NAFTA

I remember back in Grade 10, a year or so before the softwood lumber agreement expired, our Social Studies teacher put up some economic figures on the overhead projector. Most of the figures dealt with Canada's trade relationship with the United States, including the percentage of Canada's exports/imports that went to and came from America and the percentage of America's exports/imports that went to and came from Canada.

The Social Studies teacher then asked the class to comment on the figures. The common response from the students who raised their hands was that Canada needed America much more than America needed Canada. This was not out of some pro-American bias in our classroom - it was based on simple math.

Hopefully the federal cabinet and the Prime Minister in particular comes to grips with this reality before they makes the irresponsible mistake of entering into a trade war with the United States.

Not only would it potentially devastate some of Canada's exporters, it would naturally hurt Canada's consumers as well.

Yes, it is true that Canada has oil (which is something many Canadians seem to point to these days in anticipation of a trade war) - as if mentioning that over and over again will somehow scare away America's tendency to use its leverage in our trading partnership to bully us, but where does most of that oil come from?

Somehow, I can't imagine Alberta playing along with any proposals that limit oil exports to the United States.

I know that it's tough to actually offer solutions that might make America less likely to enact unfair trade practices, but it'd probably be a good start if our governing party didn't play on crude anti-Americanism in order to get elected and when in office, if their strategy in dealing with policy issues consisted of actual substance instead of blaming America.

Oh, and if Canada sent a few dozen troops into a relatively safe area of Iraq in order to provide security for reconstruction, our bargaining position would be way stronger... but of course, that's not gonna happen.

Excellent Article

John Stossel, the host of a program (I forget which) on one of the major networks (I forget which) writes eloquently about the need for smaller and less intrusive government.

He started his career doing pieces on big bad and evil corporations, but a few years ago, he had a sort of awakening, recognizing that big government was actually at the root of many more social ills, whether that was through encouraging mediocrity and dependency, or, as his article points to today, discouraging the use of private charity.

I like his article, not because I haven't heard this point before, but because it stresses what small-government types should stress more: the welfare-state may be well-intentioned and expectedly inefficient, but it is also cruel.

Yes, I myself like to dwell on the beauty of selfishness and a survival-of-the-fittest society, but those points don't appeal to most folks.

Big government doesn't help the poor in any meaningful way, it hurts the rest of society through ridiculously high income tax levels and it makes people less willing to share and help others - while leaving that duty to hopelessly inept bureucracies.

Having essentially forsaken any emotional or mental stake in observing Canadian partisan politics (and I hope it stays this way), as a detached and objective observer, I hope to god that Canada, by any means, reigns in the size of its government; anything less would be cruel to the poor and hurtful to the rest of Canada.

In addition to the post a few posts ago...

... About me not feeling alone in response to the Western Standard poll that showed a spike in support for the idea of exploring Western Canadian sovereignty, I'd just like to add that at the moment, the idea of western independence seems unreasonable and most importantly, unfair.

I'd bet that most people who are angry about and detached from the Canadian political system (Conservatives, mainly), were not as angry as this last summer (following the June election), and yet, now, they're strongly considering such a drastic move (i.e. starting a brand new country).

What exactly has happened since then to cause such feelings? The disingenuous and backstabbingness of Belinda Stronach? The desperateness and ruthlessness of Paul Martin? The socialism of the socialist party and its leader? The longstanding will-do-anything-to-stay-in-powerness of the Liberal party?

Are those two people (reasons for anger and despair are actually not limited to these two people alone) and those two parties really worth creating a new country over?

If an election were to take place within the following year, which is almost a certainty, and then, IF the NDP and Liberals are able to squeak out a working majority, then sure, once the actual citizenry has spoken, it might be fairer to feel a certain level of disgust and despair that makes one hope for secession from Canada, but until then, what is the basis for believing in Western Independence if you did not do so on June 29, 2004 (the day following the last general election)?

Polls?

That's... pretty baseless, and sad.

In addition to the last post...

Let me just state that I'm in favour of abolishing the monarchy.

I believe that it serves no useful purpose and my saying that I was "Unimpressed" was merely an opinion on the merits and smarts of Martin's choice for GG, and NOT a sign that I was unhappy or disappointed with Martin's selection, because honestly, I don't really care about the Governor General's office except when the current occupant is spending millions of dollars a month with a seemingly callous disregard for the taxpayers that fund her.

Unimpressed.

I wouldn't mind to be proven wrong, but today's choice for the next Governor General, while unexpected, seems rather uninspired.

It seems, and I may be wrong, more like a ploy to shore up support amongst the immigrant communities of Quebec... the last major Liberal voting bloc (advertising executives don't constitute a "major" voting bloc, do they?) in that province that is falling to the Bloc and the other parties (the Tories, the NDP and the Greens).

I expected someone most people (Canadians) could say they identified with, but then I remembered that besides maybe a hockey player or two (Gretzky, Howe, etc.), there isn't really anyone in this fractured country that is almost universally held in high-esteem.

Great.

So now I know that I'm not alone.

An even firmer grasp

I know that the Canadian judiciary isn't exactly as consequential (and therefore as politicized) as it is in the United States, but, it seems that the Liberals will be further tightening their grasp on the Supreme Court of Canada, if they continue in power into 2006.

John Major, one of two justices appointed by Brian Mulroney will be retiring at the end of this year, and since it is likely, although not at all certain that the Liberals will be in power at that point, it's probably wise to expect a more left-wing appointment to replace Major.

Why is this significant?

A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court ruled to strike down Quebec's laws banning private health insurance, doing so in a 4-3 decision. Most assume that if Paul Martin's 2 appointed judges were on the court at the time the case was heard, the decision would have come down 5-4 in favour of the status-quo.

Expect Paul Martin to continue and further confirm his leftward drift by appointing another liberal ideologue to the bench.