This is rubbish. But it's based on an assumption that we don't have a choice. Meanwhile, Tom d'Aquino, who heads the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and speaks on its behalf, embarked on a tour of five U.S. cities where he chose to adopt a Blame Canada attitude and bad-mouth his own country.
Arguing that "Canada has to get its act together," d'Aquino denounced the Martin government for not participating in BMD, arguing it was "bent on political survival and pandering to vocal opponents both within its own party and Parliament," and implying this was the only reason for non-participation. D'Aquino's organization had, of course, strongly supported U.S. policy.
A recent report from the American Assembly, Renewing the U.S.-Canada Relationship — based on a meeting of Canadians and Americans — contains a similar Blame Canada mentality. For example, it criticizes Canada for "equivocating" over participating in the war against Iraq and "jarring" the United States with its resistance to "U.S. leadership."
Ignored were Canada's U.N. efforts at the time to find better evidence that weapons of mass destruction actually existed in Iraq since the Bush administration claimed the existence of such weapons was the reason for war. There were no such weapons and the reason for war was phoney.
This same assembly also attacked Canada for participating in the Kyoto Accord. "If Canada actually implements limits on carbon dioxide, the likely result will be relatively higher energy costs in Canada combined with a movement of investment and jobs, and especially pollution, to the United States." No evidence was offered for this and there was no suggestion that it was the United States, not Canada, that was at fault on climate change.
This week we got another one of these fear-based reports — Creating a North American Community — from former deputy prime minister John Manley, former Mexican finance minister Pedro Aspe, and former Massachusetts governor William Weld. The report called for some kind of customs union, which would have the eventual effect of eliminating much of a future Canadian role in global trade policy, and a security perimeter to create a Fortress North America, including harmonization of Canadian immigration policies to those of the United States.
The report, written for the independent U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations, also called for replacement of the Kyoto Accord by some kind of North American alternative that would be acceptable to the Bush administration.
Not to be outdone, former CAE Inc. CEO Derek Burney gave a lecture at Carleton University in which he attacked the Canadian focus on multilateralism, arguing that without U.S. participation this has "limited effect.".......
Executives too eager to rebuke Canada [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 19, 2005]
Stumble It!
---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
Gee, sounds like Tom finds this whole 'democracy' thing a bit of a nuisance.
As we didn't have a referendum on the BMD issue, the actual perspective of Canadians as validated by votes can not be known. However, last I heard some 80% of Canadians polled weren't keen on the BMD.
Guess government shouldn't be 'pandering' to the views of Canadian citizens either.
---
"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).
http://directdemocracycanada.ca
We need to start pising off Uncle sam.
We have to get ourselves going as a nation,free of NAFTA.
There is nothing to be afraid of.
Somebody has to get this stuff on tape and leak it.
Having had the pleasure of dealing with such people before, though not those at the top of this food chain, I can only suggest that not all Canadian businesspeople fit this mould. Specifically, I would generalize that those that actually care about their business do not. Those more interested in their social status, do.
There are some who do fit the mould, and to hear them talk, they truly seem to despise everything about this country. But it all comes down to one simple thing: their counterparts in the U.S. earn more than they do, so their measure of success necessitates this craven sort of envy.
http://directdemocracycanada.ca
Ahh, but there's the rub: how certain is that size and economic power, and on what basis might a democracy be entitled to discriminate?
I once read a quite narrow treatment of "socialism" in an old encyclopedia (think it was an ancient Brittanica, can't recall) that simply defined it as a system of government in which industries tending to form natural monopolies are regulated by a democratic electorate. I believe this was qualified to mean must-have public services in which there were fewer than twelve independent competitors, but I might be mistaken.
Anyway, that's tangential: the question remains: how do you decide who to regulate, and make it "fair"?
First, in many cases it is not who the government should control. The question is why does the government use its powers to promote specific corporate agendas. The Liberals are well known for promoting large corporations either through special tax breaks (oil), subsidies (aerospace industry), or through policy (the special privileges for certain corporations in facilitating border crossing not available to smaller exporters).
Secong, agreement such as NAFTA gives powers to foreign owners that are not available to domestically owned corporations in order to control the ability of government to govern in the best interests of nation.
Third, while government has used its powers to redistribute wealth it has become more prone in the last couple of decades to use its powers to assist capital accumulation. Transferring the tax burden from corporations to individual tax payers and lowering the obligations of corporations are two such polities. While this may help companies globalize and give them greater fiscal capacity it does nothing for the national economy.
Keeping markets competitive is a major challenge and in smaller markets government regulated or owned monopolities may be the only solution. This is why I have so much problem with ideological parties because I believe that different solutions may suit in different situations and at different periods of time. The idea that every problem can be solved by either "free" markets or government control is too restricting.
Canadians stand for nothing in the world today, it seems many so-called Canadians believe there are so many shades of grey in every situation, that anything can be justified - so they don't want to take a stand for anything. Instead these so-called Canadians amuse themselves by attacking people who do have principles, strange but true.
Where anon writes: "Executives are pointing out that the juvenile petulance of many so-called Canadians is bad for business, they have a responsibility to point this out because it's their employees who get laid off and their shareholders who lose their savings."
Aside from the fact that the historical record suggests this claim is bunk, and aisde from the obviousness of discounting any self-interested corporate pressure like this on the political process, anon's
"Canadians stand for nothing in the world today,"
is ABSURD. Canadians who, according to this poster, risk their jobs and stability in order to overwhelmingly oppose what they believe to be an errant and dangerous foreign policy, stand for nothing. Instead, it is these executives, craven enough to tie PRIMARILY their economic concerns to war-making decisions, who are the ones to be commended for the accuracy of their moral compass.