Some of the actions taken by them are so incomprehensible that one has to wonder what they were thinking or were they so completely fooled by their bureaucrats that they had no idea what they were doing.
Several readers sent me a link to a Toronto Star opinion piece by Michael Geist who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. The title of the story was:
- "How the U.S. got its Canadian copyright bill"
The gist of the story is that the Americans got the kind of copyright law that they wanted in Canada even though it seemed to be opposed to that which most Canadians desired. Here though is the part that I found most interesting
- "The public campaign was obvious. U.S. ambassador to Canada David Wilkins was outspoken on the copyright issue, characterizing Canadian copyright law as the weakest in the G7...
The private campaign was even more important. Sources say that U.S. officials, emboldened by the successful campaign for anti-camcording legislation, upped the ante at the Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Quebec last summer. Canadian officials arrived ready to talk about a series of economic concerns but were quickly rebuffed by their U.S. counterparts, who indicated that progress on other issues would depend upon action on the copyright file.
Those demands were echoed earlier by the USTR, which, according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, made veiled threats about "thickening the border" between Canada and the U.S. if Canada refused to put copyright reform on the legislative agenda."
There is that "thickening" word that I've talked about before. That is what the border file is all about as I've written so many times as far as Canada is concerned. It really has nothing to do with the Ambassador Bridge.
But that is exactly why our Government has acted so stupidly. They are making the Ambassador Bridge an issue that the Americans are going to have to deal with to our detriment. Rather, our Government should be protecting us in the NAFTA debate. The silly 2 KM that could connect the DRIC road to the Ambassador Bridge as an "intermediate solution" under the terms of the Border Infrastructure Fund will instead become the catalyst that may lead to a border war.
Just wait until Michigan demands completion of the connection for the sake of their economy under the Michigan/Ontario MoU and lobbies the US President to help out. Then what will Canada do? A precedent already has been set when Ontario signed an ITS MOU with Michigan in order to:
- "exchange information to help keep traffic moving across the border through the use of a variety of technologies, including sensors, computers, telecommunications and electronics."
The issue is really free trade, whether NAFTA will renegotiated and how does Canada protect access to the American market for our goods. It is NOT who owns the Ambassador Bridge or how to force the Owner to sell out cheaply.
What does our Government do...NAFTA-gate. We tried to boost Hillary Clinton's chances by interfering in the US Presidential primaries by embarrassing Barack Obama. I guess someone in Ottawa made a mistake about who would win that race since Obama became the Democratic Party nominee and he may well become the next President of the United States. I wonder if that person bet on Big Brown to win in the Belmont race too for the Triple Crown.
Then came the ridiculous Radio-Canada story that not only tried to pressure the President but did an end run around Obama and dismissed McCain's chances of winning the presidency.
Why stop there... now John McCain wants to come to Ottawa to give a speech on NAFTA. As Bob Rae said:
- "McCain's speech suggests Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is playing favorites in the U.S. presidential contest.
"It's hard not to wonder what this is all about given the previous history of this story, and I'm sure he would not have come unless he was told by the government of the day that it was a good idea," Rae said. "It does put Canada in the middle of the campaign."
Insult Obama some more and effectively bet that he will lose. Mind you, Harper and the Conservatives will have something in common with the Chinese state-run People's Daily newspaper which said the other day:
- "The paper also questioned Mr. Obama's plans to end the Iraq war and fix the failing U.S. economy, while focusing in on his inexperience.
"To borrow a phrase used in Clinton and Obama's campaigns, maybe one can describe the feelings that voters might encounter: Everyone imagine for a moment the person who picks up the red phone at 3 a.m. in the White House - if it's McCain, they will be at ease," the paper argued.
All of which brings me back to the Ambassador Bridge. Is this file that important to Canada's economic future just so that, as Gord Henderson wrote:
- "we surely understand now why Herb Gray moved heaven and earth, as Liberal minister responsible for FIRA (Foreign Investment Review Agency) in the early 1980s, in a failed effort to prevent Moroun's trucking empire from acquiring the Canadian half of the bridge. That battle was lost in the federal courts and ended with an out-of-court settlement following a marathon legal struggle."
Is it the economic nationalists or the money boys in investment houses or pension funds or P3 firms who think that they are going to make a fortune on the crossing who are running this file to the detriment of Canada.
Canada is forgetting about the real purpose of the Transport Canada Corridors and Gateways policy initiative which is truly important for our country. It is using that initiative as the excuse for trying to put the Owner of the Bridge Company out of business so that Canada or its monied friends can take it over.
Once the Americans finally figure out what Canada is doing, then it will not be too much longer before we see what real pressure is if we still want NAFTA.
By allowing McCain to come to Canada to make a speech, Canada is effectively making NAFTA a US election issue and picking sides. For what purpose? So that we can huff and puff and show the Americans how strong we are by threatening to cut off oil to them unless they knuckle under. Harper foolishly brought that subject up with Bush publicly at the SPP meeting as his threat.
I really wonder how important NAFTA is to Senator Obama other then to pick up some Electoral College votes in the rust-belt states that Senator Clinton won during the primaries.
By our Government's actions, we are giving it more visibility than it is worth. We aremaking it an election issue. It may become very easy for the Americans to make the Ambassador Bridge an easily understandable symbol for renegotiation of NAFTA if we are not careful. It could become our next softwood lumber trade issue with the Americans.
If that becomes the case, after the various Canadian insults, then unlike Copyright, do not expect the threats to be veiled. As Mickey Kantor said in his interview on WJR:
- "The Canadian government bless their souls are going to try and push this and push this for one because they don’t like a private bridge that’s been there for 80 years, they would like a public bridge that’s probably a philosophical position the Canadians take.
And the second is their bureaucrats have committed themselves emotionally to this thing but we shouldn’t be pushed around by the Canadians.
I’ve negotiated over the years when I was the United States treasurer in dealing with Canadians, you got to stand up once in awhile for our country and say this in not in our interests."
No comments:
Post a Comment