Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is sone good sense from Parson Preston Manning:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/how-do-we-recover-from-the-recovery/article1284864/

How do we recover from the recovery?
The last time, it took 14 years and a great deal of public pressure to eliminate the deficit. Maybe a road map will help this time

Preston Manning

Monday, Sep. 14, 2009

To combat the current recession, governments around the world have instituted economic recovery measures breathtaking in their magnitude and scope. These include dramatically expanding the money supply (printing money), taking significant ownership positions in key sectors of the economy and heavily engaging in deficit spending.

Such measures have other significant and long-lasting effects besides stimulating economic growth.

Rapid expansion of the money supply can lead to a tsunami of inflation. Government ownership of businesses can lead to unhealthy dependencies, unfair competition, corporate inefficiencies and serious conflicts of interest when governments must also regulate businesses in which they have an ownership stake. And heavy engagement in deficit spending leads invariably to increased public debt, increased interest payments and the necessity of cutting services and/or raising taxes in the future to rebalance the books.

So what must be done to recover from the adverse effects of these measures?

Let me focus particularly on what might be done to recover from the orgy of deficit spending in which virtually all governments in Canada are now engaged.

At the federal level, Canada's last big deficit-spending binge began in the Pierre Trudeau years. Fourteen federal deficits in 17 years eventually led to a national debt of $572-billion and annual interest payments of almost $40-billion in today's dollars (or stated in 1984 dollars, $250.5-billion debt and $21-billion in interest costs).

In 1984, the Liberals were replaced by the Brian Mulroney Conservatives, who promised a more responsible approach to public finances. But federal spending continued to soar, the annual deficit and national debt continued to rise, and the government resorted largely to increased taxation rather than spending reductions to try to tame the deficit dragon.

According to the pollsters, as early as 1984 there was significant public support for deficit reduction as a policy objective, including major cuts in public spending, but politicians were slow to recognize or respond vigorously to this shift in public attitudes. So the leadership of the deficit-reduction movement began largely outside the formal political arena.

Market-oriented think tanks such as the Fraser Institute and the C. D. Howe Institute provided much of the intellectual capital for the movement, hammering away on the problem's dangers and offering alternatives for alleviating it.

Interest groups such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Chambers of Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues (as it was then called) and later the newly formed (1989) Canadian Taxpayers Federation added their voices, energy and resources to generate public and political support for budget balancing by governments at all levels.

Grassroots publications such as Ted Byfield's Western Report and the radio talk shows gave media voice to the movement, and later several national newspapers joined the fray.

And on the fringes of the political arena, the embryonic Reform Party (with Stephen Harper as its policy chief and fiscal critic) made budget balancing a central plank of its election platform and set out to prove that it was possible to elect candidates to Parliament on the pledge of saving taxpayers' dollars rather than spending more of them.

As the movement for deficit reduction grew in public support, municipal and provincial politicians finally began to take notice. (Federal parties, because of their distance from grassroots voters and taxpayers, are usually the last, not the first, to respond to major shifts in public sentiment.)

Though rarely recognized for it, the first provincial government to commit itself seriously to the goal of budget balancing was the Conservative government of Gary Filmon in Manitoba. At the time (1988), the province was running a $500-million deficit on total revenues of about $4-billion and it took seven years to reduce the deficit to zero. Manitoba was also among the first to pass budget-balancing laws making it illegal to run deficits except in specifically defined emergency situations.

Next it was Alberta, where Ralph Klein made a similar commitment in 1993, eliminating that province's $3.5-billion deficit in two short years while at the same time decreasing revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product.

And then in Ontario, where the annual deficit was in excess of $10-billion, the Mike Harris government, elected in 1995, reduced it to zero in four years.

Meanwhile, in the federal arena, where the deficit was approaching $40-billion a year, the 1993 election saw the demise of the Mulroney Conservatives and the election of the Jean Chrétien government. But that election also resulted in the election of 52 Reformers committed to reducing the federal deficit to zero in three years. Eventually, the Liberals, though philosophically inclined to ever-increasing public spending, felt the political pressure to move in the opposite direction, and by 1998 the budget was finally balanced.

The most disturbing aspect of this story is that it took 14 years (1984 to 1998), and an enormous effort at great expense by tens of thousands of people outside the formal political arena, before the federal government could be persuaded to take the self-evidently necessary actions required to balance its books.

Given this history, what will it take to tame the current deficit, the one being incurred in the name of economic stimulation? Political leadership, more likely to come from conservatives than liberals or social democrats, would certainly help. But no doubt another major effort outside the formal political arena – by think tanks, interest groups and media committed to fiscal responsibility – will be needed to create the public pressure required before politicians will act.

That effort would be greatly aided if someone – perhaps one of the think tanks or a respected academic institution – were to provide a definitive history of the last deficit-reduction movement. Most of us involved in that exercise have only partial knowledge of who did what, of what worked and what didn't, and of how the whole process might have been expedited. A road map to deficit elimination, based on a comprehensive analysis of past experience, will be extremely helpful to the deficit-fighters of the future. Hopefully, this time it will not take 14 years to get the job done.

Preston Manning is president and chief executive officer of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

First: deficits are not always ”bad,” sometimes (1930s and 40s) they are both “good” and absolutely essential.

Second: deficits must, always be temporary. The long, long period of structural – and quite unnecessary – deficits run up by Trudeau and sustained by Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien was bad, even horrible public policy.

(In fairness, Mulroney “settled” the “programme spending deficit” – his government collected more in taxes than it spent on programmes (like health care, defence or aboriginals) – but he could not bring himself to tackle the “debt service deficit” in which we saw the miracle of compound interest drive us, nearly, to third world status. In his defence, ordinary Canadians like Solange Denis* made it politically impossible for him to tackle the “root cause” of our problems: excessive social programme spending.)

The inflationary impact from the stimulus and deficits caused by irresponsible social spending is a far greater threat to Canada than is the (temporary) higher than normal unemployment or the asset “value” loss in 2008/09/10.


--------------------
* “Mention the name Solange Denis in Ottawa, and finance department officials are likely to wince. She is the feisty senior who ambushed Brian Mulroney on Parliament Hill in 1985 and berated him for trying to cut pension benefits after he had promised not to touch them. Mulroney promptly backed away from the cuts ... Eleven years later, Martin took the trouble to stage a photo opportunity with Denis so reporters could record her nod of approval for the way he was handling pension cuts. He had to show that a fiscally responsible government could also be compassionate.”
Are we in store for some intergenerational warfare?  Charlotte Gray, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1997

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is not about economics but it is about “making Canada relevant again.”

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a useful editorial:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/big-canada-needs-a-clearer-vision/article1289225/

[/b\Globe Editorial[/b]
Big Canada needs a clearer vision
Michael Ignatieff needs to marshal an overall narrative, and the courage of his convictions, if he wants Canada to have an ambitious place in the world

Wednesday, Sep. 16, 2009

Michael Ignatieff's recent foreign policy speech, part of his “Big Canada” kick, is an admirable, wide-ranging canvass about how “it is time for the world to be at the centre of our national conversation, not the margins.” But a grab-bag of proposals do not constitute a vision. And in the very week he gave his speech, Mr. Ignatieff appeared to downplay its contents, reflective of the political calculation with which he has been seized of late.

The Monday address to the Canadian Club of Ottawa stands squarely in the Liberal internationalist tradition of Pearson (multilateralism, peacekeeping), with a good measure of Chrétienism (Team Canada trade missions, African investment) thrown in. It lands a couple of blows at the Conservatives' expense, noting Canada has had four foreign affairs ministers in less than four years, while failing to stand up for Canadians abroad.

Some ideas are old or borrowed. Mr. Ignatieff wants to send special envoys to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to “engage with China and India”. He calls for a more robust presence in the Arctic, but ends up following Stephen Harper's lead. His prioritization of so many continents leaves him open to the critique that a more regionally-focused foreign policy, like Mr. Harper's concentration on Latin America, can yield more influence.

The lack of an overall strategy haunts the address. The best nuggets feature Canada projecting its soft power – starting an institute promoting peace, order and good government; leading efforts to prevent conflicts before they start; harnessing the talents of Canadians who are already “present in the world”. But the details that would make this plan appealing – which conflicts? how can particular groups of Canadians make a contribution? – are lacking.

This is surprising because Mr. Ignatieff's own vision had been specific and distinctive. In 2001 he helped develop the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, the notion that other states must protect citizens of a country whose own government is unwilling or unable to do so, even if that means military intervention. Perhaps fearful of bringing up his own past as a public intellectual, and unwilling to say too much about Afghanistan, he now ducks the question.

In the same way, Mr. Ignatieff has failed to follow his own advice to discuss foreign affairs on the hustings. On the week he chose to make it a priority, he yet to ask a single related question about it in Parliament. Mr. Ignatieff needs to marshal an overall narrative, and the courage of his convictions, if he wants Canada to have an ambitious place in the world.

I have, over and over again, referred Army.ca readers to former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s vision, articulated in his foreword to the International Policy Statement (not quite a White Paper) ”A Role of Pride and Influence in the World. Now that was ”an admirable, wide-ranging canvass about how “it is time for the world to be at the centre of our national conversation, not the margins”” and it stood ”squarely in the Liberal internationalist tradition of Pearson (multilateralism, peacekeeping), with a good measure of Chrétienism (Team Canada trade missions, African investment) thrown in.”  Iggy’s Prince Icarus’ loosey-goosey ramble around the issues didn’t measure up.

Prime Minister Harper’s foreign policy has been marked, in the main, by fits and starts – the “starts” headed off in all directions. That’s because he is, at heart, unconcerned about foreign policy (and, therefore, even less concerned about defence policy and military matters). It doesn’t fit in his “national vision.”

We, as a country, need a sensible and sensibly modest (to start) foreign policy that is rooted in Louis St Laurent’s Grey Lecture (1947/University of Toronto) that defined for the first and perhaps the last time a coherent foreign policy.

“We can do better,“ Prince Icarus, starting with you, and you, too, Prime Minister Harper.

 

[a_majoor]

Moving back a bit to the arguments presented here, I would have to disagree that the coming demographic crash and financial ruination of the Welfare State will cause Canadians to embrace the old values and the culture of pre 1968 Canada.

The premise seems to be based on the idea that we can just pick up where we left off, despite many generations of Canadians being raised in the culture of the Welfare State. While there are a few hold outs among the population, they are neither numerous enough or concentrated in a large enough area to really provide a nucleus for this Renaissance to take place across Canada. The argument is about culture, but culture is based on the common beliefs that people hold. Since Canada has little in the way of Civic Nationalism to hold it together, the ruination of the Welfare State will mean people will probably turn to their regions for identity.

The othger depressing factor is history simply does not show any real examples of cultural "resetting" happening. I suspect the end of Canada will mirror the end of the Res Publica Roma as the political class fights over the scraps and enlists the population to join in scavenging over the spoils. (Remember the Res Publica Romaended in a series of civil wars, and we have seen supposedly civilized nations suddenly disintigrate into violence in our own lifetimes [many of us have even served in these places]). Whatever emerges from the end of the Canadian welfare state will resembel Canada about as much as the Imperium resembled the Res Publica

Even if we don't devolve into violent confrontations with our neighbours, many provinces and regions have the economic ability to survive as prosperous nations in their own right if they "cut loose" from the rest of Canada. Quebec might discover Sovereignty actually means Alberta is no longer willing to pay for their social programs, and the Maritimes will see their standard of living shrivel as they get thrown to the wolves (and the United States politely declines to accept them). Ontario might or might not be able to cut a deal with the West or the United States, maybe we will become a so-so principality in the middle of North America as well.

A well ordered draw down of the welfare state is our only "out", but I see few social, political or cultural beacons in that direction.

 

[a_majoor]

More about the culture wars that threaten our collective future:

http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2009/09/root-cause-of-our-turmoil.html

The root cause of our turmoil

Richard Fernandez makes the compelling case that the root of the conflict we see developing in this country is caused by a struggle for wealth and power. The most salient feature of the Obama administration is its concentration of the national wealth and power in this country into Washington, and more specifically in the hands of the President.

Why was this unrest we see today not manifest during the Bush administration? The auto companies were run by private entities out of Detroit, the financial institutions were run by private entities out of New York, and people’s individual wealth was found in their homes and savings plans. Today – in a few short months – the auto industry and the banks are given their marching orders by czars in Washington; individuals have seen their personal financial security blankets shredded. And now they see Washington reaching to control how and where they can get their health care. In short, they see the wealth and power in this country being sucked via a gigantic power grab into the hands of a small, insular elite in Washington run by a man in whom they have no confidence that he is up to the task of running their lives in the most intimate way.

Fernandez

    A study of civil wars by two Oxford economists, Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler suggested that really intractable arguments are rooted in a competition for resources. The other talk — about ‘grievances’, ‘history’, ’slights’, etc — was less important than the brass tacks. In other words, in most cases conflicts were over power and resources. ...

    This raises the possibility that, despite Nancy Pelosi’s fears, the real cause of increasing animosity isn’t heightened rhetoric: on the contrary, the heightened rhetoric may itself be the result an intensified competition for power. It’s a symptom and not the cause. My guess is that the effect of concentrating wealth and power in government hands has created a prize which is distorting civil relations, like some singularity which is warping the space around it and pulling everything into its maw. When the pot of gold is indivisibly concentrated in one place, a winner-take-all game ensues, or as Collier and Hoeffler put it, “a simple rational choice model of greed-rebellion” is enforced. The trash-talk follows.

If this power grab by Washington succeeds, America will begin to resemble those third world countries where the wealth and power are concentrated in the capital city, a place where the peasants trek for a better life in the ghettos surrounding the homes and palaces of the rich, powerful and well connected. In fact, this is already the case as documented in The strange case of the public sector wage premium.

As more power is concentrated in Washington, this trend will accelerate. The people outside of Washington see it and don’t like it, those inside the Beltway like it and will fight for it. The fight for concentrated power is on.

Canada is also suffering from this, with political and economic power concentrated in Ottawa and the provincial capitals and a few self appointed "elite" institutions. Even the CPC, the political party which should be philosophically dedicated to devolving bureaucracies and centralized power is pretty happy running the country from the PMO bunker, and the LPC or members of the "Coalition" are certainly dedicated to the idea of centralization.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen is an interesting take on Canada/US relations:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Take+advantage+Obama+effect/2018400/story.html

Take advantage of the Obama effect
A close relationship with the U.S. is no longer a liability for Canadian governments -- this is a good chance to address Canadian interests

By Colin Robertson, Citizen Special

September 22, 2009

During last week's meeting with President Barack Obama, his seventh since they first met in February, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that the United States is "far and away our best friend in the world." There are times when leaders are out of sync with popular sentiment but, as the survey released this past weekend by the Innovative Research Group reveals, over half of Canadians believe that Obama's election has been a good thing for Canada. Call it the "Obama effect."

A close relationship with the U.S. is no longer the liability for Canadian governments that it became under president George W. Bush. More to the point -- for those who want an adult relationship with our neighbour -- there is now negligible political advantage in slamming the Americans during an election campaign.

As critical as the sea-change in popular attitude is the survey's finding that, while Canadians are not seeking a closer relationship, we think it "just makes sense" to give our leadership leeway for closer co-operation on continental defence and border issues, particularly if the security and trade benefits are made clear.

The "Ottawa agenda" launched a clean energy dialogue as well as discussions on border management and international security. It will be important to reap an early harvest of mutually beneficial gains and improvements to maintain momentum and public confidence in the process. Because in the coming months the drumbeat of protectionism on the American side is only going to get louder.

Even President Obama acknowledges that American unemployment is going to reach into the double digits before the recovery begins to create new jobs. Support for both the president and his party is dropping as white working class voters worry about their jobs and personal debt and voice increasing doubt about Democratic policies on health care, energy and the environment and the stimulus package.

With the 2010 mid-terms already very much on the minds of the 435 members of Congress and the third of the Senate standing for re-election, fundraising is well under way. Union support, both in money and organization, is vital to the Democratic majority. In return, union leadership expects support on policies, including "Buy America."

They find a receptive audience in members like Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich who campaigned for the presidential nomination with slogans like "it's either Buy America or bye-bye America."

For many, it has an almost irresistible appeal. Recently, for example, the president slapped a 35-per-cent tariff on Chinese-made tires. China has reacted with threats to impose retaliatory measures on chicken meat and American auto products.

Yet auto products, thanks to the Auto Pact and over half a century of integrated supply chains, are less "American" than "North American" in origin, design and construction. It is estimated that before final assembly, components that go into cars and trucks criss-cross the border seven times and, for car parts in particular, many of them are made in Canada or by Magna plants in the U.S. With almost half of our GDP dependent on international trade and supply chain management, Canadian jobs are at stake.

To prevent being side-swiped, Canadian leadership needs smart initiatives and room to manoeuvre when they are negotiating with their American counterparts. This means active co-operation and collaboration with the provinces, business and labour to make it an all-of-Canada effort.

The provinces have endorsed reciprocity in procurement and Stockwell Day has put a national proposal before Ron Kirk, the U.S. Trade Representative. The Canadian and American chambers of commerce have already put on the table a series of progressive and practical proposals including expanding trusted shipper and traveller programs and providing 24/7 access at border crossings. Canadian labour unions need to be integrated into the all-Canada effort, especially given the privileged access they have with their American brethren.

Over a third of Canadian unions are affiliates of the American internationals, including the United Steelworkers, who are leading the Buy America campaign. Their leader, Leo Gerard, is a Canadian who previously directed the Canadian division of the USW.

We bring to the negotiating table two indispensable assets: jobs and geography. For 35 American states we are their main market. For over seven million Americans, their jobs depend on trade with Canada. Parse that down by state and congressional district and include Canadian investment and we have a powerful argument on the economics and mutual benefits of continuing integration.

As for geography, as historian David Bercuson has pointed out, we are also America's "front porch." American national security depends on Canadian control of the sea and air approaches. As the northern passages become more navigable, we need to demonstrate our capacity for Arctic sovereignty.

We also need to reinforce our coastal perimeter security against the new threat of terrorists and sea-borne drug traffickers and people smugglers. Improved perimeter defence will also reinforce American confidence in Canadian capacity -- a necessary prerequisite if we are to achieve progress on border issues. Creating a shield for our shared North American perimeter was the argument for air defence co-operation in the creation of NORAD in the late-fifties. A half-century later the argument of joint co-operation for mutual protection remains. Today, with different threats and challenges, there is a compelling case for expanding NORAD to integrate the land and sea forces of Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command.

In the news conference at the end of their meeting last week, President Obama observed that the prime minister has been "on the job" in raising Canadian interests at every encounter. So he must and so he will again this week at Pittsburgh with his G-20 counterparts.

While the president has told us he loves Canada and surveys tell us that Americans like us, in the U.S. strategic calculation we are neither top-of-mind nor a problem. But geography and the inexorably positive force of economic integration means that when disruptions occur to the natural flow of people, goods and investment, we suffer.

Canadian leadership must take the initiative to protect and advance our interests. In this season of election fever, it certainly gives them greater confidence to do the right thing, knowing that Canadians are behind them.

Colin Robertson is a senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. A former Canadian diplomat, he was part of the teams that negotiated the FTA and NAFTA and he served in New York, Los Angeles and Washington.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen​

I think:

1. Canadians are making waaaay too much about Buy America. Nothing “we” (anyone in Canada) does will make any difference at all in the USA. This (Buy America) is popular and “we” don’t vote. Canadians should calm down because Buy America will die a natural death because it is ineffective;

2. We need to address one key issue: erasing the border! We need to harmonize a whole host of standards and tariffs with the USA (almost done, by the way) so that goods, from anywhere in the world, can cross the Canada/US border without hindrance. Then, much more difficult, we need to harmonize immigration, refugee and tourist “standards” so that any person who enters Canada can enter the USA without hindrance and vice versa. That will, de facto, remove any particular “need” for a border – except for a few “spot check” and policing tasks; and

3. We need to “sell” the Canadian “brand” – close, friendly/cousins, trustworthy, burden sharers with “safe” oil to sell, and so on.  That means hiring/paying big American PR and lobby firms to brand Canada and sell Canada in Washington DC, and in Fort Kent, Maine, San Diego California, Key West, Florida, Blaine, Washington and all points in between.

 

[GAP]

I wonder what David Emerson is doing now?

(In 2008, Emerson joined private equity firm CAI Capital Management as a senior advisor.

Emerson's directorships included: Terasen Inc; Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada; Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives; Chair, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.; and Chairman and Director of Genus Resource Management Technologies Inc.)

 

[Larkvall]

2.  We need to address one key issue: erasing the border! We need to harmonize a whole host of standards and tariffs with the USA (almost done, by the way) so that goods, from anywhere in the world, can cross the Canada/US border without hindrance. Then, much more difficult, we need to harmonize immigration, refugee and tourist “standards” so that any person who enters Canada can enter the USA without hindrance and vice versa. That will, de facto, remove any particular “need” for a border – except for a few “spot check” and policing tasks; and

The second half of number 2 is giving up far too much in my opinion.

Erasing the border gives me Mulroney flashbacks....

I can't see the Americans going for any of it.

 

[GAP]

The second half of number 2 is giving up far too much in my opinion.

Erasing the border gives me Mulroney flashbacks....

I can't see the Americans going for any of it.

Sure they can...just tell their satellite companies to come home and we become a banana republic democracy......

 

[Edward Campbell]

The second half of number 2 is giving up far too much in my opinion.

Erasing the border gives me Mulroney flashbacks....

I can't see the Americans going for any of it.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the OpEdNews web site (a self described progressive and liberal site) is a not terribly friendly analysis of the North American Integration project:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/North-American-Integration-by-Dana-Gabriel-090702-167.html

North American Integration: Deep-Rooted Agenda Continues

By Dana Gabriel

North American integration is a deep-rooted agenda that continues on many different fronts.  This has not changed under an Obama administration.  Posted on the U.S. Department of State's website calendar of events  is the fifth annual North American Leaders Summit, which is set to take place August 8-11 in Mexico.  Much of the foundation and framework for a North American superstate has already been achieved through NAFTA and the Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP).  The latest leaders summit could be used as an opportunity to revive stalled SPP measures and launch a new strategy that would further build off past continental integration initiatives.


With the decline of the SPP, other groups have picked up the slack in an effort to further advance continental integration and protect any previous accomplishments.  One of these such organizations is the Standing Commission on North American Prosperity which is an initiative of the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce.  In May of this year, they held meetings in Atlanta, Georgia where Former Mexican President and staunch globalist, Vicente Fox called for a new era of North American collaboration. He stated, "If we are together, the U.S.- Mexico and Canada- no doubt we'll be number one--the number one economy, the number one market, the number one consumer market - in the world."  He also said, "My dream is that we will not have a border."  Fox has been a strong advocate of deep continental integration using the European Union as the model.


NAFTA and the SPP would not have been possible without the tireless work of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE).  Former Liberal deputy prime minister, John Manley is set to replace the retiring Thomas d'Aquino as president of the CCCE.  Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians called it, "a match made in heaven for the Canadian and American business lobbies that could always count on Manley to endorse their priorities inside and outside of Parliament."  He also said, "Perhaps no politician has done more to further the CCCE's case for a Fortress North America where business and investment can roam free while citizens in Canada and Mexico endure new U.S. security practices across the continent."  The CCCE has called for the reinvention of North American borders and has pressured the Canadian government to further merge its military and security apparatus with their American counterparts.  Since their inception, they have had intimate ties to both the Liberal and Conservative parties, with many of their proposals being implemented into policy.  By his own admission, Manley's role as head of the CCCE will be to further bridge the divide between business and government.


In his book Open and Shut: Why America has Barack Obama and Canada has Stephen Harper, Toronto journalist John Ibbitson calls for a North American environmental, economic and security accord.  He argues that the border between Canada and the US should be eliminated.  Vancouver Sun columnist, Barbara Yaffe comments on the book's scenario of erasing the Canada-U.S. border.  "The two nations would retain their distinct sovereignty but there would be no more passports or work visas.  The continent would see a free flow of goods, services and people; common rules for immigration and refugees; joint inspection of shipping containers from abroad; an integrated terrorist watch list; a system of security enforcement around the perimeter of the continent."  Clearly, some of these measures would constitute a loss of sovereignty.  This also ties into my recent article U.S.-Canada Border Security and Military Integration.  It may seem inconceivable, but if the globalists get their way in the not-so-distant future, the northern border could be gone.


The North American Supercorridor Coalition (NASCO) recently held their 2009 Conference in Quebec.  NASCO is made up of politicians and business leaders who promote trinational trade and transportation.  The meetings in Quebec were attended by four Canadian premiers, four Mexican governors, as well as Iowa's Governor, Chet Culver and Vermont's Governor, James Douglas.  Some have linked NASCO to a NAFTA Superhighway.  In January of this year, the Texas Department of Transportation proclaimed that the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) was dead.  The TTC has been referred to by many as the first leg of a NAFTA Superhighway and would extend from the Texas-Mexico border to the Oklahoma state line.  The perceived demise of the TTC was more of a public relations stunt designed to try and silence critics and appease Texas lawmakers.  The project will be broken up into smaller sections, making it more difficult to stop in the future.


It is through trade deals such as NAFTA and initiatives like the SPP that corporations have further strengthened their power and grip over our lives.  Although trade with other nations is vital, the current NAFTA model is badly flawed and unfair.  Further North American integration, deregulation and privatization will be devastating for many.  This corporate agenda threatens our freedom, sovereignty, as well as our standard of living.  Some have labeled plans for a North American Union as a conspiracy theory, but the fact remains that the deep-rooted agenda of continental integration continues.


Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.

The problem for North American Integration is Mexico. It cannot be integrated for the foreseeable future and involving the Mexicans in serious negotiations means they are doomed to fail.

But I’m guessing that serious negotiations are underway, involving only Americans and Canadians. I doubt that any officials, per se, are involved but the sorts of private citizens who I’m guessing are doing the negotiating are accustomed to getting official blessings for their work without too much problem.

There is a strong continentalist contingent in each of the Conservative and Liberal Parties in Canada. Those constinentalist contingents are well balanced, in both parties, by isolationists. There are also continentalists (and plenty of isolationists, too) amongst the Democrats and Republicans in the USA, especially in the many and varied think-tanks.

 

[Larkvall]

But I’m guessing that serious negotiations are underway, involving only Americans and Canadians. I doubt that any officials, per se, are involved but the sorts of private citizens who I’m guessing are doing the negotiating are accustomed to getting official blessings for their work without too much problem.

There is a strong continentalist contingent in each of the Conservative and Liberal Parties in Canada. Those constinentalist contingents are well balanced, in both parties, by isolationists. There are also continentalists (and plenty of isolationists, too) amongst the Democrats and Republicans in the USA, especially in the many and varied think-tanks.

Oh, I am sure that people are talking about it no doubt. I believe their time might be better spent learning Mandarin though.
From personal experience I can tell you the US was protectionist BEFORE the recent down turn. The protectionists would never go for it now.
Also, the US is a less attractive a partner than she was in the Mulroney era. Big deficits as far as the eye can see, big debt and the US dollar's status as THE reserve currency is waning. For all the talk that has been going on we now require a passport to go to the US. The cost of not being able to control our own immigration is far too much a price alone.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Oh, I am sure that people are talking about it no doubt. I believe their time might be better spent learning Mandarin though.
From personal experience I can tell you the US was protectionist BEFORE the recent down turn. The protectionists would never go for it now.
Also, the US is a less attractive a partner than she was in the Mulroney era. Big deficits as far as the eye can see, big debt and the US dollar's status as THE reserve currency is waning. For all the talk that has been going on we now require a passport to go to the US. The cost of not being able to control our own immigration is far too much a price alone.

Good points and the US problem with millions, maybe tens of millions, of illegal immigrants from Latin America, who would presumably, be able to enter Canada pretty much freely, is another major stumbling block.

But I still remain committed to "erasing the border" as an important step in improving our (North American) productivity (poor in Canada) and competitiveness.

 

[a_majoor]

Hopefully, this lesson will be raised to prevent any future "stimulus" programs from plundering the taxpayers wallets. (OK, so it still is a nice dream to have):

http://www.officiallyscrewed.com/blog/?p=1264

Beckbytes: Arguing With Socialists
Posted September 26th, 2009 by TrustOnlyMulder and filed in Beckbytes, Business, Glenn Beck, Quotalicious

From Glenn Beck’s new book Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Governmentcomes this gem on how capitalism performs when compared to socialistic government programs.

Profits=Progress: In January 2006, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin announced 314 new public projects as part of his rebuilding effort after Katrina. Over two and a half years later, just six of them were complete. Conversely, Wal-Mart had 126 of their stores damaged in the hurricane; 110 of them were up and running within ten days.

 

[KingKikapu]

How does one go about integrating the United States and Canada when the US is primarily a service-based economy and Canada is primarily a resource-based economy.  Does no one else see a problem with that?

 

[Edward Campbell]

How does one go about integrating the United States and Canada when the US is primarily a service-based economy and Canada is primarily a resource-based economy.  Does no one else see a problem with that?

Integration, need not, probably should not include a currency union - which is the big problem with service vs resource economies; but it can and should include a customs union, which is about 97.5% "there" already, and, much more difficult, in part because of tens of millions of illegals in the USA, a "mobility of labour" union, too.

 

[KingKikapu]

Alright, say we harmonise our customs procedures with the US.  How will that make Canada any more relevant than it already is on the economic world stage?  I fear our problem is that we already are a one pony show: we supply the Americans and that's about it.  With American influence waning with the rise of the so many large developing nations, what can we do to ensure our continued relevance in world economic terms (to which I say we never really had much relevance to begin with).

Thoughts?

 

[Edward Campbell]

America is still a very large, very rich, very familiar and very close market that is, for the near and mid terms, vital to our economic success. We need to exploit it even better than we do now. America is, indeed, in relative decline and we need to gain better and better access to the growing markets but, while they are large, they are not, yet, anywhere near as rich as America, they are not familiar and they are far away.

America matters; it will matter, to us, for  a generation or two, or more, to come.

 

[KingKikapu]

I completely agree: the US is - and will continue to be - an economic juggernaut for some time.  Our future is clearly linked to theirs. 


I was just reminiscing of my international business courses and how all of the professors called Canada's International Business strategy a farce.  We do business with the US and that's about it.  Putting all of our eggs into one big, mean, demanding basket marginalises our economic clout.

And yet we're screwed without them.

 

[Edward Campbell]

That professor, to whom KingKikapu refers, was right, in a way. Our ”international business strategy” implies some sort of coordinated, collective activity – by business groups and government agencies – and that is, indeed, a bit farcical.

Essentially, of course, (he says, preaching to the choir) business is a highly individualistic activity – company owner/manager "A" makes a rational decision about how to make money. Rationally he looks for a close, familiar (in the sense that the rules and laws and customs are much like ours, here), friendly market – just what almost all Canadian businessmen find in the USA. The rational choice, most often, for most Canadian businessmen is: “Sell American!”

Now, strategically, a word which carries a longer term implication, we, Canadians, should hope that we have a more diverse marketplace so that (cyclical) downturns in one market will not cause huge problems because they will be offset by (equally cyclical) upturns (increased demand) in others. In my, limited, experience, strategic thinking comes with size. Big companies, with real Boards of Directors and so on, are more likely to think and plan strategically than are small ones. But, sometimes, even companies that do think strategically will, sensibly, arrive at the conclusion that there is little of interest beyond the USA. That’s because, especially over the past 70 years, we – Americans and Canadians – have, consciously and unconsciously, built an integrated continental market and many businesses are locked into it – Americans supplying components to Canadians who incorporate them into sub-assemblies that get shipped back to the USA where they are added to assemblies that are shipped back to Canada before to become finished products that are sold in both countries and, indeed, in Mexico and beyond.

But, strategically, we should have a coherent – another word with a “long term” implication – strategy to develop a broader market base, one that makes good business/economic sense, something that Trudeau’s “third way” in the seventies did not. Mulroney and Chrétien, in fits and starts, with more heat than light, attempted to point the way towards Asia but, in my opinion there was too much hoopla and too little strategy in their approaches, especially in Chrétien’s “Team Canada” exercises that, I think had too little follow through by government and business groups.

We should have a strategy and the right strategic direction is West – towards Asia, where most of the world’s peoples live and where growth (and concomitant demand for resources, which we have, and technological innovation, which we can make) will, of necessity, be, mostly, strong for a long, long time.

But a “national strategy” is nothing more than one of those early renaissance, idealistic maps, based on some exploration, lots of rumours and a fair bit of hope and conjecture. It only “works” when the tacticians, the individual business men who must make rational decisions for themselves and their shareholders, decide to follow it because their self-interest says it’s the better way to go. 

 

[Kirkhill]

We should have a strategy and the right strategic direction is West – towards Asia, where most of the world’s peoples live and where growth (and concomitant demand for resources, which we have, and technological innovation, which we can make) will, of necessity, be, mostly, strong for a long, long time.

Here I can agree wholeheartedly, despite caveats I have raised about allowing foreign investment in Canada.  While it might be cheaper, and thus more profitable, to have the customer (China predominantly) show up in your backyard with his pickup to cart off your spare gravel it is more secure to deliver the gravel to the customer in your pick up. Not only does it keep the customer at arms length from you and yours it also prevents the customer from acquiring legal rights that come with regularly being allowed access to your property.

By all means sell to China - but if we are going to do that buy a pickup (pipeline, port, tanker AND Navy) and deliver Canadian goods to the Customer in our own bottoms.  Consider it the Nationalist version of "owning the means of production".  The owner realizes the benefits - but only if he or she is willing to take the risks.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>We should have a strategy

Who is "we"?  Neither a socialist (government ownership) nor fascist (government collusion with private interests) model is economically desirable.  Either ultimately leads to organizations "too big to be allowed to fail", which results in vast inefficiencies and inequities.