Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4140
Reputation: 238.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:41 am    Post subject: Why are we injecting climate change into NAFTA negotiations? Reply with quote

Quote:
Saturday September 23, 2017
Inside Canada's efforts to inject climate change into NAFTA 2.0


Canada is looking to places beyond the White House to support a chapter on the environment in an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement, despite U.S. President Donald Trump's indifference, at one point even denial, towards climate change.[Bolding in original]

Ahead of the third round of negotiations in Ottawa this weekend and early next week, Canada's Environment Minister met with her NAFTA advisory council on the environment on Friday.

NAFTA Environment 20170922
Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, holds a meeting in her office with members of the NAFTA Advisory Council on the Environment on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Friday, Sept. 22, 2017. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
The 10-member council includes Canadians with politics, law, and Indigenous backgrounds to advise McKenna environmental issues as Canada looks to strengthen environmental protections in a new NAFTA.

Climate change was been seen as a potential stumbling block in the negotiations, as Trump has previously called global warming a "hoax," withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord and promises to rebuild America's coal industry.

"There are many different kinds of folks out there in the United States and so, yes, while federally they may be taking a different approach certainly we've seen at the state level lots of good action," McKenna told host Chris Hall.

"Canada has to make decisions for itself... We need to make sure we're regulating in our own national interest."
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehou.....-1.4300404


A challenge -- to TC or anyone else.

Tell me why this makes any sense whatever, at a practical level. Why is this not the most discrediting negotiating move we could make? If I were Donald Trump, I would downgrade the negotiations just because of this. I'd assume the Canadians weren't serious, and I'd let the talks stalemate and scrap the treaty if the other side didn't smarten up.

Particularly when we know that the overzealous efforts of the Obama-crats closed whole industries, and cost jobs by adding to the motives to move entire industries to China, where there are no environmental restrictions whatever.

Do they not understand that the current administration is committed to rolling back such regulations?

On top of that, the Liberals seem to think this is this place to force what Environment Barbie (laughingly) calls "gender equality" on Mexicans. It's like a Monty Python skit.

Why are they using trade negotiations to pose?

It's like they actually believe the story they had placed in The Rolling Stone. You know, where Justin slays the Dragon of Trump Tower and prepared the way for a time of pure social justice ...
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4140
Reputation: 238.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No response ... I don't know if this means people agree or disagree. Or are just passive.

This is a video that restates the same point. Why are we larding up a trade deal with social justice demands?
[youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_gixVW65dY[/youtube]
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There isn't much more to say than I had said previously;
This is transparent grandstanding for the folks at home;

Does Canada feel its going to bully the worlds largest economy into signing onto the Paris Accord or anything else for that matter?

Of course not.

If they were that serious about it they likely would have actually made an effort from 1997 - 2006 to move forward on the commitments they made when they signed Kyoto with that historic fist pump.

Do you think that Mexico is going to do a damn thing about low wages when its one of the most attractive things about doing business in Mexico?

Of course not.

But doesn't look good to the folks at home who are currently paying Union dues worried that their jobs are going trend South?

When it comes to NAFTA negotiations I am assuming there are grown ups in the room discussing dispute mediation, buy America, NAFTA visas, and supply management. (or I certainly hope so). This stuff that actually belongs in a trade agreement and the stuff we need to work on to improve NAFTA for Canadians.

Then you have the sample group tested, base feeding, chest thumping non-sense that we read within Canadian media that the balance of our trade partners are largely ignoring.

If anyone firmly believes that at the end of this negotiation Mexico will have the equivalent to a 15 dollar minimum wage and that President Trump will be flanked the Prime Minister and President Peña Nieto as he signs the Paris Accord then I have a Bridge to Sell you.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4140
Reputation: 238.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, I think you're right. From the accounts given by the nationalnewswatch guy, this bullshit has been sidelined and will be taken care of with some standard boilerplate that was ironed out with the Chilean trade treaty. All this McKenna stuff is probably treated that way in actual negotiations. She would know that, so it's grandstanding.

Those accounts are published under the title NAFTA 2.0.

But I still want to make an issue out of these kinds of demands being attached to everything. So-called 'social justice', as interpreted by the various so-called Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals, is a way of avoiding the requirements of the criminal code and the Charter. On balance, we lose rights.

Human Rights Commissions are the biggest threat we face, at least domestically, to our rights as citizens of Canada.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed, it should be an issue to be discussed

In the other thread the latest AR poll showed that Trudeau was no longer seen as the "best on Economy" and Andrew Scheer a leader who I would imagine half the population couldn't pick out of a line up now leads on that issue.

I will take that as a short term win for now.

The problem is that while grandstanding on issues like this may play well with the base, it terrifies the business' that do business every day with the US and Mexico.

While I am sure that real discussions on topics that will be included in NAFTA are on-going if you own a company exporting the majority of your goods or services to the United States and the Star is spending ink on the front page discussion Canada's demands for the US to acknowledge Climate Change rather than the discussions on-going to address dispute arbitration or Buy America wouldn't you be terrified?

The current government had the heavy lifting done for it on the TPP and CETA, but will be and are the current signatory on those agreements.

Was there pressure put on the EU to assure that wages in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Latvia were raised?

Will there be a push to have the wages in Vietnam and Malaysia raised when the TPP is revisited?

Not to be the Debbie Downer here but in Mexico the Minimum wage is 3.90 USD
https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/mexico-increases-daily-minimum-wage-effective-january-1-2017

Similar to or higher than the above mentioned nations who we now find as trade partners.

Where was the human rights panic then and will we see when we re-visit TPP or was this just done to appease the donor class?

Its so Transparent it almost hurts more than it helps with the base.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4140
Reputation: 238.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scheer has a fabulous opportunity, it seems to me. I am impatient, I know, and perhaps underwhelmed by his performance to this point. I force myself to remember Harper in his first year, or Joe Clark. But it isn't as if the opportunity has been lost.

More and more, I see the necessity of finding someone like Kevin O'Leary that can lodge the zingers, and who has built a persona -- not unlike Trump -- of being the bearer of bad news. Hard realism is his specialty. I wonder what he'd be able to accomplish, even only as a future MP for the party.

If I were the leader right now, I'd have O'Leary in my entourage, and would be making a big deal about forming a co-leadership with Bernier, signifying a new partnership between the two founding peoples ... and setting him loose to make deals with whoever to put together a Quebec wing. I would my miserable self to the task of makng sure everybody knows that Quebec will always have a seat a the cabinet table, they'll be in the room where it happens so long as there's a Conservative government sitting.

And call for the people who want to roll up their sleeves to stop selling their children out.

Just watch!
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If O'Leary wants to weight in, I think he would have.
At present I think his quest to bring the Coyotes to Quebec City is eating up a lot of his time.

However, I agree with the sentiment.
When Harper was elected leader, it was folks like Peter MacKay, Vic Toews, and Peter Van Loan that went after the Liberals on everything. They said all the things about AdScam that the leader of the party shouldn't say.

Scheer seems to be missing that bulldog.

The Federal Tories need a win;
A few polls being positive is great, but the reality is they are about to lose a seat in Quebec and another in BC likely both to the Liberals.

Scheer needs to attract someone to the party that will get buzz, someone who can be in that MacKay role (if Bernier is clearly not that guy in his mind)

Secure a Brad Wall, Land a Mario Dumont, Dust off a Bernard Lord.

Show that the parties position on common sense is attracting good people.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Why are we injecting climate change into NAFTA negotiations?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB