US Trade Rep Might Challenge Canada's Media Laws

[tml12]

As Harper put it, the Liberals allowed relations to get so bad, Bush just doesn't seem to care about Canada's interests.

That's true, too.

I tried explaining this to people outside the USA who don't like Bush.

I don't like Bush either.

But all the screaming and hatred towards Americans who vote for him doesn't do them a whit of good.

Why?

If the prevailing assumption is that Canada or the EU is going to criticise the USA and slam its citizens and leadership no matter what the USA does, then why shouldn't the USA just do what it wants to do and ignore the EU and Canada alike? There's been no detriment to it so far.

What's Canada going to do to the Americans anyway? Sell its oil to China instead? Does Canada really think it's in a position to threaten the United States?

Good Lord, I wish people would grow brains on these issues. If you want to influence American policy and American voters, do it by making the success of Canada important, personally and economically, to Americans -- with things like a real free trade zone, removing restrictions on professional services, eliminating restrictions on work and residency, etc., etc., etc. Otherwise, all you're doing is chopping off your nose to spite your face.

You're right again.

I am no fan of Bush...I liked his father much more. When you stray too far from the centre, I don't like it. I am quite moderate, perhaps I lean right more than left (if only because I come from a family of management lawyers and I live in Quebec where unions strike so much a friend of mine from France said it made it look like there hadn't been a strike in France in 50 yeear...I probably should add, I have been in union before ).

I think Harper should look forward to getting an invitation to go to Bush's ranch and talk about how he can improve relations and respect Canadian sovereignty. This is a big chance for both men to put their countries before ideology and pass racism.

[Yaro]

What's Canada going to do to the Americans anyway? Sell its oil to China instead? Does Canada really think it's in a position to threaten the United States?

And if Canada decided to, what is the US going to do? Invade?

If the prevailing assumption is that Canada or the EU is going to criticise the USA and slam its citizens and leadership no matter what the USA does, then why shouldn't the USA just do what it wants to do and ignore the EU and Canada alike? There's been no detriment to it so far.

Do you seriously believe this? Do you have any idea how desperate the US is to get some financial help in Iraq and Afghanistan? You do realize that the EU is a bigger market then the US right? And that they are both China's and India's biggest trading partners? You do realize that Canada is the richest resource country in the world right? You do realize that the US debt load is so massive that it may already be past the point of no return right? That the total per person debt in the US is larger then it was in New Zealand when they declared bankruptcy? The US is in no position to threaten anyone with anything other then a conventional military assault, which is virtually meaningless.

I think Harper should look forward to getting an invitation to go to Bush's ranch and talk about how he can improve relations and respect Canadian sovereignty. This is a big chance for both men to put their countries before ideology and pass racism.

I think Harper is in for a huge shock when he realizes just how difficult the current US administration is to deal with.

Good Lord, I wish people would grow brains on these issues. If you want to influence American policy and American voters, do it by making the success of Canada important, personally and economically, to Americans -- with things like a real free trade zone, removing restrictions on professional services, eliminating restrictions on work and residency, etc., etc., etc. Otherwise, all you're doing is chopping off your nose to spite your face.

Canada is not large enough to become a significant influence on American policy in any of the ways you suggest, in fact the only way that Canada can maintain any influence on the US is by maintaining control of our natural resources. Free trade does just the opposite, it completely negates any influence Canada has on the US. Your logic is ass backwards.

[tml12]

"I think Harper is in for a huge shock when he realizes just how difficult the current US administration is to deal with."

It is very clear that on our relationship with the Americans, a "Prime Minister Yaro" would take a VERY protectionist outlook while "Prime Minister tml12" would take a much more "and what can we do for each other?" outlook.

Yes Bush is hard to deal with. Bush is not every American president...Bush is just the guy that is there now. Remember Mulrooney? I wasn't his biggest fan, but when he called Reagan he could get what he wanted. That is the kind of relationship we need now.

[YankAbroad]

Do you have any idea how desperate the US is to get some financial help in Iraq and Afghanistan? You do realize that the EU is a bigger market then the US right?

Oh sure.

But we can pull out of Afghanistan.

And there's no way a Canadian alliance with the EU would give it the breadth and depth of market access that Canada has now in the USA.

Don't be foolish -- constant isolation of the United States isn't good for Canada. Most American foreign policy has had huge benefits for Canada (even if Canadians don't realize it) because it strengthens the market where the vast majority of Canadian goods and services are sold.

Bush is hard to deal with. Bush is not every American president

Yep, and laying the groundwork now will help things later after Bush leaves office in just under three years' time.

[tml12]

"Don't be foolish -- constant isolation of the United States isn't good for Canada. Most American foreign policy has had huge benefits for Canada (even if Canadians don't realize it) because it strengthens the market where the vast majority of Canadian goods and services are sold."

I think every Canadian who is anti-American should spend time flauting their "pro-Canada we are not the U.S. don't you love us now?" attitude for two years in some European and South American countries.

How long would you give them...three days???

[YankAbroad]

If that.

I know a Liberal Party gal who is all for Canada leaving NAFTA and joining the EU.

That assumes that:

1) The EU would accept Canada -- which is doubtful;

2) That Canadians would want their income taxes to soar to pay for social benefits in Eastern Europe.

Oh and BTW, if you think Canadian sovereignty is "under attack from the Americans," wait until Brussels gets done with Canadian sovereignty. You'll might as well shut down Ottawa and send the MPs home.

[Riverwind]

I know a Liberal Party gal who is all for Canada leaving NAFTA and joining the EU.

The idea is so rediculous it is funny. The WTO is the only thing left if Canada pulls out of NAFTA - and the WTO does not provide much protection from protectism.

[tml12]

YankAbroad,

"If that."

Good response!

"I know a Liberal Party gal who is all for Canada leaving NAFTA and joining the EU."

[5-6 minutes later after a crying fit of laughter, getting up, getting a glass of water, drinking the water, taking a deep breath, throwing the previously almost full box of tissues away]. But then, if for NO other reason, the Liberals would have to protect Canadian sovereignty against the EU. The Liberal leadership race should get interesting now...

"That assumes that:

1) The EU would accept Canada -- which is doubtful;

2) That Canadians would want their income taxes to soar to pay for social benefits in Eastern Europe."

1) The EU would not accept Canada.

2) Alberta would flat out separate...Ontario might stick around for awhile...

"Oh and BTW, if you think Canadian sovereignty is "under attack from the Americans," wait until Brussels gets done with Canadian sovereignty. You'll might as well shut down Ottawa and send the MPs home."

From what I have read about EU politics, I understand British hesitance in pushing the UK towards full participation. Your Liberal friend, however, needs to live in France for awhile.

[YankAbroad]

She's another "proud Canadian federalist" who spent years studying Chomsky but couldn't spend any time studying French, I'm afraid. So she'd not do too well.

[mcqueen625]

I would welcome that initiative with open arms because I am sick to death of mediocre Canadian productions not only subsidized by Canadian tax-dollars, but in many cases paid for outright with tax-payer's dollars.

Then stop buying it if you do not like it. Easy.

I have satellite through Bell ExpressVu and the movie channel are not even woth subscribing to since most of it is either dubbed or subtitled. On top of that I am forced to subscribe and pay for channels I cannot understand nor do I want because they are produced in the French language. I have no problem in having French channels on the air, but let those who want to subscribe to them pay the costs of those those stations, don't legislate that we all must pay. I would rather watch American programming since it is produce primarily in the English language. That's not being bigoted or discriminatory that's just a fact of life, that I souldn't have to pay for something I do not want.

Looks like you ARE paying for what you don't want. Cancell the service is quite easy.Find a new service that gives you what you want. Stop complaining and just go to a different company. You have the choice. And we all know the courts voted in favour of Canada in each of these disputes regarding lumber with the US.

Tell me, how do I stop buying it or supporting it when the CRTC rams this shit down our throats? How do they ram it down our throats? By making it compulsory for cable or satellite or radio companies to include Canadian content. Much of it the poor cousin of the American versions, with talentless participants. If these mediocre actors and actresses were any good they would already be south of the border, butthey hang around in Canada because someone will tell them how great they are with my tax-dollars.

[mcqueen625]

If that.

I know a Liberal Party gal who is all for Canada leaving NAFTA and joining the EU.

That assumes that:

1) The EU would accept Canada -- which is doubtful;

2) That Canadians would want their income taxes to soar to pay for social benefits in Eastern Europe.

Oh and BTW, if you think Canadian sovereignty is "under attack from the Americans," wait until Brussels gets done with Canadian sovereignty. You'll might as well shut down Ottawa and send the MPs home.

Bright suggestion considering Canadian's hate the GST at 7%, how about trying 35% in Denmark, and the payroll taxes total about 50% of your gross salary. My best friend's sister married a Dane, and when she was home last Fall she thought that $1.05 per litre for gasoline was cheap considering that the same litre costs over $2.50 Canadian in Denmark. Thanks but no thanks, I don't want Belgium and Germany dictating my life, I would much rather it be the United States.

[mcqueen625]

I would welcome that initiative with open arms because I am sick to death of mediocre Canadian productions not only subsidized by Canadian tax-dollars, but in many cases paid for outright with tax-payer's dollars.

Then stop buying it if you do not like it. Easy.

I have satellite through Bell ExpressVu and the movie channel are not even woth subscribing to since most of it is either dubbed or subtitled. On top of that I am forced to subscribe and pay for channels I cannot understand nor do I want because they are produced in the French language. I have no problem in having French channels on the air, but let those who want to subscribe to them pay the costs of those those stations, don't legislate that we all must pay. I would rather watch American programming since it is produce primarily in the English language. That's not being bigoted or discriminatory that's just a fact of life, that I souldn't have to pay for something I do not want.

Looks like you ARE paying for what you don't want. Cancell the service is quite easy.Find a new service that gives you what you want. Stop complaining and just go to a different company. You have the choice. And we all know the courts voted in favour of Canada in each of these disputes regarding lumber with the US.

The problem is that in Canada it makes little difference which company you subscribe to the because the CRTC's Canadian content rules apply. You CANNOT pick which stations you want and which stations you don't want, you simply get to pick packages which includes even those channels that you don't want and you have to pay for them even though you don't watch them or in many cases understand them. Canada is portrayed as a country of choices, but when it comes to radio or television there is only one choice, take it or leave it period!

[mcqueen625]

The cost increases are still lower than the subsidies. The net result remains selling lumber below cost.

The trade panel did the calculations and ruled that there was no net subsidy. You are just repeating the baseless allegations of the US lobby.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to see the tariff go. I think Canada's culture and media laws, various anti-competitive tariffs on both sides of the border, and restrictions on labour mobility should all disappear.

So when do you think the US will open its border to unrestricted immigration from Mexico?

Culture is not a commodity to be traded like lumber - virtually every country in the world feels the same way. There is no way media developed for a target audience of 30 million people can compete on a level playing field with media developed for a target audience of 300 million people.

That said, Canadian media laws are fair to foreign producers since no one is prevented from selling their products in Canada. The only thing that the regulations do is ensure that Canadian products have a chance.

Canadian media laws do far more than to just give Canadian productions a chance, they are in fact shoved down our throats using Canadian content rules, and much of it is not fit for general audiences.. Take for instance the Movie Network or Movie Central vs. HBO in the U.S. The former is loaded with crap which is either sub-titled or dubbed because much of it is produced in a language that less than 30% of Canadian speak. The cable industry has the technology to allow subscribers to pick individual channels while rejecting those that they either cannot understand or do not want, but the CRTC does not allow for that choice. They know for instance that if all Canadian's are given that choice that most of the productions produced in Quebec in the French language would go bankrupt overnight due to lack of subscribers to pay for it. The same fate would await many of the specialty channels like the Movie Network, HGTV, and many other wanabes. Many of our productions are simply cheap imitations of their American counterparts, and the cheap shows through blatantly in the lack of talent and quality. Canadian Idol is an example of inferior productions, when the host himself got his job with absolutely no talent, and the judges are WHO???

[YankAbroad]

So when do you think the US will open its border to unrestricted immigration from Mexico?

Hopefully soon.

Immigration is a net positive for the economy, and we never did better than we did when we had unlimited immigration.

Canada should consider unlimited immigration as well -- it has lots of empty provinces to fill up, and the demographic time bomb of Canada's low birth rate is ticking, ticking, ticking. . .

[Riverwind]

Immigration is a net positive for the economy, and we never did better than we did when we had unlimited immigration.

Strictly controlled immigration is a positive thing. Unlimited immigration would just turn Canada into a country like India or China with massive underclass living in poverty and with no access to social services.

[YankAbroad]

That's not true.

If Canada was a society which rewarded hard work and initiative, rather than parcelled out social entitlements it cannot afford, it would attract the best and brightest -- the people willing to work.

Once North America decided that it wanted to turn into a big socialist blob, we just became a dumber, less populated version of Europe. And we denied hundreds of millions of people the opportunity to come to our countries and make something of themselves -- all so that we could keep "free" health care (which we pay for by borrowing against our grandkids' futures) and a bunch of other government cruft which has no real value and doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Send me the smart hard working people from Mexico, India, China, everywhere where people seek freedom and opportunity and a chance at a better life for themselves if they work hard. Keeping our countries "exclusive" and "strictly controlled" has just turned us into corpulent cultural and economic gulags -- also-rans in the global game.

[Riverwind]

If Canada was a society which rewarded hard work and initiative, rather than parcelled out social entitlements it cannot afford, it would attract the best and brightest -- the people willing to work.

In other words you are agreeing with me. Unlimited immigration would create a society where social darwinism is the only virtue and a massive poor underclass is not only inevitable but desirable because it provides an incentive to 'work harder'.

Massive immigration pushes down labour costs which only benefits elites that already have money. Sure there will a few rags to riches stories but these are largely irrelevant in face of a statistics that show people who are born rich usually stay rich and those who are born poor usually stay poor.

One of the most important things a government can is provide equality of opportunity - i.e. government can make sure that everyone no matter what their background has an chance to move up the social ladder if they have the skills and motivation. Governments do this by providing quality education, healthcare and ensure controlling crime. Allowing unchecked immigration would make it immpossible to provide these services because the demand would always exceed the capacity of the govt to provide it.

BTW - note that I said equality of opportunity - not equality of outcome.

[YankAbroad]

Unlimited immigration would create a society where social darwinism is the only virtue

Huh?

The present system that we have is brutal and far from "equal."

a massive poor underclass is not only inevitable but desirable because it provides an incentive to 'work harder'

Again, huh?

America, Canada and Australia all saw their economies surge and living standards improve during their high immigration days. And every economic study ever conducted indicates that immigrants grow economic performance and average income across the board, which only makes sense. New Canadians and Americans need jobs, homes, food, etc. which creates new economic activity.

government can make sure that everyone no matter what their background has an chance to move up the social ladder if they have the skills and motivation

Nope. All government can do is take $1.00 out of your pocket, spent 40 cents of it on its own bureaucracy, give another 25 cents to someone else, then hand you back 35 cents and tell you that it gave you 35 cents of subsidy.

Opportunity and upward mobility isn't created by government, it comes from a dynamic and competitive free market which rewards people based on their hard work and initiative, rather than skin colour, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

would make it immpossible to provide these services because the demand would always exceed the capacity of the govt to provide it

Government should be providing only police, courts, and military defence. Most of the other government bureaucracies we've built up do nothing but take steam out of the economy, increase our taxes, and ensure lower standards of living.

If government assumed only its proper role in society, rather than viewing itself as a redistributionist "change agent," most of your objections wouldn't be valid.

Really, the reason we've restricted immigration is because too many fat Americans and fat Canadians are riding the government gravy train and don't want to "share" it with others. Of course, the same arguments they use against an Indian guy taking money from a working fellow for himself through government doesn't apply to them because. . . well. . . why doesn't it apply again? Oh yeah, right, just because.

[Riverwind]

Really, the reason we've restricted immigration is because too many fat Americans and fat Canadians are riding the government gravy train and don't want to "share" it with others.

Again, you are agreeing with me - you just admitted that unrestricted immigration reduces the standard of living of the people who are already here - therefore, it makes sense to restrict it.

Governments exist to look after the interest of the people that they represent. You seem to think that governments exist to impose some bizarre social darwinist ideology on their populace.

[YankAbroad]

you just admitted that unrestricted immigration reduces the standard of living of the people who are already here

No I didn't. It only negatively impacts those who believe they have a "right" to ride the government gravy train, and I intend to do everything I can, immigration or not, to get them into productive society and out of their entitlement mentality. It's the best thing for their sakes, as well.

Governments exist to look after the interest of the people that they represent

No, governments exist to perpetuate themselves.

If you think government cares about your best interest, or even the best interest of a majority of citizens, you obviously haven't dealt with government very often.

impose some bizarre social darwinist ideology

No, I oppose government impositions. And I don't believe that an absence of government bloat, regulation, and entitlements equates to "social darwinism" either. That's a very religious, binary and simplistic view of the world.