CLEMENT REALLY THE BEST CHOICE FOR PARRY SOUND-MUSKOKA?

Peter Van Loan Gives U.S. Homeland Security Full Jurisdiction in Canada

As one more assault on our sovereignty, Peter Van Loan has inked a deal that gives the U.S. Department of Homeland Security the same jurisdiction as our RCMP. They can move freely and arrest Canadian citizens, with little recourse.

The project is called "Shiprider" and was implemented with no Public debate. "On November 27, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson tabled legislation that would transform designated U.S. police and security agents into peace officers equal to the RCMP "in every part of Canada"

The pilot project began in March 2008, but has now been made permanent. A background:

Joint RCMP-Homeland Security “Shiprider” pilot project to be made permanent
March 20, 2008 Posted by Stuart Trew

The Department of Public Safety is reporting today that a joint RCMP-Homeland Security pilot project, which put U.S. security agents on Canadian maritime patrols and vice versa, will be made permanent. “During this most recent pilot project, which took place in the St. Lawrence Seaway near Cornwall and in the Strait of Georgia between British Columbia and Washington State, Shiprider officers boarded 187 vessels,” claimed the government press release. “In 39 separate incidents, Shiprider teams contributed to 41 arrests, with six of these being made directly by the integrated marine teams.”

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said: “The Shiprider pilot projects are an excellent example of our joint efforts to tackle cross-border crime. In keeping with this theme, it gives me great pleasure to announce today that our countries will begin negotiating a framework to govern the conduct of joint cross-border maritime law enforcement operations in shared waterways along the Canada-USA border.” ....

Out of Our Control. How Foreign Ownership Has Changed Who we Are

The above is Part VI of Mel Hurtig's documentary on YouTube; Who Killed Canada.

In part one he gives an introduction to the infrastructure of the extreme right-wing movement; beginning with the hi-jacking of our media, to the many so-called think-tanks, that provide the 'facts' to that hi-jacked media.

In part two he discusses the reduction in federal revenue that weakened spending in important areas. We learned that we are 25th of the 30 OECD countries, in terms of spending on social programs.

Part three deals with our increasing poverty, that coincides with the increase in corporate profits. And though these 'free market' gurus try to convince us that we should throw in our lot with corporate Canada, they have done nothing to advance Canadian interests or protect this country's citizens.

Part four discussed the fact that although neo-cons would like us to believe that we are overtaxed, Canada is actually 21st of 30 nations in terms of the amount of taxes we pay. It also discusses the fact that our history has been rewritten to erase the important role the First Nations played.

Part five dealt with NAFTA and what a horrible thing this was and is for Canada. We are basically under the control of the United States. We got very little from the deal, and in fact 11,043 Canadian companies have now become foreign controlled.

In part six Mr. Hurtig continues to discuss the effects of NAFTA on Canada and the fact that we have the most foreign owned corporations of any other developed nation. He also mentions the SPP and the fact that the media has not discussed what this deep integration policy means for us.

Following is a brief history of foreign ownership in Canada. Even some Canadian companies are now concerned that we are losing control of our resources and the fact that foreign companies are moving their head offices out of the country, taking jobs away, while contributing little to the betterment of Canada.

Foreign Ownership in Canada:

Foreign ownership is the result of investment by non-resident corporations in another country's companies in the pursuit of profit through control. It is incidental to the operations of transnational, multinational, or global corporations in setting up subsidiaries or branch plants. The recipient, or host, country can get the economic benefit of superior technology and management but at the possible political costs of dependency and susceptibility to foreign practice and policy.

For much of its history Canada has had, for good or bad, the highest level of foreign ownership of any country in the world—particularly high for a developed and industrialized country. This can be attributed in part to proximity to the United States, where multinational corporations are disproportionately headquartered, and to American demand for Canada's rich supply of exploitable natural resources. But it is also the consequence of conscious Canadian government policy to encourage foreign investment.

The high protective tariff of the National Policy of 1879 helped infant Canadian firms, but it also attracted American branch plants that were already spreading nationally throughout the United States and simply spilled over its northern border. Canadian politicians boasted to their constituents about the jobs created when branch plants came to their communities. The great prosperity associated with the economic boom prior to the First World War masked the higher costs of branch plants, which lost economies of scale by producing a full range of American goods for the smaller Canadian market. Whether this inefficiency was the result of the tariff or of foreign ownership was hard to sort out since the two were so bound together.

In the first decade after the Second World War, there was another great round of American investment in Canadian resources for American consumption. For the first time, a backlash manifested itself against the extent of foreign ownership. Walter Gordon , a prominent Canadian businessman and Liberal party guru, headed the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects, which, while admitting of the benefits, warned of the costs of foreign ownership in terms of economic and political sovereignty.

The stage was set for a sustained debate on how to devise policies that would increase the amount of Canadian ownership and at the same time would increase the benefits and decrease the costs of foreign ownership. As minister of finance in the Pearson government in the mid-sixties, Gordon proposed a tax on foreign takeovers, but it generated so much controversy it had to be abandoned. The best chance to deal meaningfully with foreign ownership was lost but the issue did not go away. In 1968 a task force appointed by the Pearson government and overseen by Gordon produced a comprehensive report on foreign ownership called the Watkins Report after its chief author, economics professor Melville Watkins . It endorsed a long-standing proposal of Gordon to create the Canada Development Corporation as an instrument to increase Canadian ownership, and proposed setting up an agency to monitor the activities of foreign-owned companies to increase benefits and decrease costs.

The Trudeau government commissioned another report under the direction of cabinet minister Herb Gray ; his comprehensive Gray Report ( 1972 ) laid the basis for action, particularly when the Liberals found themselves in a minority government situation in 1972 and needed the support of the nationalist NDP in order to govern. The Canada Development Corporation had been created in 1971 and the Foreign Investment Review Agency was set up in 1973 , though with far fewer powers than the Gray Report had recommended. In 1974 Petro-Canada was established as a Crown corporation to facilitate the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry. Foreign ownership fell relative to Canadian ownership in the 1970s and into the 1980s. This seems, however, to have had less to do with the foreign ownership policies of government—FIRA turned out to be quite toothless—than with the increasing maturity of Canadian business.

The election of the Reagan administration in the United States and then of the Mulroney government in Canada in the 1980s precipitated a sharp about-face on foreign ownership policy. The Canada Development Corporation and Petro-Can were privatized and FIRA was given the mandate of promoting and encouraging foreign investment. Out of the long debate on foreign ownership, little of substance remained, though rules limiting foreign ownership in the media have survived.

The free trade agreements struck in the 1990s contained ‘national treatment’ provisions that require all firms, regardless of nationality of ownership, to be treated the same, thereby ruling out policies directed at foreign-owned firms. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment that would have enshrined globally the rights of multinational corporations failed in its implementation in the late 1990s because of global opposition organized, in part, by the Council of Canadians.

Ironically, in the early years of the 21st century, the Canadian business community, which had mostly opposed any restrictions on foreign ownership, has expressed some concern about the tendency of American companies, in the era of free trade, to rationalize on a North American basis by closing the Canadian head-office of the subsidiary, thereby limiting decision making in Canada and eliminating some jobs. With tariffs gone, it would now seem that there may be some problems that inhere in foreign ownership itself.

More Postings on NAFTA and teh Selling of Canada:

1. NAFTA and the Selling of Canada. We Got a Raw Deal

2. Why we Must Continue to Fight For Our Sovereignty

3. Protecting Our Sovereignty and Rewriting our History

4. Good News and Bad News on the SPP

5. Harper's Free Trade is Managed Trade and All Wrong For Canada

6. Stephen Harper Managing us While Others Manage Risk

7. More on Harper's Failure to Govern Responsibly