turningrite

I'm not an opponent of the idea of a sunset clause. And I agree that public input into the FTA/NAFTA arrangements was cursory, at best. But five years seems a very short time period. It's taken North America almost ten years to recover from the last major recession, for instance. Although I'm not a huge fan of regional trading pacts in general and believe trade is better regulated under WTO rules and procedures, I think a much longer time frame should be set to examine the effectiveness of deals like the NAFTA.

I laughed when I read your first sentence. Visiting the forums would entail taking the time to read them, which apparently isn't one of his strengths. Reportedly, Trudeau isn't much interested in news and current events either. I get the feeling that both of these guys live in echo chambers where they get feedback that conforms to their respective preferences and confirms their preexisting views. That said, I tend to agree with Trump that globalized trade has been rigged. But Canada, other than for its protected supply management sector, isn't a huge offender. The U.S. too is at fault as it doles out generous subsidies to its farmers and some industries and uses it huge military budget to subsidize industrial enterprises in sectors like aerospace. There are few real 'boy scouts' that can claim total innocence where trade is concerned.

Most of us assume the Libs understand the nature of the problem they're creating, or, perhaps more accurately, worsening, right? It's fascinating that they didn't seem overly interested in the homelessness issue until, well, refugee homelessness started to become a political flashpoint. Among people I talk to here in Toronto, several have asked what the refugee influx is doing to the already existing homeless population, particularly given that we're in the midst of an opioid addiction epidemic, the consequences of which are readily apparent on downtown streets, in downtown parks and, presumably, in the shelter system. And as rents continue to skyrocket in places like Toronto and Vancouver, are we very far away from having do deal with a homelessness crisis among seniors and the physically disabled? Has anybody in Ottawa seriously analyzed these issues, or is that too much to expect?

You're correct. I very clearly recall the free trade debate of the 1980s. There were warnings back then that completely integrating the Canadian economy into the American one could lead us into a very difficult situation were the Americans to change course and adopt an isolationist economic policy, as is now happening under Trump. Of course, the Americans have the right to set their own economic policies and with a much smaller economy we have few choices but to accept the consequences. American politicians aren't elected to worry about Canadian interests, after all. It may be that the Libs have no choice here. Metaphorically speaking, we chose our course long ago and we either have to stick with it or sail into uncharted waters. But whatever direction we now choose, we're left without lifeboats or even life jackets if we sail into a tempest. The warnings were sounded, and largely ignored, long ago.

It depends on what you mean by the word "hate." There's been an increasing tendency in the West to equate the meaning of hate merely with perceived offense. This is untenable in the Western intellectual context, which is grounded in a philosophy of challenge and objective criticism. In Canada, for instance, criticism of some religious practices and beliefs is often conflated these days with "phobia" or fear and is thus held to be promoting hatred, even where there's no obvious justification for this conclusion. Even defending secularism, which an eminently reasonable concept in a pluralistic society, gets lumped by some into the category of promoting hatred. We need to get back to basics here, and acknowledge the primacy of free speech before we lose sight of the virtues of Western intellectual inquiry and criticism.

Undoubtedly, American military and economic power is waning relative to the rest of the world. But we should be wary about celebrating this. As economic power and prestige strengthens in what we now describe as the 'developing world,' we may have to make policy choices that could for many be unpalatable. The international order largely built by American fiat after WWII has been the basis of generally prolonged peace and prosperity for most in the West. Replacing America's often irksome influence might just turn out to be a bigger nightmare than we've bargained for. As my mother used to say, it's dangerous to dive into water without knowing what's below the surface.

Generally speaking, I oppose the concept of censorship. I do, however, believe it necessary to restrict speech that's intended to incite violence against members of any specific group, which historically has been the intent of hate speech laws in democratic countries. In a free and democratic society, there must be no topics that are presumptively deemed to be beyond the realm of public discourse. The role of a responsible citizenry is to ensure that debate is fairly and civilly conducted. The tendency to bully others into silence has seemingly increased, and particularly so in academia, which is disturbing. Democracy can't survive without freedom of speech and anybody who says otherwise is either a fool or is taking the rest of us for fools.

I believe Vermont's slavery ban was more symbolic than practically effective as slavery continued to be practiced in the state for several years following the ban, as has been noted in academic analyses. In most other Northeastern states, I believe slavery was gradually but effectively curtailed over time by the courts, as was the case in British North America as well. As for systemic anti-black racism, could you point out a circumstance in Canada where systemic (i.e. institutionalized) civil rights violations existed and were sustained against blacks into the modern era? Unlike in the U.S., Canada, for instance, didn't practice segregation in its armed forces and as far as I'm aware didn't formally apply legalized voting restrictions against black citizens. Of course, there was social and economic discrimination against blacks, as was the case with many other minorities as equally was the case throughout much of the world. Ironically, one of the motivations for Upper Canada's 1793 legislated slavery ban may have been to disincentivize new settlers, mainly arriving from the U.S., from bringing blacks into the colony. It would be interesting to know whether this was the case as the incidence of slavery reportedly rose substantially with the influx of Loyalists following the American Revolution.

Italy has a new populist government. It's not surprising that it's going to defend the interests of its workers and farmers. A new paradigm seems to be emerging in much of the West in opposition to the impacts of globalization. Will leaders like Trudeau, who's beholden to what for many is a failed economic model, be able to bridge the gap merely by inserting words like "progressive" into these investor-focused deals? Trump is correct that we need fair trade in the world economy, which is not where globalization has led. I doubt that Trudeau really understands what fair trade means or entails. Trudeau should be looking for commonality with other Western countries, including the U.S., rather than simply lashing out about unfair tariffs and the like. The whole structure is unfair and, as it turns out, might turn out to be little more than a house of cards. My (now late) father warned of this in the 1980s when the great "free trade" debate was in play. He said that in a "free trade" environment it would only take one contrarian American leader to lay waste to the fragile system the Mulroney government was promoting. He believed the FTA (and its late iteration, the NAFTA) would not provide permanent unfettered access to the American market. And he was a businessman. Hmmm....

It seems to me that you've lost the argument here and are now just shouting.

Your argument about anti-black racism in Canada is not in fact entirely correct. I believe Upper Canada (Ontario) was the first jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere and within the British Empire to ban slavery when its colonial legislature enacted legislation to do so in 1793, long before slavery was banned throughout the British Empire in the 1830s. The notion that slavery didn't survive merely because of the small number of blacks living in British North America is somewhat specious. Slavery increased along with the arrival of Loyalists from the American States in the 1780s, some of whom brought slaves with them, which by some estimates expanded the practice by 300 to 400 percent, but it was quickly shut down due both to a legislative response (as in Upper Canada) and by the courts, which simply refused to enforce the rights of slaveholders. While blacks have, of course, faced social and economic discrimination in Canada, this has not substantially been predicated by an institutional or legal framework that has intended to create the situation. In fact, it might well be argued that some other minorities have from an institutional perspective been treated more harshly. Canada's treatment of its indigenous peoples, on the other hand, remains a stain on the country's psyche and reputation. It is an issue the country is only now beginning to comprehensively address.

I read a Toronto Star article this morning about the reasoning of Ford voters. I believe the principal motivation of these voters was to see the government rein in public sector spending. Other motives were in play as well, including a belief that the minimum wage increase was too fast and opposition to more taxation, including the carbon tax. Somehow, these voters seem to have got it into their minds that costly new programs being promoted by the Libs and NDP would have to be paid for by somebody. Imagine that! And consumption-based taxation like carbon taxes tend to most severely impact those "low iq" voters for whom you express apparent contempt. Many of these voters apparently had reservations about Ford's baggage but were more convinced by economic reasoning. Maybe they're not so stupid after all?

Oh my, how should I start to respond? I'll be short here: Under international law nations have a right to self-defense. Afghanistan was attacked because its then-governing regime was permitting its territory to be used as a base by al Qaeda, which perpetrated the 9-11 attacks. The role of Saudi Arabia is often debated as most of the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks were from that country, however Bin Laden's organization and its form of Wahabi extremism have generally been seen as potential threats to the interests of the Saudi regime, which for better or worse was and remains a U.S. and Western ally.

What academic or legal opinions can you cite to support your contention that the War in Afghanistan was illegal? Anything I've read on the topic has concluded that it was a legally valid action according to the terms of the UN Charter, which permits self-defense. In case you don't remember, the U.S. was attacked in 2001 by an organization, al Qaeda, that was being permitted to operate from Afghanistan. NATO approved military action in response to the 2001 attacks and in my recollection the UN did not condemn the response. And your second point is somewhat ridiculous. Of course, torture is banned under international law, whatever the age of those subjected to it. Its use by the Americans at Gitmo has been controversial, both inside the U.S. and internationally. The U.S. government and military, however, have adopted a policy of exceptionalism, whereby international law is not held to apply outside of U.S. territory where U.S. military and security interests are at stake. And there is no general prohibition on prosecuting child combatants for war crimes, nor should there be unless of course you'd like to see unscrupulous regimes and organizations take advantage of such impunity to encourage the greater deployment of children in armed struggles.

I'm not sure there's much that can be said at this point to justify the residential school system. Its objective was assimilation and in that it failed even if at the time it was pretty commonly held to be a laudable goal. Removing children from their families and communities is not generally seen these days in a positive light. The fact that it was done by state fiat to achieve an objective that had little specifically to do with the welfare of the affected children renders it cruel. We have to acknowledge past mistakes where they have been made, even if in the day it was believed there was a valid justification. Who today would speak in favour of turning back the MS St. Louis which carried Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany or defend the forced internment and confiscation of the property of Japanese Canadians during WWII? I tend to resist the tendency to "presentism" that often accompanies assertions of past wrongdoing. But some actions are simply wrong and have long lasting or even permanent negative implications for those impacted. It is not harmful to admit that these mistakes were made.

Trump would have to get the U.S. Congress to commit to subsidy reductions and the dairy lobby is very powerful in some parts of the U.S., as is the case here. I haven't yet heard him specifically admit to the extent of subsidy protection afforded the American dairy industry. He tends to cite stats that favour his own positions and ignore facts that don't. As for consumers getting the products they want, I tend to agree with you. However, trade negotiators often address regulatory differences under the heading of "non-tariff barriers" to trade. I seriously doubt that Canada's stricter regulatory regime wouldn't be challenged. In an ideal world, Canada could maintain its regulations and offer consumers throughout North America more choice. In the real world, the regulatory situation is unlikely to fly under the radar. Reportedly, Canada had to make concessions on dairy regulations in the TPP negotiations. My guess is that negotiations with the Americans on dairy would be much tougher.

I'm responding not only to your quote above but to other comments you've made on this topic. It seems you're operating under some misconceptions. First of all, unlike Bush II's Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan (2001-2014) was not illegally conducted. I believe it was sanctioned by NATO and as far as I'm aware the U.S.-led invasion was legitimately considered a form of self-defense based on the UN Charter. Further, you seem to have a false impression regarding the treatment of what are categorized as child soldiers. International law does not prohibit state or non-state combatants who are under the age of 18 from being prosecuted for war crimes. Instead, it restricts the types of punishments to which they can be subjected, including prohibiting capital punishment for committing such crimes. There is a very good reason for allowing child combatants to be prosecuted for war crimes as granting immunity from prosecution would very likely encourage increased recruiting and deployment of child combatants, particularly to commit the most heinous acts.

The problem with the American position on supply management is the enormous subsidies paid to support their dairy industry. In Canada, subsidies are directly paid by consumers in the form of artificially higher prices while in the U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. These practices create problems where the concept of "free trade" is concerned as subsidies are more insidiously oblique than are tariffs. That said, if Canada won't even discuss opening up its dairy market we have no chance to discuss with the Americans the issue of their subsidy regime and arrive at a conclusion that either equalizes or neutralizes the impacts of these market skewing policies. The other issue Americans have with Canada where dairy is concerned is regulatory as Canadian dairy products don't contain growth hormones like BGH or BST while U.S. products often do. I'm not sure Canadian consumers want to adopt American standards on this. Surely, however, many American consumers might be enticed by the option of having hormone-free dairy products more available to them.

That's true. But the history of anti-black racism is much different in Canada in comparison to the situation in the U.S., where it is institutionally and culturally ingrained as a result of historical circumstances. This week, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a restrictive voter registration law in Ohio that many critics believe disproportionately impacts black voters. It's almost inconceivable that such a law would either be enacted or withstand a court challenge in Canada. Racism, of course, is often practiced at the individual level. Canada has its own problematic history of systematic exclusion and repression, particularly with its indigenous peoples, but in contrast with the situation in the U.S., systemic discrimination against black people is neither a general nor intractable feature of Canadian law and society.

Although some in Canada would like us to believe otherwise, anti-black racism in Canada is different from that in the U.S., as my educated white American mother used to point out. She often noted that she was raised to be terrified of black people and to believe that separation of the races was the only practical means of coexistence. She said that when she was growing up (in the North) in the 1930 and 1940s official segregation was the law in much of the South and unofficial segregation remained a practice in much of the North. I think the American racial consciousness is largely grounded in a deeply (but at least now acknowledged) problematic history. Canada has a different history and a different experience. Anti-black racism certainly existed here in the past and still exists today. But it is not historically ingrained. Personally, I'm skeptical about arguments that it is a "systemic" aspect of Canadian society, although anti-indigenous systemic racism has existed and to some extent remains relevant. I think there's too strong a tendency, especially among activists, to broadly and inaccurately ascribe American experiences, attitudes and problems to Canadian contexts. As for the falsely reported hijab attack, I don't know that the public was ever fully informed of its motives. But it certainly contributes to skepticism about the veracity of claims of racial or religious intolerance. I think the PM, activists and media who played up the story owed Canadians a big apology, which in my recollection we didn't get.

I doubt that Quebec's Francophone intelligentsia claim JT as one of their own. He studied, in English I believe, at McGill and almost certainly in English at UBC. Quebec politicians tend to reflect a broad ideological range. I think many English-speaking Canadians have an unrealistic view of Quebec. While it is undoubtedly, due to language, a distinct and often insular place, it's not inhabited by unreasonable people. It's population tends to reflect social views and trends often more similar to its French-speaking counterparts in Western Europe than to those held more commonly throughout English-speaking North America. But is this any big surprise? Quebec's political relationship with the rest of Canada is interesting and to some extent the view that it gets special treatment is justified. However, that's been the price paid to maintain national unity in what is an otherwise unlikely country. Western Canada also has the ability to assert its interests at the ballot box and many believe this actually occurred during the Harper era. However, what we're now witnessing is squabbling between Western Canadians themselves, as in the pipeline fight between B.C. and Alberta. And Ford's election in Ontario might well ally his province with Alberta and Saskatchewan in resisting Trudeau's national carbon tax regime. Alliances can be very fluid, as it turns out.

Robert Greene: He's one-quarter French-Canadian. I believe three of his grandparents have mainly British Isles ancestry. So, he's pretty mainstream Canadian, as far as I can ascertain. There's no shame in that, although Trudeau himself seems to shun the concept of being mainstream. My ancestry is a mixture of French, Irish and Portuguese but I see myself as being mainstream Canadian. I believe his predominant ancestry is Scottish, which he has on both his mother's and his father's side and some have noted a facial resemblance to Sir John A. Macdonald. Say it isn't so! His father made sure he learned French (as I wish my parents had done for me) but I believe that psychologically he's far closer to his mother.

I'm not sure what you mean by the terms "deep state" and "deep province" in this context? To me, if one wants to summarize their general policy approaches, the Wynne Libs, and in many aspects the Trudeau Libs, seem to have embraced a philosophy of deep incompetence. In Wynne's case, the incompetence was so apparent that by early 2015 she'd blown any chance at being reelected. As for Trudeau, given his government's poor performance on several files, including democratic renewal, indigenous affairs, pipeline politics and, maybe most importantly because it's undermining his government's support even among its base, its handling of the "irregular" migrant fiasco, polling indicates steadily eroding voter support. This isn't deep state stuff. In my opinion it's just plain old garden variety incompetence.

If success is measured merely by the fact that these two leaders met with each other, I guess that counts for something. But, as many in the U.S. media are reporting, Kim gave up almost nothing, agreed to no new nuclear concessions and wasn't made to respond to human rights concerns. He comes off the big winner and Trump will try to claim victory based on the mere fact that he's established a rapport with the hermit regime in NK. I think Kim played Trump like a fiddle in all of this. NK had the weaker hand to play but its regime has clearly won by enhancing its legitimacy. Time will tell if the relationship between Trump and Kim amounts to anything substantial. However, at this point, Obama's Iran deal far exceeds in actual importance anything that's been accomplished in Singapore over the past couple days.

I've changed my mind a bit on this fiasco as it's evolved over the past few days. Trump obviously expects Canada and other allies to be subservient to U.S. interests and the Trudeau government's approach of pursuing Canadian interests at various levels, including with members of Congress, state politicians, in the U.S. media and among American business interests has clearly achieved some level of effectiveness as it's irritated Trump and caused him to react in a fashion that undermines his own legitimacy. That being said, our negotiating positions on three issues undermine the government's strategy. First, we have to come to terms with the impact of our supply management system and find a way to start winding it down. Otherwise, our trade strategy will always to some extent be undermined. Second, why we maintain an attachment to a dispute resolution mechanism that has only been used against our interests remains an utter mystery. Is this issue worth sacrificing our broader trade interests and objectives? Finally, while a five year sunset clause is probably far too short a period to assess the effectiveness of changes made to a trade agreement, the idea of periodic review could serve the interests of all parties. In summary, the Trudeau government's outreach strategy seems to be irritating Trump, which could indicate that it's achieved some effect and has substantiated the reality Trump never really intended to bargain in good faith, but the government's priorities need to be re-evaluated if a renegotiated deal has any realistic chance of success.