# North American security plan unveiled



## McG (27 Jun 2005)

> North American security plan unveiled
> By ALLISON DUNFIELD
> Monday, June 27, 2005 Updated at 4:45 PM EDT
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050627.wmclel0627/BNStory/National/


----------



## daniel h. (28 Jun 2005)

I hope people are starting to realize why the CF has been so poorly funded over the last few decades....these people believe in corporations, not countries and the culture, demographics and traditions that go with them. Europeans citizens got the common dollar and passport against their will. This is globalization at its finest, and must eventually be stopped.

The Council on Foreign Relations (of which John Manley is a member) is now openly talking about how they desire that Canada, Mexico and the U.SA. merge--talk about utopianism. These people believe in global governance, against the will of the majority as usual. Browse their site: 

www.cfr.org


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jun 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> I hope people are starting to realize why the CF has been so poorly funded over the last few decades....these people believe in corporations, not countries and the culture, demographics and traditions that go with them. Europeans citizens got the common dollar and passport against their will. This is globalization at its finest, and must eventually be stopped.
> 
> The Council on Foreign Relations (of which John Manley is a member) is now openly talking about how they desire that Canada, Mexico and the U.SA. merge--talk about utopianism. These people believe in global governance, against the will of the majority as usual. Browse their site:
> 
> www.cfr.org



_Globalization_, I would argue, is less advanced now than it was in the 19th century.  We are still fighting, yet again, for the _ideal_ (extant 2,000+ years ago in _Pax Romana_ and 200 years ago in _Pax Britannica_) of free trade _guaranteed_ by  powers which constrains themselves through the rule of law.

That's my, personal ideal abut here is another idea, reported in today's _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050628.wxceo28/BNStory/National/


> *Poor leadership in Ottawa hurting Canada, CEOs say*
> 
> BY STEVEN CHASE
> 
> ...



Caution: do not let your personal opinions about chief executives, in general, _uber-lobbyist_ Tom d'Aquino and his organization, or even people like Lamarre and  Desmarais, specifically, get in the way of reading what they have to say.  First: these people have both power and political smarts.  They know their audience - he, Paul Martin, answers the phone promptly when any one of them calls.  When Gordon Nixon calls there is no 'hold' button on the PM's phone.

Their concern is, in fact, _national security_ and _national sovereignty_ but they see those things in economic and social terms: dollars and jobs.

The Council on Foreign Relations (See: http://www.cfr.org/about/mission.php ) is not some sort of shadowy bogeyman.  It is, has been for nearly a century, one of the pre-eminent _think tanks_ in the world - it has, and continues, to drift all over the political map from Democrat and _isolationist_ to Republican and _internationalist_ and all points in between. Brian Mulroney is a member of the International Advisory Board and John Manley is, indeed, a regular expert participant at panel discussions.

This, I guess, it what causes so much excitement for daniel h :  http://www.cfr.org/pub7962/robert_a_pastor_william_f_weld_john_p_manley_andres_rozental_thomas_daquino_pedro_c_aspe/creating_a_north_american_community_chairmens_press_briefing_for_an_independent_task_force_on_the_future_of_north_america.php 

Security and defence is *not* the exclusive domain of the military.  Military matters are part and parcel of a national strategy which must concern itself, as Lamarre said, above, with what: "... really matters ... not where our political parties stand in the polls five minutes from now, but what kind of country our children will inherit over the next generation ...â ?


----------



## Infanteer (29 Jun 2005)

The CFR, publishers of the journal Foreign Affairs, is as Edward stated *the* think-tank on international affairs; if you are spitting at them you better be prepared to convince alot of smart and experienced people why.

PS: Check out the last issue of Foreign Affairs - the cover article was written by none other than Mr Dithers himself.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Jun 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> I hope people are starting to realize why the CF has been so poorly funded over the last few decades....these people believe in corporations, not countries and the culture, demographics and traditions that go with them. Europeans citizens got the common dollar and passport against their will. This is globalization at its finest, and must eventually be stopped.
> 
> The Council on Foreign Relations (of which John Manley is a member) is now openly talking about how they desire that Canada, Mexico and the U.SA. merge--talk about utopianism. These people believe in global governance, against the will of the majority as usual. Browse their site:
> 
> www.cfr.org



Wow....I don't agree with that at all....

In direct contradiction, I would argue that the CCCE has been one of the only entities in Canada pushing defence spending and lamenting the decline of Canada's importance on the world stage.

RE:  Tighter North American integration - perhaps you can comment on the hypotheticals you've run in your head on the issue but here are the issues they want to address (from a Canadian Perspective)
1)  Should there be a terrorist attack on the United States, it is only with an integrated Continental Security Boundary that *ALL* commerical trade will not be blocked at the border throwing the Canadian Economy into turmoil.  I should add this is extremely important to those making manufacturing investment decisions as all new plants rely on Just-In-Time Inventory Management and as such will need to locate their facilities in locations with guaranteed access to parts.  Ergo, a plant in Detroit may not subcontract engines from a plant in Windsor if it cannot be guaranteed to receive delivery of said essential components in time of crisis.
2)  Standardization of commercial transportation, packaging and environmental regulation - Standardization of this kind is inherently good as it streamlines everything to a NAFTA standard.  From an industrial standpoint this creates tremendous efficiencies in the transportation/storage system.  Most importantly from a Canadian standpoint is that it will bring up the environmental/labour standards in Mexico moving us towards a more equal playing field than we currently have.
3)  With this new momentum, it may be possible to reduce our dependence on China for all things manufactured which as I've mentioned on numerous occassions I believe to be worse than foolhardy.

Bottom Line:  I'm not sure where you see the downside of such initiative, but I'd like to hear your fears so I can better understand your perspective.

Thanks in advance,



Matthew.


----------



## daniel h. (29 Jun 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> _Globalization_, I would argue, is less advanced now than it was in the 19th century.   We are still fighting, yet again, for the _ideal_ (extant 2,000+ years ago in _Pax Romana_ and 200 years ago in _Pax Britannica_) of free trade _guaranteed_ by   powers which constrains themselves through the rule of law.
> 
> That's my, personal ideal abut here is another idea, reported in today's _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> ...




Hi Edward Campbell. I completely agree that globalization was more advanced in the 19th century. This being said, I think it goes in cycles.


As for that article about the CCCE, I realize they have their concerns, but here are my counterarguments to their arguments: 

they (the CCCE) claim to care about our sovereinty and security: BUT support mass immigration of "skilled immgrant" from countries that are known terrorist havens.

They claim to care about our soveriegnty and job growth: BUT they supported NAFTA which allows the U.S., not Canada, to control our energy reserves and prices while robbing us of 1.6 million manufacturing jobs that went south to their American head offices after the agreement was signed.

They claim to care that many people are failing high school: BUT, their debt-based monetary policy makes it hard for provinces in debt to keep education affordable--ALSO, thanks to their open-border ideology, students are competing with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and foreign students for any jobs that still exist for young people.

They claim to support creating jobs and our funding our military, while allowing our debt to be so high we can't afford equipment, and foreign American branch-plants to assemble military equipment in Canada, robbing us of our own defence industries and the greater number of jobs and prestige that go with them--if they cared about our soveriegnty form the U.S. we'd build our own military, not keep econobox F-18As unti they are 40 years old.

They claim that their is a shortage of jobs yet claim we need "more skilled immigrants", even though MANY immigrants who are in Canada currently are driving taxis in Toronto or Vancouver (trust me.)

They also ignore that the majority of our immigrants (85%) now come from third-world, anti-western countries, don't speak English or French and most immigrants today are retired parents or grandparents of previous immigrants who can't work (because they are retired of course) but are quite happy to get free heath care at our expense.

They claim we need lower taxes to "be competitive": BUT, these same phony transnationals pay almost no tax anymore due to loopholes and transfer-pricing profits to their U.S. head offices, while average workers pay up to 49% tax for declining serivces, health care that they refuse to support properly, and to send aid to corrupt third-world dictatorships.

They claim they want Canada to be competitive, but they let our economy be over 40% foreign-controlled--about half of CCCE member companies are not Canadian-owned companies.


What these guys won't admit is that the REAL way to make Canada viable long-term would be get off their leather couches and out of their BMWs and start domestic companies, stop privatizing crown corporations and create jobs that pay living wages so people can afford to have kids. This would also mean lowering taxes on labour.

The United States got to where it is by being at least partially protectionist, while having free-trade with foreign countries. A national policy in antithetical with getting close to an American economy that is currently screwing Americans by employing illegal Mexican labour while attempting to eliminate the minimum wage.


----------



## daniel h. (29 Jun 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Wow....I don't agree with that at all....
> 
> In direct contradiction, I would argue that the CCCE has been one of the only entities in Canada pushing defence spending and lamenting the decline of Canada's importance on the world stage.
> 
> ...




No problem. My main concern is they are either being dishonest or they are simply wrong.

1. The U.S. is not actually serious about blocking trade with Canada. They need our oil and gas, and they depend on us to buy their manufactured goods, as Japan and Europe don't buy nearly as much as we do.

2. The U.S. is phony about cracking down on the borders, because they allow millions of illegal Mexicans to cross their southern border every year--Arabs could easily do the same.

3. They claim to want us to compete with China, but these are the same people whose one-world ideology made China into the power they are today--due to western corporations and also the many stolen secrets and patents China ruthlessly pursues.

4. They claim to want to compete with China, but allow thousands of Chinese immigrants into Canada and the U.S. every year--peopole who are often spies (google 1997 CSIS Sidewinder report) and are often anti-western.

5. They made us depedent on Chinese goods, and bring Chinese people here to take our jobs.

6. They claim to be "Improving evironmental standards", but Mexico's laws are never enforced, and Canada's standards are often higher--but with NAFTA we can't ban MMT in our gasoline for fear of legal action again, and if we sign thi NAFTA+ CFR-inspired deal, we will not be able to set our own standards, like keep carcinogenic Bovine Growth Hormone out of our milk--it is in American milk right now.


----------



## TCBF (29 Jun 2005)

hmmmnnn... We purport to be supportive of the Third World, yet continually skim off their highly trained doctors and engineers.   How is the Third World supposed to advance if we constantly hi-jack the intelectual and political future of their nations?   Who is left to run the show, but the syphilitic Mugabe's and paranoid Khaddafi's?

Tom


----------



## Kunu (29 Jun 2005)

> hmmmnnn... We purport to be supportive of the Third World, yet continually skim off their highly trained doctors and engineers.  How is the Third World supposed to advance if we constantly hi-jack the intelectual and political future of their nations?  Who is left to run the show, but the syphilitic Mugabe's and paranoid Khaddafi's?



One way is to encourage the development of systems (yes, another can of worms) which provide a reason and incentive for highly skilled people to stay in their home countries and contribute.  To take the example of India, with the past decade of economic reforms and the resultant boom, there is no longer the same concern about any "brain drain" since enough intelligent people are deciding to stick around because of all the opportunities available. 

If an individual has no chance, or sees no real reward for applying the knowledge and skills they have worked so hard to earn, they cannot be blamed for desiring to go to a place where things are different.


----------



## TCBF (29 Jun 2005)

I am not faulting their desire, I am faulting a Canada that insists the finest young Calcutta Med School Grads need to develop their characters by driving cabs in our sub-arctic mill-towns, rather than practising medicine.  Leave them as Doctors in India, and train our own here.

Tom


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Jun 2005)

> As for that article about the CCCE, I realize they have their concerns, but here are my counterarguments to their arguments:
> 
> they (the CCCE) claim to care about our sovereinty and security: BUT support mass immigration of "skilled immgrant" from countries that are known terrorist havens.



You'll need to elaborate on that one.  Saudi Arabia?  Morocco?  Egypt?  Pakistan?  What nations and what incentives?  Most of the stuff I've seen from the CCCE is "for the love of God please import as many engineers as you can get your hands on as domestic schools are producing far too many lawyers and not nearly enough engineers."



> They claim to care about our soveriegnty and job growth: BUT they supported NAFTA which allows the U.S., not Canada, to control our energy reserves and prices while robbing us of 1.6 million manufacturing jobs that went south to their American head offices after the agreement was signed.



Two issues:
1)  Energy - I think the deal basically says "If we're going to integrate so tightly into their economy to a point they become dependent upon our oil supply, it is unreasonable that the energy then somehow becomes a bargaining chip for Canadian Political objectives" which in practical terms makes a lot of sense to me.
2)  Manufacturing - I don't know where you got your 1.6 million number but I'm guessing it is coming from a biased source.  Relative to the United States, the Canadian Automotive Industry has done remarkably well.  In particular, strategic initiatives from the CCCE which pushed governments to embrace Japanese manufacturers has been wonderful.  I believe it was just last year that Ontario surpassed Michigan as producing more cars/trucks than any other state/province in the world.  In sharp contrast, if you look at Michigan which is almost solely Big-Three and union-dominated, they are going down the tubes....The manufacturing we are losing to Mexico I don't like because I don't believe they're playing on the same field as we are although I cut that loss some slack because I consider NAFTA to be more of a closed-cycle economy.  Where job losses really hurt is to China as those losses are outside the closed cycle economy of NAFTA and yield almost zero net benefit other than increasing energy demand that would've occurred anyway.



> They claim to care that many people are failing high school: BUT, their debt-based monetary policy makes it hard for provinces in debt to keep education affordable--ALSO, thanks to their open-border ideology, students are competing with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and foreign students for any jobs that still exist for young people.



Again, you're clouding two issues - Debt-Financed Government Spending and Illegal Immigration
1)  Debt-Financed Government Spending:  Last time I checked it was dumb Canadian Citizens and not the CCCE that demanded public services (including subsidized post-secondary education) funded by debt.  The CCCE has been at the forefront of calling for debt-reduction which in the long-run pays a fiscal responsibility dividend:  If you carry less principle, you pay less interest, and those savings can be reinvested year-after-year into positive ROI programs such as education.  While we're on education, my own opinion is that governments need to hard-nosed in decided which subjects are going to be subsidized.  I know a lot of people who took subsidized classes for years and ended up with great degrees like Ancient Greek Philosophy, Women's Studies, or Movie Studies.  Short Version:  Should taxpayers subsidize such fields?  My own opinion is you subsidize real skills (most of which come from colleges these days as opposed to Universiities) - Medical, Business, Engineering....and if people want to take 17th Century French Poetry (which should never, ever end up justifying a degree), they should do it on their own nickel.
2)  Illegal Immigrants and Foreign Students - In comparison to the USA, we don't have a problem.  Our systems across the board are much tighter and I don't recall ever reading anything by the CCCE they were in favour of either i) Illegal Immigrants or ii) Foreign Student Work Visas.  If you can find something to the contrary, please let me know....



> They claim to support creating jobs and our funding our military, while allowing our debt to be so high we can't afford equipment, and foreign American branch-plants to assemble military equipment in Canada, robbing us of our own defence industries and the greater number of jobs and prestige that go with them--if they cared about our soveriegnty form the U.S. we'd build our own military, not keep econobox F-18As unti they are 40 years old.



Once again, you've got the cart and the horse in reverse order.   First Canadian Citizens fell in love with the Utopia the Pierre Trudea promised.  Then with their blessing he spent billions on infrastructure on social programs and didn't raise taxes accordingly generating a massive debt.  It was only at a point where the Canadian economy was nearing insolvency did we wise up and reverse course *much to the chigrin of the Canadian Public*.  The bottom line is the CCCE has been the leading voice for fiscal responsibility in Canada for years.



> They claim that their is a shortage of jobs yet claim we need "more skilled immigrants", even though MANY immigrants who are in Canada currently are driving taxis in Toronto or Vancouver (trust me.)



That has nothing to do with the CCCE and they are frustrated by it too and have public statements to that effect.  In each and every case you will find it is the professional associations that withhold certification for foreign doctors and other specialists that causes the problem because without Canadian accreditation, those immigrant specialists are screwed.  In short, this is Canadian professsionals using their monopoly control position to manipulate the supply/demand curve in their given field.  It's total BS and government should step in to put an end to it, but the CCCE is part of the solution, not the problem.



> They also ignore that the majority of our immigrants (85%) now come from third-world, anti-western countries, don't speak English or French and most immigrants today are retired parents or grandparents of previous immigrants who can't work (because they are retired of course) but are quite happy to get free heath care at our expense.



Again, where have you seen the CCCE indicate any of these things are a good idea?  The decision around immigration are 100% political and if you're looking for who makes the calls, look at Liberal Party Headquarters....and no, I'm not kidding.  I should add that any time the Conservatives propose something silly like gathering statistics on immigrants from various nations to examine whether we shouldn't be shifting some of the allocations, they are immediately tarred and feathered by the Liberals, the NDP and the media as racist.  Myself, I'd love to know that on average immigrants from 'country X' in their first 5 years in Canada paid $150,000 in taxes and averaged 0.03 crimes/1000 persons while average immigrants from 'Country Y' in their first 5 years in Canada were net recipients of $35,000 in support and averaged 4.50 crimes/1000 persons so that I could shift my allocation to bring in more people from 'Country X' and increase screening on people from 'Country Y'.  Wouldn't you?  



> They claim we need lower taxes to "be competitive": BUT, these same phony transnationals pay almost no tax anymore due to loopholes and transfer-pricing profits to their U.S. head offices, while average workers pay up to 49% tax for declining serivces, health care that they refuse to support properly, and to send aid to corrupt third-world dictatorships.



Again, a couple of different issues rolled into one statement.
Lower Corporate Taxes:  When companies decide to invest the infrastructure of a new facility, they look at a multitude of variables including their ability to attract qualified candidates, security of capital, government stability, access to markets and for the bean-counters obviously return on investment.  Since our labour costs are obviously exponentially higher than Mexico, China or India, Canada must bring other assets to the table.  What we do provide is stability, direct access to the US market (pending no terrorist attacks), rule of law, a fairly educated population (again we have to many lawyers and not enough engineers).  So on the numbers side of the equation, since Government cannot control wages, they have one tool to provide a competitive advantage for foreign investors to bring their billions here: Corporate Taxes.  From a government revenue perspective I should add that the reduction in corporate taxes is offset by the increase in personal income taxes by the new direct and indirect workers at the new facility.  From the individuals perspective, their income taxes may remain high but the new facility creates economic stability in their region and results in increased property values, not to mention increase competition amongst businesses for "in demand" specialties which creates increased wages.  Bottom Line:  Lower corporate tax rates result in more jobs, increase rates of pay in the regions where the new facilities are built, as well as a significant wealth effect around increase property values (which generally is ignored by most people).



> They claim they want Canada to be competitive, but they let our economy be over 40% foreign-controlled--about half of CCCE member companies are not Canadian-owned companies.



If you'd like all these companies who employ Canadian workers to leave, just say so....because that would mean about 40% of Canadian private-sector jobs.  In my opinion, I would be using whatever incentives I could to get foreign investment in Canada to provide jobs.  



> What these guys won't admit is that the REAL way to make Canada viable long-term would be get off their leather couches and out of their BMWs and start domestic companies, stop privatizing crown corporations and create jobs that pay living wages so people can afford to have kids. This would also mean lowering taxes on labour.



....sorry, I needed to take a deep breath after reading that one.

1)  Leather Couches and BMW's - Most guys I know that own BMW's work 60 hours+ per week and pay a huge chunk of income tax that pays for the subsidized education we were talking about earlier.  The only slightly valid component in your diatribe is that it woudl be better if they bought a Canadian-built vehicle (or at least a US-built vehicle with Canadian-built parts) than a German vehicle.
2)  Starting domestic companies - True.  Of note, guys like Paul Martin with CEO backgrounds have dramatically streamlined your ability to start-up small business, cut red tape and have pushed to cut taxes as well, not to mention the various government funding programs available.  Bottom Line:  They are all over that....
3)  Privatizing Crown Corporations - Although I hate the current system in which I believe 4 of our national crown corporations are headed by ex-members of Jean Chretian's staff, and unions that are nuts, I agree to a certain extent.  I think "the public good" for many of these industries should be more important than "the net income line".  In particular, electrical transmission and roadways should never, ever be privatized and a majority of electrical generation should also be owned by the government (to avoid the mess they created in California).  Where I think there is a huge opportunity is in Public-Private Partnerships for things like Hospitals and Schools.  In essence, private industry buys and develops and maintains the buildings and government leases the space at fixed rates for service life of the building.  This eliminates the ability of CUPE and other Public-Centre Unions to get into those facilities and drive up costs beyond $50/hour for janitorial staff when you work in Medical Benefits and Pension Plans.  Don't forget though one of the primary reasons for problems with companies like Ontario Hydro was the fact that government controlled electricity rates and every time they tried to raise those rates to reflect true costs (or improve infrastructure), the stupid public would vote them out.  The result was Ontario Hydro ran up a huge debt.  So when you think about this logically, the public was too cheap to pay the real costs of electricity, the government didn't have the spine to charge them anyway and so a Crown Corporation allowed the infrastructure collapse while running up a huge a debt which was eventually added back to the government debt which now Ontarians have to pay for afterall.  The only problem is that for as long as electricity rates were/still are subsidized, you get far more waste than if you passed along the real higher costs which would generate real attempts at conservation.
4)  Living Wages - I am in favour of increasing the minimum wage, increasing the basic deduction and providing Canadians with a First-Time Home Buyers Tax Credit of $5000.00 so that people have an incentive to become part of the "Ownership society".



> The United States got to where it is by being at least partially protectionist, while having free-trade with foreign countries. A national policy in antithetical with getting close to an American economy that is currently screwing Americans by employing illegal Mexican labour while attempting to eliminate the minimum wage.



I just don't see us moving in this direction.  In fact, I would argue we're moving much more towards the cradle-to-grave entitlement cultures of Europe than the free-market at any cost of the United States.  Again perhaps you can highlight where the CCCE has promoted either illegal immigration or eliminating the minimum wage because if they've said it, I've never seen it...



> No problem. My main concern is they are either being dishonest or they are simply wrong.
> 
> 1. The U.S. is not actually serious about blocking trade with Canada. They need our oil and gas, and they depend on us to buy their manufactured goods, as Japan and Europe don't buy nearly as much as we do.



They not only buy our energy, but they buy more cars from us, than we buy from them....



> 2. The U.S. is phony about cracking down on the borders, because they allow millions of illegal Mexicans to cross their southern border every year--Arabs could easily do the same.



Agreed.  And this is corporate driven.  There was a special I watched a couple of months ago that showed the number of banks in the Southern USA that were providing Bank Accounts to illegals using their Mexican ID's - something that in itself is illegal.  That being said, most Americans I know are as pissed about this you or I.  The problem is the lobby influence of the Agricultural Groups that rely on illegals to keep wages down.



> 3. They claim to want us to compete with China, but these are the same people whose one-world ideology made China into the power they are today--due to western corporations and also the many stolen secrets and patents China ruthlessly pursues.



I am by no means a fan of the PRC but I accept the fact that by economically stimulating China, their population is much closer to demanding the what we would call Human Rights than are those trapped in Cuba or North Korea whom are isolated.  My own belief is that we should provide access to our markets to other nations that provide reciprocal access to their markets AND who meet a minimum requirement re: democratic principles of their government.



> 4. They claim to want to compete with China, but allow thousands of Chinese immigrants into Canada and the U.S. every year--peopole who are often spies (google 1997 CSIS Sidewinder report) and are often anti-western.



Yep.  The PRC is an "Art of War" based society.  Of note, if you have not read that book - you absolutely have to.  It should be manditory reading.



> 5. They made us depedent on Chinese goods, and bring Chinese people here to take our jobs.



Dependent upon Chinese goods - I would say this has more to do with US corporate culture than Canadian but I would agree with your assessment of the results.  
Chinese People taking jobs - I'm personally a fan of Chinese culture on a larger scale and would allow significant immigration if the decision were mine to make. I also would increase our quota for Koreans, Japanese, East Indians as well.  I would make K-8 public education in English or French manditory.  I do not like ethnic/religous/private schools even though I would allow them for the High School years...



> 6. They claim to be "Improving evironmental standards", but Mexico's laws are never enforced, and Canada's standards are often higher--but with NAFTA we can't ban MMT in our gasoline for fear of legal action again, and if we sign thi NAFTA+ CFR-inspired deal, we will not be able to set our own standards, like keep carcinogenic Bovine Growth Hormone out of our milk--it is in American milk right now.



Yeah, Mexico has been a huge disappointment.  I was really hoping they were going to step up given the opportunity but they haven't.  

RE:  BGH, I'm an organic foods guy so I'm with you on that.  Although I was in Omaha last weekend and I have to tell you I think the girls get an extra cup size out of that milk if you know what I'm sayin....

In any case, I'll look forward to you response.

Best wishes Daniel.



Matthew.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2005)

daniel h: I note your courteous reply to me.  You and I are, I think, so far apart as to be quite unable to reconcile our differences and, unlike Cdn Blackshirt*, I will not attempt a point-by-point reply, but:

"¢	I must assume that you know the minds of the CCCE members better than they themselves, because what you impute and what they say are different - see, e.g.: http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/human/immigration.php for their *position* on immigration.  Perhaps Tom d'Aquino and the members of CCCE all lie - I guess that is the _position_ of the 'left' in Canada.

"¢	The US was, indeed, protectionist and, I fear, it still harbours protectionist tendencies.  (Amongst the many reasons I don't like George W Bush I would list: silly, big-brother, nanny-state overspending and support for protectionism and extraterritoriality.  I like the current crop of Democrats slightly less so, as a Canadian, I accept Bush as the lesser evil.)  The US was not and is not always right, nor was it or is it a good model in everything.

----------

* I don't agree with all his points, either, by the way but, likewise, I will not attempt a point-by-point response.


----------



## Kunu (30 Jun 2005)

> I am not faulting their desire, I am faulting a Canada that insists the finest young Calcutta Med School Grads need to develop their characters by driving cabs in our sub-arctic mill-towns, rather than practising medicine.  Leave them as Doctors in India, and train our own here.



I agree here; specifically asking for certain types of people to immigrate, and then making them deal with excessive red tape and artificially controls imposed by professional societies is very lame.  That being said, I have found from my personal experiences that immigrants who are more willing to adapt to Canadian norms and who come from more liberal minded families do generally tend to be more successful.  Something which of course would set off a firestorm if mentioned via more mainstream channels.  

Btw, excellent post, Cdn Blackshirt


----------



## daniel h. (1 Jul 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> hmmmnnn... We purport to be supportive of the Third World, yet continually skim off their highly trained doctors and engineers.   How is the Third World supposed to advance if we constantly hi-jack the intelectual and political future of their nations?   Who is left to run the show, but the syphilitic Mugabe's and paranoid Khaddafi's?
> 
> Tom




That's also a concern of mine and shows the hypocrisy of egalitarianism. This being said, I highly doubt that many of these nations are that close to being saved. Many are beyond hope.


----------



## daniel h. (1 Jul 2005)

Kilo Mike said:
			
		

> One way is to encourage the development of systems (yes, another can of worms) which provide a reason and incentive for highly skilled people to stay in their home countries and contribute.   To take the example of India, with the past decade of economic reforms and the resultant boom, there is no longer the same concern about any "brain drain" since enough intelligent people are deciding to stick around because of all the opportunities available.
> 
> If an individual has no chance, or sees no real reward for applying the knowledge and skills they have worked so hard to earn, they cannot be blamed for desiring to go to a place where things are different.




There has always been a huge shortage of doctors in the third world...they come here because: 

1 - their countries are hellholes, 2 - they are mostly golddiggers.


----------



## daniel h. (1 Jul 2005)

> You'll need to elaborate on that one.  Saudi Arabia?  Morocco?  Egypt?  Pakistan?  What nations and what incentives?  Most of the stuff I've seen from the CCCE is "for the love of God please import as many engineers as you can get your hands on as domestic schools are producing far too many lawyers and not nearly enough engineers."
> 
> Two issues:
> 1)  Energy - I think the deal basically says "If we're going to integrate so tightly into their economy to a point they become dependent upon our oil supply, it is unreasonable that the energy then somehow becomes a bargaining chip for Canadian Political objectives" which in practical terms makes a lot of sense to me.
> 2)  Manufacturing - I don't know where you got your 1.6 million number but I'm guessing it is coming from a biased source.  Relative to the United States, the Canadian Automotive Industry has done remarkably well.  In particular, strategic initiatives from the CCCE which pushed governments to embrace Japanese manufacturers has been wonderful.  I believe it was just last year that Ontario surpassed Michigan as producing more cars/trucks than any other state/province in the world.  In sharp contrast, if you look at Michigan which is almost solely Big-Three and union-dominated, they are going down the tubes....The manufacturing we are losing to Mexico I don't like because I don't believe they're playing on the same field as we are although I cut that loss some slack because I consider NAFTA to be more of a closed-cycle economy.  Where job losses really hurt is to China as those losses are outside the closed cycle economy of NAFTA and yield almost zero net benefit other than increasing energy demand that would've occurred anyway.



1. Regarding energy it doesn't make sense and even Mexico was exempted. The deal makes it impossible for Canada to set its own prices or reduce exports during a shortage--which matters in a cold country. It also assumed we wish to stay a U.S. protectorate, which many don't. Our oil uis fueling U.S. SUV use, not real U.S. needs.

2. All sources are biased, but I believe it was the Canadian Labour Congress....we lost a nubmber of head offices, which create countless jobs, and we lost a lot of small manufacturing, stuff people don't read much about.....the foreign auto industry you're right seems to bve doing alright....the U.S. is simply uncompetitive because of heallth care and education costs....we lsot lots of jobs when the auto pact was weakened, but gained a lot from Japanese makers, which appears to have been something that hadn't been predicted.



> Again, you're clouding two issues - Debt-Financed Government Spending and Illegal Immigration
> 1)  Debt-Financed Government Spending:  Last time I checked it was dumb Canadian Citizens and not the CCCE that demanded public services (including subsidized post-secondary education) funded by debt.  The CCCE has been at the forefront of calling for debt-reduction which in the long-run pays a fiscal responsibility dividend:  If you carry less principle, you pay less interest, and those savings can be reinvested year-after-year into positive ROI programs such as education.  While we're on education, my own opinion is that governments need to hard-nosed in decided which subjects are going to be subsidized.  I know a lot of people who took subsidized classes for years and ended up with great degrees like Ancient Greek Philosophy, Women's Studies, or Movie Studies.  Short Version:  Should taxpayers subsidize such fields?  My own opinion is you subsidize real skills (most of which come from colleges these days as opposed to Universiities) - Medical, Business, Engineering....and if people want to take 17th Century French Poetry (which should never, ever end up justifying a degree), they should do it on their own nickel.
> 2)  Illegal Immigrants and Foreign Students - In comparison to the USA, we don't have a problem.  Our systems across the board are much tighter and I don't recall ever reading anything by the CCCE they were in favour of either i) Illegal Immigrants or ii) Foreign Student Work Visas.  If you can find something to the contrary, please let me know....



1.  The CCCE has been calling for cuts to services, while at the same time supporting massive cuts to their own taxes which help pay for those services. The long-term debt of our government is so high because our central bank has abdicated its role in keeping our debt down since 1974....our debt is self-inflicted, and had nothing to do with excessive spending, simply interest payments. Regarding education, yes I think people who like to think should be subsidized, as there enough idiots in the world already, and we subsidize the roads they drive on.

2. They are egalitarians, like most business organizations.



> Once again, you've got the cart and the horse in reverse order.   First Canadian Citizens fell in love with the Utopia the Pierre Trudea promised.  Then with their blessing he spent billions on infrastructure on social programs and didn't raise taxes accordingly generating a massive debt.  It was only at a point where the Canadian economy was nearing insolvency did we wise up and reverse course *much to the chigrin of the Canadian Public*.  The bottom line is the CCCE has been the leading voice for fiscal responsibility in Canada for years.
> 
> That has nothing to do with the CCCE and they are frustrated by it too and have public statements to that effect.  In each and every case you will find it is the professional associations that withhold certification for foreign doctors and other specialists that causes the problem because without Canadian accreditation, those immigrant specialists are screwed.  In short, this is Canadian professsionals using their monopoly control position to manipulate the supply/demand curve in their given field.  It's total BS and government should step in to put an end to it, but the CCCE is part of the solution, not the problem.
> 
> Again, where have you seen the CCCE indicate any of these things are a good idea?  The decision around immigration are 100% political and if you're looking for who makes the calls, look at Liberal Party Headquarters....and no, I'm not kidding.  I should add that any time the Conservatives propose something silly like gathering statistics on immigrants from various nations to examine whether we shouldn't be shifting some of the allocations, they are immediately tarred and feathered by the Liberals, the NDP and the media as racist.  Myself, I'd love to know that on average immigrants from 'country X' in their first 5 years in Canada paid $150,000 in taxes and averaged 0.03 crimes/1000 persons while average immigrants from 'Country Y' in their first 5 years in Canada were net recipients of $35,000 in support and averaged 4.50 crimes/1000 persons so that I could shift my allocation to bring in more people from 'Country X' and increase screening on people from 'Country Y'.  Wouldn't you?



1. I wasn't arguing against better immigration policy.

2. Trudeau didn't spend much on infrastructure or social programs, other than multiculturalism. The reason the debt went up so much was the adoption of Milton Friedman's monetarism ideas, which led to the nearly complete privatization of debt.

3. The CCCE's vision of "fiscal responsibility" is the  GOC doing whatever they want. They are not in business to make Canada richer--only their members.    



> Again, a couple of different issues rolled into one statement.
> Lower Corporate Taxes:  When companies decide to invest the infrastructure of a new facility, they look at a multitude of variables including their ability to attract qualified candidates, security of capital, government stability, access to markets and for the bean-counters obviously return on investment.  Since our labour costs are obviously exponentially higher than Mexico, China or India, Canada must bring other assets to the table.  What we do provide is stability, direct access to the US market (pending no terrorist attacks), rule of law, a fairly educated population (again we have to many lawyers and not enough engineers).  So on the numbers side of the equation, since Government cannot control wages, they have one tool to provide a competitive advantage for foreign investors to bring their billions here: Corporate Taxes.  From a government revenue perspective I should add that the reduction in corporate taxes is offset by the increase in personal income taxes by the new direct and indirect workers at the new facility.  From the individuals perspective, their income taxes may remain high but the new facility creates economic stability in their region and results in increased property values, not to mention increase competition amongst businesses for "in demand" specialties which creates increased wages.  Bottom Line:  Lower corporate tax rates result in more jobs, increase rates of pay in the regions where the new facilities are built, as well as a significant wealth effect around increase property values (which generally is ignored by most people).



1. 97% of the investment by these  billionaires is foreign direct investment in the form of takeovers. These people often move head offices to other countries, causing a loss of jobs.

2. Lower corporate tax rates are a race to the bottom. We will never compete with tax-free India, so there is no point intrying. Corporatism is a simplistic, stupid way of looking at the world as it ignores every other factor and corporatism will eventually be replaced with a more enlightened, balances set of ideas.




> If you'd like all these companies who employ Canadian workers to leave, just say so....because that would mean about 40% of Canadian private-sector jobs.  In my opinion, I would be using whatever incentives I could to get foreign investment in Canada to provide jobs.
> 
> ....sorry, I needed to take a deep breath after reading that one.



I care more about Canadian independence that I do about branch plants....but my major concern is we are moving in the wrong direction. We should be restriction freedom of capital in the form of takeovers, and developing our own companies.



> 1)  Leather Couches and BMW's - Most guys I know that own BMW's work 60 hours+ per week and pay a huge chunk of income tax that pays for the subsidized education we were talking about earlier.  The only slightly valid component in your diatribe is that it woudl be better if they bought a Canadian-built vehicle (or at least a US-built vehicle with Canadian-built parts) than a German vehicle.



I meant the CCCE--no they don't work 60 hours a week. Their butlers do.



> 2)  Starting domestic companies - True.  Of note, guys like Paul Martin with CEO backgrounds have dramatically streamlined your ability to start-up small business, cut red tape and have pushed to cut taxes as well, not to mention the various government funding programs available.  Bottom Line:  They are all over that....



I disagree. They have allowed corporate concentration and banking consolidation which makes it very hard to find the capital to fund a competitive project, but yes it can be done.




> 3)  Privatizing Crown Corporations - Although I hate the current system in which I believe 4 of our national crown corporations are headed by ex-members of Jean Chretian's staff, and unions that are nuts, I agree to a certain extent.  I think "the public good" for many of these industries should be more important than "the net income line".  In particular, electrical transmission and roadways should never, ever be privatized and a majority of electrical generation should also be owned by the government (to avoid the mess they created in California).  Where I think there is a huge opportunity is in Public-Private Partnerships for things like Hospitals and Schools.  In essence, private industry buys and develops and maintains the buildings and government leases the space at fixed rates for service life of the building.  This eliminates the ability of CUPE and other Public-Centre Unions to get into those facilities and drive up costs beyond $50/hour for janitorial staff when you work in Medical Benefits and Pension Plans.  Don't forget though one of the primary reasons for problems with companies like Ontario Hydro was the fact that government controlled electricity rates and every time they tried to raise those rates to reflect true costs (or improve infrastructure), the stupid public would vote them out.  The result was Ontario Hydro ran up a huge debt.  So when you think about this logically, the public was too cheap to pay the real costs of electricity, the government didn't have the spine to charge them anyway and so a Crown Corporation allowed the infrastructure collapse while running up a huge a debt which was eventually added back to the government debt which now Ontarians have to pay for afterall.  The only problem is that for as long as electricity rates were/still are subsidized, you get far more waste than if you passed along the real higher costs which would generate real attempts at conservation.




Cheap electricity benefits business and households....Ontario Hydro was poorly run, yes, but still much more efficient than private, corner-cutting utilities in the U.S....Hydro Quebec and Manitoba Hydro are both very reliable and they are also publically owned. P3s are simply a way of sending a profit margin to investors. 



> 4)  Living Wages - I am in favour of increasing the minimum wage, increasing the basic deduction and providing Canadians with a First-Time Home Buyers Tax Credit of $5000.00 so that people have an incentive to become part of the "Ownership society".



Good ideas...however, much of Canada lives in cities, and in some places that would make little difference.....good start though. I meant simply creating the jobs that allowed families to raise 3 kids in the 1960s on 1 wage, (albeit with fewer toys) rather than the disastrous system we have now.



> I just don't see us moving in this direction.  In fact, I would argue we're moving much more towards the cradle-to-grave entitlement cultures of Europe than the free-market at any cost of the United States.  Again perhaps you can highlight where the CCCE has promoted either illegal immigration or eliminating the minimum wage because if they've said it, I've never seen it...



In practice our social programs are much wworse off than they were 20 years ago....it was the U.S. where some states have tried to eliminate minimum wage.



> They not only buy our energy, but they buy more cars from us, than we buy from them....



Yeah, and they take the profits home though.




> Agreed.  And this is corporate driven.  There was a special I watched a couple of months ago that showed the number of banks in the Southern USA that were providing Bank Accounts to illegals using their Mexican ID's - something that in itself is illegal.  That being said, most Americans I know are as pissed about this you or I.  The problem is the lobby influence of the Agricultural Groups that rely on illegals to keep wages down.



I also think it has to do with the whole "one-world" crap that political elites currently believe in.




> I am by no means a fan of the PRC but I accept the fact that by economically stimulating China, their population is much closer to demanding the what we would call Human Rights than are those trapped in Cuba or North Korea whom are isolated.  My own belief is that we should provide access to our markets to other nations that provide reciprocal access to their markets AND who meet a minimum requirement re: democratic principles of their government.
> 
> Yep.  The PRC is an "Art of War" based society.  Of note, if you have not read that book - you absolutely have to.  It should be manditory reading.
> 
> ...



I don't know why you'd want more immigration, but I agree with the rest of what you said.




> Yeah, Mexico has been a huge disappointment.  I was really hoping they were going to step up given the opportunity but they haven't.



In Canada, you go to see a doctor, in Mexico, you are a doctor.





> RE:  BGH, I'm an organic foods guy so I'm with you on that.  Although I was in Omaha last weekend and I have to tell you I think the girls get an extra cup size out of that milk if you know what I'm sayin....
> 
> In any case, I'll look forward to you response.
> 
> ...





I wonder how a kevlar vest would fit on such a person.....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Jul 2005)

> our debt is self-inflicted, and had nothing to do with excessive spending, simply interest payments.



There were a lot things that you said that left my slapping my forehead in disbelief but this one just made me laugh.   ;D

Bottom Line:  You have adopted your economic ideology as your religion and as such I learned a long time ago it is a complete waste of time to argue with anyone regarding "matters of faith".  My one recommendation to you is not to accept the position of being "the outside critic".  Instead invest your time and try to build a better model.  In short, look at Canada's balance sheet/income statement/debt structure/equalization payment structure/ei structure/etc. in comparison to other world models and try to design a system that meets your ideology but that you have actually proven out.  Tell me how moving to the balance of debt towards more short-term debt is a good idea as it reduce our interest payments by $2 billion per year due to realities with the current yield curve.  Tell me about how shifting some debt to Euro-denominated notes appears wise as it should result in further savings as their economic/demographic fundamentals seem to indicate a long-term slide of the Euro vs the $CAD which would dramatically reduce not only our interest costs, but also our net debt.  Tell me about modifying immigration to only allow those groups that have demonstrated a positive ROI over the last 25-years and how you would undo the recent Liberal Party expansion of the allowance for grandparents/parents which economically was mindnumbingly stupid and will likely result in a $XX,000.00 per head net loss for each individual (primarily in health care services rendered whilst providing no tax revenues) over the next 10-15 years.  

In short, anyone can with a half a brain can be a critic, but it takes true wisdom and insight to construct tangible alternative solutions and obviously be able to back them up....

Good Luck Daniel, and if you do put together such a model for Canada that you would like to see implemented (which I hope you do), please post it because I would love to read it.

Cheers,


Matthew.


----------

