While we’re at it, let’s nationalize grains, lumber, fishing, maple syrup, and wine making as well.
I like the idea of economics as a mandatory subject in school. Bundle it with basic household finances as well, so kids get an idea of how dangerous spending money can be without taking on a crushing debt load to find out.
A quick google of “NAFTA environment ruling” turns up the following on the first page -
The NAFTA ruling on Metalclad vs. Mexico - The Broader Context
Court Ruling Under NAFTA Puts Profit Ahead Of Environment
Environment groups organise against NAFTA rules
From page 34 of the Green Party platform from 2006 -Canadian corporations flock towards free trade zones to bypass environmental
regulations and exploit cheap labour.In trade agreements such as NAFTA, a foreign
investor has the right to seek compensation from our government if Canada enacts a law
that results in the loss of revenue for the investor. These agreements essentially put a
foreign company’s rights over those of Canada. It limits our sovereignty and can paralyze
our government’s will to enact new environmental and human rights laws. Canada’s
interests have also been harmed by the United States’ refusal to respect NAFTAand
WTO trade rulings in favour of Canada over the softwood lumber dispute. It makes one
wonder why the U.S. signs free trade agreements, if they don’t believe in free trade?
From http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/toxicnation/whatGovDo/GPC_Platform_2006.pdf
And from page A19, of the Friday, August 17, 2007, Toronto Star, by Iain Marlow, staff reporter:
Trade deals said to hurt policing of products
Threat of lawsuits inhibits hard line on toxins, critics say
Harmful chemicals continue to be used in products ranging from children’s toys to cleaning sprays arriving in Canada because our government agencies feel too intimidated by international trade agreements to stop them, environmentalists say.
The “chill” of possible lawsuits is preventing the agencies from doing their job to protectthe Canadian public, the critics say.
After two massive recalls of Chinese-made toys this month over lead paint, Health Minister Tony Clement has ordered his staff to report back with suggestions for fixing Canada’s regulations “over the next few weeks.”
We’re concerned that we’re still going to be left with a product-by-product approach that is overly cautious out of fear of lawsuits and NAFTA challeneges," says Kapil Khatter, policy advisor for the Toronto-based Environmental Defence organization.
For more of the article, see:
There is debate on both sides of this issue, but for a quick overview, that illustrates the point that there is concern within the environmental community that NAFTA interferes with a government’s ability to establish legislation that restricts environmental damage.
Well, no, some things aren’t. I mean, NO science reaches a final consensus. Biologists disagree over many things, but that doesn’t make creationism a valid scientific viewpoint. Astrophysicists are still figuring out things but that doesn’t mean the moon is made of green cheese. Historians are endlessly debating things, but Holocaust deniers are still nuts.
There’s room for argument in economics but there’s also the plainly stupid. You can’t keep your mind so open that your brain falls out.
What tax cuts?
And if there were tax cuts - and I don’t remember many - what was wrong with them?
I realize you’re just quoting someone else, but it’s important to understand this; this is a lie. It is a very commonly repeated lie, but a lie all the same. It’s not even remotely close to being true, and it is, incidentally, something that’s been debunked here quite a few times. For one thing, it obviously cannot literally be true, since it would make all tax laws illegal. Think about it.
Anyway, the fundamental protection for investors in the NAFTA agreement prohibits the participating governments from discriminating against investors on the basis of their nationality. (Well, as long as they’re Canadian, Mexican, or American.) It does not say that governments can’t do thing that cost “Corporations” money; as I mentioned, that would make all tax law illegal, as well as all workplace safety law, all highway traffic law, and a thousand other laws. What it says is that governments can’t do things that are meant to discriminate against investors from the other two NAFTA countries. You can’t pass laws or take acts designed to punish Mexican companies in favour of Canadian companies, and such.
There are a bazillion exceptions to this, of course - a NAFTA country is, for instance, entitled to discriminate against foreign businesses when buying military equipment. Measures takes to protect the environment are specifically protected (Article 1114) as well.
If you look into the facts behind most NAFTA suits, virtually all are related to accusations of discrimination.
If NAFTA limits our sovereignty, what about the United Nations Charter? The UN Charter places restrictions on what our government can do, too; yet I never hear anyone complain about the UN “limiting” our sovereignty. What about the Geneva Convention? The Hague Convention? The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? NATO?
Of course, that’s because those things don’t limit our sovereignty, and neither does NAFTA. They are REFLECTIONS of our sovereignty; things our government, as a free and soveriegn nation, has agreed with other free and sovereign nations on. We freely entered into it as a soveriegn country and could cancel it if we wished.
Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l’au-dela
Okay, I’ll bite - when did economics ever reach a consensus? For every Neo-Con who says that tax cuts are the best way to for government to stimulate the economy, you can find a Linda McQuaig who says that tax cuts are the problem. Who is right and who is wrong is a matter of opinion and debate.
The point I am trying to make is that I disagree with the belief that Conservative economic ideas are the only ones that can be correct. Every one of the candidates has what is in their opinion, a sound economic basis for their policy.
Le Ministre de l’au-dela I have seen the results of the mantra of tax cuts in Ontario under Mike Harris, and don’t want any of it, thanks very much!
I quote from Mike Harris - Wikipedia "Provincial income taxes were cut by 30% to pre-1990 levels.
What was wrong with them?
Well, they were the basis for Harris cutting services throughout the province in a classic ‘Shoot the Hippo’ scenario. Unless you were rich, his tax cuts ended up costing you more money due to user fees. Actually, I thought the Wiki article was quite thorough and as long as you include me everywhere where it says ‘critics of Harris felt…’, relatively accurate.
Ontario’s “Made by the Harris Government” Fiscal Crisis
Ontario Alternative Budget 1999
As to your last point, may I point you to this document - NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes The second example down on this table shows that on April 14, 1997, Ethyl Corporation, a US chemical company got a ban on MMT repealed by the Canadian government and a $13 million dollar ‘out of court’ settlement using articles 1102, 1106 and 1110. MMT is a suspected neurotoxin. The articles on “National Treatment”, “Performance Requirements” and “Expropriation and Compensation” were used as the basis for the claim, and yet, an environmental ban is overturned. There are more examples throughout the document. Believe me, this is something I think about.
Sam was not commenting about any of the candidates, he was talking about a crank who was given prime interview time on CBC.
But even then, just because someone has in their opinion a sound economic basis for their policy doesn’t mean it actually is. Ignorance isn’t a point of view. Lots of politicians have had very stupid policies, after all, and it’s not limited to the left wing; the Conservative plan to cut the diesel excise tax is flatly stupid and pure electioneering.
The problem with blaming Harris’s tax cuts for Ontario’s subsequent woes is that there isn’t any evidence Harris’s governments were bringing in fewer taxes. Tax revenues rose throughout the Harris administration. They were $48 million during the first FY under Harris (95-96) and generally rose, even (usually) accounting for inflation:
Fiscal Year - Revenue (billions)
1995-1996 - 48.359
1996-1997 - 49.500
1997-1998 - 52.488
1998-1999 - 55.786
1999-2000 - 62.931
2000-2001 - 64.682
2001-2002 - 63.824
2002-2003 - 66.249
Rather unsurprisingly, (a) the government generally kept bringing in more tax money, as governments always do, and (b) the growth in tax revenues was generally tied in to the performance of the global and North American economy and was little changed by the government’s policies. Note the upswing during the boom years and then sudden downtick after the dot-com bubble.
The idea that a big government would willingly, actually reduce tax revenues - even if they pick a few high profile taxes to reduce for political reasons - is just not consistent with actual practice. Governments ALWAYS want more tax money, and have a way of getting it.
I’m not necessarily defending the Harris government, but the “starve the government” tactic always thrown at conservative governments is almost invariably nonsense. It never happens.
First off, just to be technical and ensure there is no confusion, it’s worth noting this dispute never actually went to the NAFTA tribunal.
Whatever one’s feelings about Ethyl Corporation are (and to be honest they are probably the worst polluters in the history of the world) this remains a deliberate misrepresentation of the case and NAFTA in general. Ethyl’s argument was not that the Canadian government had to give them money because they lost money, but that the government selectively chose the law to favour Canadian companies over an American company. The Canadian government, it’s important to note, did not ban MMT. They simply banned its importation - so you could still make and sell MMT in Canada, but Ethyl was prohibited from selling it in Canada unless they built MMT plants in Canada. The argument was, therefore, based on the accusation that the Canadian government’s intent was not to ban MMT (or else it would simply have done so) but that it was done for the advantage of Canadian-based industry, such as ethanol-based additives that can replace MMT (in addition to forcing Ethyl to make MMT in Canada if they wanted to keep selling it there, it’s also widely believed the Big Three automakers were pressuring the government to ban it so they would not have to spend money making their cars run better with MMT.)
You have to admit that if the Canadian government’s intent was to get rid of MMT - as most countries have - saying “You can’t bring it into the country, but, hey, by all means, make it here and then sell it as much as you like - oh, and we’re only going to ban this one additive, and openly admit we’re doing it partially to benefit our auto industry, which conveniently is the biggest industry in the stronghold province of the governing party” is not a very convincing position in terms of one’s commitment to environmental stewardship.
Now, whether or not that’s true we could debate if you wanted to really get into the case, but that would be its own thread. I certianly shed no tears for Ethyl, who’re the king polluters of all time, but it’s just the way it works that the law has to apply to both nice people and assholes. It’s important to be clear on what NAFTA is meant to do, and it’s NOT to let companies just say “Gimme money” every time the government does something - or, again, they could file a complaint because of the existence of taxes. The purpose is to make the three governments treat companies and investors fairly no matter which of the three countries they’re from.
I’m not going to lie to you and say NAFTA was perfectly written the moment they drafted it, because obviously human beings can’t do that. But the idea that it’s some sort of document written for the purpose of preventing “Human rights legislation” or to give corporations unlimited profit power in insane. The agreement is - and it’s really very obvious if you just read it - meant to allow free trade between the three countries by making their governments treat economic agents of the other countries equally to their own.
Okay, a couple of things:
First, stop using ‘neo-con’ as a general pejorative against conservatives. Neo-cons are a very specific subset of conservatism, and generally known for their more liberal economic policies (not all). Neo-Conservatism is better described as a branch of conservatism that advocates a more pro-active role in shaping world affairs, as opposed to traditional Burkean conservatives who tend to be more isolationist. When people use the word ‘neo-con’ indiscriminately, it generally suggests to me that their worldview is influenced more by partisan sound bites than reasoned analysis and an actual understanding of what makes various political philosophies tick.
Second, while there is rarely overwhelming consenses among economists when it comes to specific domestic policies, the vast majority of economists on the left and right agree on the benefits of free trade. It truly is one of the more ‘settled’ issues in economics, which is why you can find free traders of almost every political persuation.
And there have been plenty of studies on the effects of NAFTA in Canada. For example, this study says that NAFTA is responsible for a 29% increase in exports from Canada to the U.S, and a 14% increase in imports from the U.S. to Canada. It also caused an increase of 12% in Canadian exports to Mexico. NAFTA is credited by the Dept of Commerce in the U.S. with creating over 200,000 jobs - and good jobs, not minimum wage service jobs, but manufacturing jobs with high wages.
And of course, the elimination of tariffs benefits the poor as well, since they buy goods from the U.S. Food prices are lower. Clothing is cheaper. Cars and computers are cheaper. Our economy is more efficient, because jobs that Americans are better off at get done there, and jobs Canadians are better at flow here. In the end, this results in higher productivity, which translates into higher wages for workers.
No, some of them don’t. They are driven more by the values and prejudices of their constituents. When their constituents are afraid of losing their jobs, their leaders pander to them with protectionist policies. If their constituents are more likely on the government payroll, then they will be biased towards policies that put more money into government’s hands, regardless of the overall economic effect.
Most politicians do not have sound economic positions - they have economic rationalizations for policies which placate their constituencies. That’s true of Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, and Green.
For example, most economists agree that the most efficient way to control CO2 emissions is with a carbon tax. But hardly anyone is proposing them, because they are a very hard sell politically. The Liberals are the only major political party in North America advocating some form of a carbon tax, but even that one is so watered down and so distorted so as to not repulse the Liberal’s natural base that it loses much of its effect.
And tax cuts are not a ‘conservative’ policy. Depending on where tax rates are, you can make a case for cuts from a conservative or liberal standpoint. For example, in the U.S. corporate tax rates are too high. This puts U.S. corporations at a disadvantage on the world market, which hurts workers and depresses wages. The U.S. would be much better off, economically speaking, by reducing corporate taxes to the world average or below, then making up the revenue through a sales tax. But that’s not going to happen.
NDP governments have cut taxes after discovering that punitive tax rates cause economic stagnation and an exodus of workers and professional people. The NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba both did this.
I wonder if someone would enlighten me on minority governments. Who is now aligned with the Conservatives to form this government, is it the BQ? Is there a reason why they aligned with the Conservatives and not the Liberals?
Second question, let’s say the Conservatives win a majority goverment. Would anyone align with them to make a super majority or does everyone else lump together to form the opposition?
Minoriity government means that the party that has formed the government has the most seats of any of the parties, but not the most seats in the house. In the recently dissolved parliament, the Conservatives made many issues confidence motions, in effect daring the opposition parties to defeat them. NDP and Bloc voted against, but the Liberals voted with the government, in effect supporting them.
In a majority government, even if every member of every other party votes against a bill, as long as all of the members vote along party lines, the bill will pass. Members can vote against their own party, but there are usually consequences… that’s where the Whips come into it. Members can be disciplined by their own party, sometimes to the extent of being kicked out and forced to sit as an independent.
To add to Le Minister’s comment, some votes HAVE to be confidence measures - it’s not an option. The budget is the most common example. A failed budget vote is a nonconfidence vote. So why did the opposition not kill this government?..
For the most part it was the Liberal party that, if they didn’t BACK the Conservatives, just didn’t oppose them. Their party was generally not prepared to fight an election. They had a leadership contest after the 2006 loss, and supposedly their war chest was empty for a long time, so they simply didn’t want to go to the polls. The government was protected for the first bit of its term by the simple fact that calling another election would likely have resulted in a backlash by the public; if you force an election three months after the last one, you’re just going to piss people off and drive more votes to the Conservatives.
Later in the 2.5 year government, it was simply that the Liberals weren’t prepared for a battle. The mathematics of the situation were that it would have taken most or all of all three Opposition parties to bring down the government; any two together were not a majority. The three opposition parties all hate each other just as much as they do the Conservatives, especially the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, who are, insofar as Canadian politics can get, mortal enemies. One of the prerequisites for the job of Liberal leader is you have to be someone the separatists absolutely loathe. (I personally find this a highly desirable trait.)
Of course, this has had its cost. To some extent, avoiding an election has not done the Liberals a lot of favours because there has been a perception that they’re not really doing their job. A lot of people have been asking, hey, if theyre the official Opposition, why aren’t they doing any opposing?
No other party would align with them. It would absolutely be the death of any of the other parties - the Bloc is a separatist party that wants to destroy the country the Conservatives want to hold together, and alignment would call into question their raison d’etre. The NDP is a socialist party, and the Liberals are the government in waiting.
Also, a supermajority would not give the Conservatives anything of use so they’d have no reason to agree to such an arrangement.
I’m sure you realize Bloquistes would disagree with this assessment.
What part of it do they think is incorrect?
They certainly don’t want to destroy the country. RickJay thinks the ultimate result of the Bloc supporters’ goals (which they can’t even do anything about) would be the destruction of the country, and he may well be right. But that’s certainly not what they want to do.
The Bloc are down-playing separatism as much as they can, and presenting themselves as the party that can best represent the ‘interests of Québeckers’. Separatism is still listed as one of the aims of the party, it’s on page 3 of the Party Platform, about the only document on the site in English. (Not unexpected, but how can you claim to represent ALL Québeckers if you will only speak in French? Sorry, I’ll stop now.) Still, they see their work as to “move Québec forward immediately so that we can continue the work done by our predecessors and guarantee future generations a boundless and promising future.”
The other major thing a Bloquiste would dispute is the notion that separation equals the destruction of the country. Canada, they would argue, will go on without Québec, and Québec will go on without the rest of Canada.
I don’t agree at all, and so, I hope I have represented the other side fairly.
ETA: Just like Hypnogogic Jerk said… (it’s all in the timing.)
I disagree with separatists on lots of issues.
Don’t we all.
Since I think this was aimed at me and I’ve been away from my computer, I’ll revisit this. When I suggest mandatory high school economics classes, I don’t mean “teach all the kiddies Chicago-school dogma”. I mean simple, basic stuff:
opportunity cost
comparative advantage
supply and demand curves, and equilibrium prices
elasticity/inelasticity of supply/demand
etc
These are extremely basic concepts that most people don’t understand, and about which there is absolutely no controversy in economics. What macroeconomic policies a government should pursue to best encourage economic growth, well, that there’s controversy about. But there’s no controversy about whether one should consider opportunity costs, or use trade to leverage comparative advantages, or expect prices in the absence of regulation to settle at equilibrium.
To make even the most rudimentary judgement about which party’s economic platform is preferable, it is absolutely necessary that you have some rudimentary understanding of how economies work. But the only Canadians who have even basic education in the subject are those who took a class in university, or who have read up on their own. We would be better off as a nation if we were more knowledgeable on the subject, allowing us to make more rational voting choices - though of course economic policies are but one piece of the voting puzzle. Instead we get idiocy like my coworker telling me that “they” should be required by the government to sell gas in Canada at lower prices before exporting any.
And in other news, “death by a thousand cold cuts” cracks me up. Perhaps that makes me a bad person.
No kidding. Jacques Brassard, a former cabinet minister in several PQ governments, recently came out saying that the BQ had completely lost the goal of sovereignty and was simply becoming another left-wing party, or as he said it, a clone of the NDP. Brassard, who belongs to the right wing of the PQ, said the Bloc was trying to identify Quebec values with the “ideological bric-à-brac* of the left” such as statism and anti-Americanism. Here is an article in English. Now I don’t know if the Bloc has actually done this, but Duceppe is of course a leftist (unlike, for example, Lucien Bouchard) and I wouldn’t want to identify Quebec values with particular political opinions, and certainly not with anti-Americanism. Several former Bloc MPs have also expressed doubts about the presence of the Bloc in Ottawa, while other have defended it. Duceppe’s response is that unlike the Bloc, the NDP is a very centralizing party, and that his party can best defend the interests of Quebec (one of their main goals this time is to extend the protections of the Charter of the French language to workers in Quebec in companies under federal jurisdiction). I think his assessment is right.
Sure, it’s in their platform, but as I say it’s not like they can do anything (and I truly mean anything) about it, so it might as well not be there. As for the language: is the Liberal Party platform available in Hindi? I think not (actually I checked, and their platform doesn’t even appear to be yet available on their website, in any language), despite the fact they’re actively courting Hindi speakers. The Bloc’s platform is actually available in English, which I think is quite well enough, given that Quebec’s common and official language is French. I expect that goes against your view of Canada, Ministre, but if you live in Quebec you should be able to communicate in French, in the same way that if I move to Alberta I wouldn’t ever expect to speak to my fellow Albertans in any language other than English, unless they specifically ask I use another language.
Actually I think chances are this is what would eventually happen. Some changes would be forced on us all, of course: Quebec would be somewhat poorer than it is right now, at least for the time being, and Canada would have to redefine part of its identity. RickJay seems to think that it would strengthen separatist movements in other provinces and lead to the disintegration of the country. I don’t see why this would be the case. I mean, Albertans don’t want to separate from Canada right now, why would they want to separate from a Canada with much fewer Eastern votes to boss them around, where nobody’s forced to keep with this expensive bilingualism charade anymore, and where they don’t even have to send their hard-earned money away in equalization payments to lousy lazy Quebecers? Isn’t that their ideal version of Canada?
Not that I think that separation is the best possible idea, because I don’t. But the destruction of the country? I don’t think so.
*Apparently the word bric-à-brac does exist in English; I don’t know how to translate it otherwise.
Is Hindi one of the official languages of Canada?
No. What are the official languages of Quebec (where the Bloc only runs candidates)?