[Perturbed]

<strong>Written By:</strong> Perturbed
<strong>Date:</strong> 2005-03-19 10:31:55
<a href="/article/123155615-executives-too-eager-to-rebuke-canada">Article Link</a>

"It is naïve to think that the BMD decision will not somehow have negative economic consequences," Nancy Hughes Anthony alleged. And Chamber of Commerce chair, James Westlake — who should know better — predicted that "Canadian business in many sectors will lose in terms of investment, research and development and jobs because of the BMD decision." <P> 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. <P> 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. <P> 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." <P> 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. <P> 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. <P> 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. <P> 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. <P> 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."....... <P> <a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1111099813655&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907620326">Executives too eager to rebuke Canada</a> [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 19, 2005]

[sthompson]

FYI Crane's email is: [email protected] . Actually I like the idea of sending emails to thank people for covering these issues and covering them well or at least fairly; conversely, we could also send emails to people who write advancing a continentalist agenda and offer counter evidence to their points. It would be relatively easy to set up email form letters for these purposes, or just send out email alerts along the lines of what US site FAIR.org does, or Murray Dobbin's "word warriors" although that's mainly letters to the editor. Does that sound like a good idea to people? I think ensuring that this debate is kept going in the mainstream press, and that the nationalist perspective is represented, could be an extremely key part of the battle for sovereignty.

---
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

[talus]

I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion. Perhaps it would be a good and simple idea for the person who posts the article on the front page to be responsible for adding the persons email address with the line "please email this person with your support and comments." I wish we had the Toronto Star in my town.

[Calumny]

<blockquote>bent on political survival and pandering to vocal opponents both within its own party and Parliament</blockquote>.

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

[talus]

You're a good reader Columny, that was too funny

[Spud]

Excellent idea!
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.

[mk]

Makes you wonder what these people are saying when the boardroom door is closed, if this is the best they can do for public consumption. And I can only imagine the kind words for Quebec, if this is what they offer to the country as a whole.

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.

[Guest]

Calumny wrote: <i>Gee, sounds like Tom finds this whole 'democracy' thing a bit of a nuisance.</i><p> Add a minority government to that democracy thingy and you know why Tom is exasperated. We will all be dancing to a different tune once a majority government gets in. Today, La Presse's front page title states: "Harper ready to reopen BMD agenda." Subtitle : " The Conservative Party leader promises to reverse Martin's government decision."<p> If a majority of Canadians are against BMD, who is Harper catering to exactly ? No need to reply really. We all know the answer to that one. <p> michou

[Calumny]

<blockquote>that not all Canadian businesspeople fit this mould.</blockquote><br><br> Yes, you're right. I should have been a bit more clear in the fact that for the purposes of my points, I'm referring to corporations of a certain size and economic power. I don't intend my comments to refer to the guy who incorporated himself or small Canadian business, whether corporate or not, which has seen much suffering from NAFTA, etc.<br><br> Now, if I can just remember to use the HTML post mode this time those blockquotes might work...<p>---<br>"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).<br />
http://directdemocracycanada.ca

[mk]

"... for the purposes of my points, I'm referring to corporations of a certain size and economic power"

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"?

[Guest]

And that is exactly why they will NEVER form the government of Canada.

[Guest]

I think there are a few things to consider here.

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.

[Guest]

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.

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.

[michou]

Anon wrote : <i>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.</i><p> What you fail to mention or fail to understand is that a nation is not (should not be) a business or a corporation. A nation does not have a responsibility to ‘employees’ or ‘shareholders’ but it does so to its present and future citizens.<p> Foreign policy is a national responsibility in which government representatives are asked to reflect the will of its citizens and whose objectives should be in line with how they view and wish to conduct themselves in relation to other nations. <p> BMD is not about business, it is about foreign policy. Business interests have no business there and I find their current whining about BMD to be childish, not à propos and appalling. Corporations’ bottom line is profit. They ‘care’ for the nation only when it affects their bottom line. That’s it and that’s all.<p> It can now be said that America has fallen to corporate control. The U.S. cannot even call itself a nation anymore as it is no longer its citizens but corporations who push their government’s agenda.<p> Knowing that the number one employer and profit maker in America is its military-industrial complex, it stands to reason that everything is being pushed to satisfy its needs and bottom line. This translates into greater and ever increasing defense expenditures in its budget, more theatrical wars in its foreign policy and a strong propaganda machine to market its ‘product’ to the masses. Noam Chomsky calls the latter, the manufacture of consent. In all the encyclopedias and dictionaries I could find, this kind of governmental regime is defined as fascism. <p> Do I want Canada to go there ? Hell no. If that makes me a pestering brat in ‘corporations’ view of the world, so be it. I’d rather be an eternal brat than a subdued joe, dollar sign in his eyes, spewing out corporation jingles and all the while thinking he is being patriotic.<p> Anon wrote : <i>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.</i><p> Americans stand for war, massive debt, fear of others and business imperatives.<p> Canadians stand for social justice, controlled budgets, multiculturalism and national imperatives. Take your pick. <p>---<br>« Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron <br />

[mk]

Not only that, the executives are full of crap. Historically Canada-U.S. trade has not suffered measurably from differences in foreign policy, the imperatives and sensibilities of trade have always trumped.

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.