Ford Canada CEO to raise concerns over Trans-Pacific Partnership with Ottawa

mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
It's almost like they're reading my posts and making news stories out of them.

Either way, petros is wrong again.


Ford Canada CEO to raise concerns over Trans-Pacific Partnership with Ottawa

TORONTO — The CEO of Ford's Canadian operations says risks posed by the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the automotive manufacturing sector are among topics she plans to raise in a meeting with federal government officials later this month.

Dianne Craig says the need to boost government subsidies to help attract more global investment in Canada's auto sector will also be discussed.

Ontario, which relies heavily on the auto manufacturing sector, has been losing new investment to Mexico and the southern U.S., where labour costs are lower.

Ray Tanguay, a special automotive adviser to the federal and Ontario governments, has called for the federal automotive innovation fund to be restructured.

The fund offers loans to provide incentives for automotive investment, but Tanguay would like to see the money doled out as grants.

However, he has stopped short of calling for higher monetary incentives, noting it is up to federal and provincial officials to evaluate the economic benefits they reap from such incentives.

Craig agreed that the fund should be restructured, but added that the amounts of the subsidies should be boosted as well.

"Right now, the way the loans are treated by the Canadian government, they're not competitive, because in other jurisdictions, they're not taxable," Craig said at the Canadian International AutoShow in Toronto on Thursday.

She also slammed the TPP, saying that the way the deal is structured will hurt Canadian auto manufacturing operations.

"We support free trade, but it has to be fair trade," Craig said.

"We've got to get these trade agreements right, and right now as the TPP stands, there will be no positive outcome for Canadian manufacturing."

Ford Canada CEO to raise concerns over Trans-Pacific Partnership with Ottawa | National Newswatch
 
Last edited:
T

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
I don't have much hope that the Liberals won't continue the CONs race to the bottom for Canadians. The only time I voted Liberal was when Chretien promised to rip up the NAFTA deal. Enough said about that........
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
tay said:
I don't have much hope that the Liberals won't continue the CONs race to the bottom for Canadians. The only time I voted Liberal was when Chretien promised to rip up the NAFTA deal. Enough said about that........
Click to expand...

The Liberals have swung left, way left on everything but trade.

I think there is merit to fair trade, but not free trade with countries that have a leg up where it shouldn't be allowed.
 
B00Mer

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
mentalfloss said:
The Liberals have swung left, way left on everything but trade.

I think there is merit to fair trade, but not free trade with countries that have a leg up where it shouldn't be allowed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like the Ontario Manufacturing has done so well under NAFTA.. :roll:

Canada's population is too small, we want a higher standard of living and and we love our environment, yet we buy goods from countries that don't have environmental controls, exploit people with low wages.. we are hypocrites.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MR7tL7tWs

R.I.P. Jack Layton..

Canada needs fair sustainable trade.
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Boomer, it's so odd that you would agree with me on trade, but support the Cons, who are the free trade cheerleaders of the country.
 
B00Mer

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
mentalfloss said:
Boomer, it's so odd that you would agree with me on trade, but support the Cons, who are the free trade cheerleaders of the country.
Click to expand...

Here, so you understand where I'm coming from..

1. I believe in in Universal Care, but with user fees or co-pays, $25 for doctor visit, $50 for Urgent Care and $100 for emergency. The money stays with the Doctor or Hospital that cared for you. It will push people to see a local doctor, and lighten the load on the Hospitals, and save taxpayers money.

2. I believe in low taxes and helping businesses grow here in Canada, which creates jobs, and creates a tax base... manufacturing is key. Unemployed people don't pay taxes and cost the government money.. get'em working.

3. I believe in developing our oil sand and building pipelines and at the same time, we need to push for Hydrogen Highways in Canada and Hydrogen cars, we also should push for alternative power and build an energy corridor from BC to Atlantic Canada;

4. I believe in the US 1st and 2nd Amendments and think Canada should have same protection,

5. ...and yes, I'm anti-NATFA. Canada has been on the losing end of NAFTA and it has decimated our Manufacturing industry. If we want a higher standard of living, we need wages and jobs that support that lifestyle. Auto Industry to Paper Mills have all moved south or over seas..

So any common ground there Flossy?
 
Last edited:
T

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36
Boomer is indeed an enigma......



Are Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland's officials misleading her about the TPP?

Take one example. By far the biggest concern of critics (including Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz) is the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision. This allows corporations to claim damages if they believe a government's laws or regulations unfairly harm their interests or hurt profits.

Freeland seems to be either ill informed or misled about the provision's impact. At a panel discussion in Vancouver last month she seemed unaware of the ISDS. Her fellow panelists, both economics professors, downplayed the threat

For many of us who have dealt with trade bureaucrats promoting these investment protection agreements it is easy to suspect that Freeland is being deliberately misinformed by her own staff.

The Trudeau government is eager to portray itself as open to persuasion on the TPP. To bolster the position that they still might say no, the government has engaged in a flurry of consultations across the country and has made a point of inviting concerned citizens to send in questions and criticisms to Global Affairs Canada: TPP-PTP.consultations@international.gc.ca.

Sounds good. But the execution raises serious questions about how genuine the consultation will be.

First, the vast majority of consultations have been with groups supportive of these agreements: Provincial government ministers, business groups, industry reps, universities, etc. Of 74 such meetings (as of Jan. 31), there have been a handful with "students" (but not with student council representatives who have actually studied the TPP) and a couple with labour -- with the Canadian Labour Congress and Unifor.

There have been no meetings with NGOs who have taken the time to examine the TPP closely, like the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, with First Nations (whose agreements with governments can be trumped by ISDS) or environmental groups.

Obviously there is still time for such engagement, but the process so far does not bode well for balanced input.

The more serious sign that trade officials are busy manipulating their minister is revealed in the answers the government provides to Canadians who take it up on the offer to engage. When they write to the government asking about investment protection and the ISDS in the TPP, here's the response they get:

"With respect to Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), the TPP will not impair the ability of Canada or its partners to regulate and legislate in areas such as the environment, culture, safety, health and conservation. Our experience under the NAFTA demonstrates that neither our investment protection rules nor the ISDS mechanism constrain any level of government from regulating in the public interest."

Since the NAFTA came into effect on Jan. 1, 1994, Canada has been the target of 35 investor-state claims under the agreement. Nearly two-thirds involved challenges to environmental protection or resource management laws or regulations. Canada has already paid out more than $170 million in damages in six cases (lost or settled) and abandoned most of the "offending" legislation and regulations. We face additional corporate claims totalling more than $6 billion in potential penalties for NAFTA "violations" such as the Quebec government's decision to ban fracking under the St. Lawrence River.

This does not take into account the legislation and regulations (federal and provincial) that have never made it out of their cribs, killed by the chill of knowing they wouldn't pass ISDS muster. A recent UN report quoted a former Canadian official as saying: "I've seen the letters from the New York and D.C. law firms coming up to the Canadian government on virtually every new environmental regulation... Virtually all of the new initiatives were targeted and most of them never saw the light of day."

Noel Schacter, chief trade policy negotiator for the B.C. NDP government in the late 1990s, recalls dealing with federal officials.

"Federal government trade negotiators sold free trade by overstating the upsides and underestimating the downsides," he says. ¨This was especially true of investor-state provisions, which had the potential to be lethally damaging to critical social policy areas such as medicare or the environment. These public servants appeared to have little knowledge of these social policy areas and little concern.

During my tenure I never saw any independent analysis that demonstrated why provisions in trade treaties were necessary or how the broader public good would be served. It often felt like being in a temple of true believers and those of us who questioned the doctrine were heretics."

If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Freeland are truly committed to broad consultation beyond the business community, they should follow the same model.

more

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/02/05/Chrystia-Freeland-Bureaucrat-Bubble/
 
B00Mer

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
Just like I said, we are on the losing end.

tay said:
Since the NAFTA came into effect on Jan. 1, 1994, Canada has been the target of 35 investor-state claims under the agreement. Nearly two-thirds involved challenges to environmental protection or resource management laws or regulations. Canada has already paid out more than $170 million in damages in six cases (lost or settled) and abandoned most of the "offending" legislation and regulations. We face additional corporate claims totalling more than $6 billion in potential penalties for NAFTA "violations" such as the Quebec government's decision to ban fracking under the St. Lawrence River.
Click to expand...

Why is NAFTA bad for Canada?

· One of those concerns is how NAFTA has cost workers their jobs:

Instead of increasing, Canada has lost 398, 837 jobs ever since NAFTA began, from 1994 to 2001.

· Canada is too dependant on United States as Canada's source of economy.

The United States is Canada's largest trading partner; this is a concern because close relationship between the economy trades of two countries resembles a double edged sword. Although Canada's economy will become more powerful when United State's economy becomes powerful, there is always a chance of the opposite results occurring.

· Canadian Industries and companies are becoming less competitive:

It increases employment in those profiting companies (ie auto), but it decreases those little small companies (ie refrigerator companies in Canada) because the ones in the US overpower them.

Canada is losing its culture:

Laws/bans are breaking down

Environment gets damaged

NAFTA has caused huge amounts of toxic waste to be dumped into Countries with weak environment laws, Canada that is. This increases the risks of contaminating the drinking water in Canada. Because of NAFTA, Canada is now importing four times the hazardous waste from the United States.
NAFTA has also increased the traffic movement between borders. The pollution from caused from traffic, contributes to the rising temperatures of global warming.

80 per cent of Canadians live within 100 kilometres of the American border. (Traffic congestion and delays along the border causing pollution to release in the air)

NAFTA allows United States to take advantage of Canada and its resources:

For years and years now, Canada has been trading other countries with their advantage of many natural resources. Now that NAFTA came into affect, USA also has the advantages with Canada's natural resources. This will cause more clear-cutting and natural areas to be destroyed.

source

Canada lost 400,000 manufacturing jobs and Tories pretend there’s no problem | ThinkPol
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
B00Mer said:
Yeah, like the Ontario Manufacturing has done so well under NAFTA.. :roll:

Canada needs fair sustainable trade.
Click to expand...

Until the bottom dropped out of of the US dollar a decade ago, Ontario manufacturing did extremely well by NAFTA. The key is that our dollar needs to be much lower than the US$ to counteract the competitive disadvantages. That is exactly what happened after the agreement was negotiated, too. NAFTA made Canada and Ontario much wealthier until our currency became relatively "strong". The big loser of NAFTA was, without a doubt, the USA who lost jobs to Canada and Mexico at the same time that American goods became drastically overpriced in both places. The steep decline of the American Middle Class started there.

Hey Tex. You know all about Ontario and it's economy. Have you actually ever been here?
 
B00Mer

B00Mer

Keep Calm and Carry On
Sep 6, 2008
44,800
7,297
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.getafteritmedia.com
Curious Cdn said:
Hey Tex. You know all about Ontario and it's economy. Have you actually ever been here?
Click to expand...

Hey retard, I'm in Ontario right now... and drive to Quebec daily..

-29C/-21F where I am today..

Raised in Ontario, same school and city as Gosling, and born in this God Forsaken part of the country..

But in 10 days back home in Alberta... Thank God!!
 
Last edited:
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
B00Mer said:
Hey retard, I'm in Ontario right now... and drive to Quebec daily..

-29C/-21F where I am today..

Raised in Ontario, same school and city as Gosling, and born in this God Forsaken part of the country..

But in 10 days back home in Alberta... Thank God!!
Click to expand...

Sayonara, Tex. Don't hurry back.

(Cornwall?)
 
DaSleeper

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
SLM said:
OMFG..... "your posts".......this from the King of Cut & Paste.

Stick to the C&P.......it's all anyone of your pedigree can successfully muster anyway. :roll:
Click to expand...
I did say before that he had narcissistic tendencies..... When Tay doesn't bump up his threads he does it himself....

HEY LOOK AT ME!
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
B00Mer said:
Well I'm going to take a drive today to Beaconsfield, PQ where I used to live.. that's right.. I used to live in Quebec.. from there Dalhousie, NB then Cornwall, ON till I hit 21 and off to the USA.
Click to expand...

Where did you live in Beaconsfield?

I grew up there and lived back there for a year a decade ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom