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      

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1463
Reputation: 128.7
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are now seeing that those behind the scenes in the US are pushing for a deal .

The auto sector is behind it, the farmers are behind it, trade groups are behind. Sadly only one, the President isnt. Its because he doesnt know much about trade.

He never did.

He doesnt understand that cars will be more expensive for US consumers. (and much more for us)

He doesnt know the facts about dairy. He thinks they are losing . They aren't

He thinks the farmers want him to be this way. They don't. He doesnt understand that the US farmers have made a lot of money from NAFTA and they want it to continue.

Pre NAFTA ? $2B a year. Post NAFTA ? $20B a year.
Dairy exports to Canada ? Up ten fold since NAFTA.

#1 export country for agriculture in 2017 ? Canada .

“For farmers, it’s just seen as a place where there has been a lot of good back-and-forth trade,” Dave Salmonson of the American Farm Bureau Federation said about NAFTA. “They want it to keep going.”

“By and large, the vast majority of farmers in the U.S. want more trade deals,” he said.


How much does the US export into Canada on milk products?


How much does Canada export into the US on milk products?


And we are to do what about the that dairy thing making up about 0.01% in overall trade ? Let them bring in more due to their subsidies from the govt to the tune of $17B ?

Naw, I dont think so. We dont subsidize our dairy farmers . They do.

Now if they want to cut off subsidies (and get killed) then by all means. We can then remove our marketing boards and enjoy lower butter and cream. (but really not an issue with me. I happily pay the price...and havent drank milk in 30 years)

And what is the farm trade worth to the US ? $24B with a $2B surplus.

So, whats the problem Donald?

Ah yes, Russia, Sessions, Woodward (its all on tape you moron)...and plain old ignorance. Paraphrasing here....I made up the figure, I dont know what balance or surplus we have . DJT after the Wisconsin rally .

Lets here from some trade group , probably not a huge one... ;)
The National Corn Growers Association were among those who urged the White House last week to quickly strike a deal with Canada.

“NAFTA,” it said, “has been an unequivocal success story for American agriculture.”

And the person leading us on this issue is well suited to do so. Smart, not prone to hyperbole, a straight shooter and extremely well educated and very well connected.

Chrystia Freeland' only real problem is she is a very smart woman. That irks her compatriot at the top on the other side.

She is confident to get the job done , and to get it well done. Perhaps PM JT should have foreseen an issue in that Trump likes his women subservient and not as strong willed as she is. One could make a marginal case on that, but that too is fraught with issues.

The US has befitted greatly from NAFTA and they have benefited well from Article 19 clause. Why they want to remove it now is head scratching. It would appear that perhaps they will levy shite and shinola on trade partners without that clause.

But be happy to know that this entire issue will be resolved and resolved amicably and trade will continue on.

Congress has indicated that a tri lateral deal is all they want to look at. No bi's allowed.

Now the hard part is making it look like DJT won , maybe give him a participation medal or something, and that Canada looks to have lost .

We wont have.

And that trade deadline?

<insert laughing emoji here>

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I have to concede the trade negotiations are still going on ... so you were right about that one. Wrong about everything else. I don't know what delusional state you have to be in to put Trump's negotiation tactics down to 'ignorance'.

Your ignorance is display when you think you know what's going on in Trump's mind.

What I see, as I scan the headlines, is a PM in a low-level panic because he's losing on every front. Suddenly, according to his figures, the dairy industry employes more people than auto! Or so he claims. The whole industry contributes less than $20 billion to the GNP -- out of $2 trillion. It also contributes 20% of all the greenhouse gases emitted in Canada, much of it methane.

But it isn't working, is it? Now he's making a big deal about the dispute-resolution procedure. Why? To deflect attention away from the incompetence with which these issues have been negotiated.

What can you expect when we turned our future over to a failed drama teacher and a pushy reporter?

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could dairy market access be the ‘bargaining chip’ Canada needs to lock in new NAFTA deal?
By Amanda Connolly National Online Journalist Global News

On Wednesday, Chrystia Freeland said NAFTA talks continue to proceed in a constructive atmosphere and both Canada and the United States are working very hard.

They say you have to give a little to get a little.

Now, the question before Canadian NAFTA negotiators may be whether that give could come in the form of greater market access for American dairy producers and whether doing so would be enough to secure a new deal before the end of the month.

“Canada has a gun to its head and we’re trying to figure out a way to come up with a deal,” said Sylvain Charlebois, a professor with the Rowe School of Business at Dalhousie University and who specializes in food distribution and food policy.

“The one bargaining chip that could come up is dairy.”

Currently, American dairy producers have access to less than five per cent of the Canadian dairy market, Charlebois said.

American negotiators want to see that increased to about 10 per cent through NAFTA.

That 10 per cent number was what had been on the table when the U.S. was party to negotiations over what was then known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

However, U.S. President Donald Trump yanked the U.S. out of those negotiations in 2016 and now wants the same increased access through a different vehicle.

But Canada has already increased market access to European and Pacific nations in recent years.

Everybody sees it except ... TC. The dairy cartel has become a bargaining chip in the bigger search for some face-saving "concession" that will somehow redeem this bunch of clowns.

I saw some Jerry Diaz -- a big union bureaucrat -- material about where the auto jobs have come from that have gone to Mexico. In terms of plants closiing, two closed in the USA, two closed in Canada, and four or five were built in Mexico. We ought to have been on the American's side of this. Diaz, as the head of the CAW, was very happy about the terms.

If that's true, what's the problem?

Only now is Trudeau talking about what is really important in the old NAFTA treaty He started off with gender and environmental laws and practices! Now he's clinging to the decision-making mechanism.

I worry now that Trump is at a point where he decides exactly what Trudeau wants most is what he is most determined to take away ...

It's true. When it comes to the new treaty, The Senate gets an up-or-down vote before it passes. TC is right to bring that into the discussion. It certainly restrains Trump. But any deal, even terminating NAFTA, will pass if it adds significantly to the jobs in America in 2020.

Trust me, if Canada turns its back of a new NAFTA, the Senate will respect Canada's position.

Give Trump supply-management, and throw in cell-phone systems, and he'll announce a great victory, we'd have lower prices and more cultural space as a result. That's what we have to understand -- it would be a win-win for the ordinary Canadian. What we "hit" the Americans with is a tax on Canadians! That's what a tariff is.

Opening up the state-regulated economy to competition is not something a negotiator can handle. That requires a green light from the heads of state. But why wouldn't we do this? Is Bell a sacred cow, like the dairy farmers?
Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1463
Reputation: 128.7
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I don't know what delusional state you have to be in to put Trump's negotiation tactics down to 'ignorance'.

His tactics, according to his own henchmen , is that he is clueless on trade.

Cohn quit because of it, others around him remove papers because they dont want him flying off the handle as he most assuredly does.

Pence knows enough to get this deal done, otherwise he is done in Indiana.

Amidst the swirling turbulent waters that DJT is in , he doesnt have time (nor the inclination to learn) to understand. On the NAFTA file at Easter he blew off an aide so he could watch the Masters. LOL.

Your ignorance is display when you think you know what's going on in Trump's mind.

But I dont. Never said I did.

But all the experts do. And they say they know not what goes on in his mind.

Do you read? Because that sentiment is all over the news.

What I see, as I scan the headlines, is a PM in a low-level panic because he's losing on every front.

The some funny coloured glasses. He is staying the line .
The whole industry contributes less than $20 billion to the GNP -- out of $2 trillion. It also contributes 20% of all the greenhouse gases emitted in Canada, much of it methane.

Okay. Is there a point in that?

Or..do you just enjoy destroying the dairy industry ? I do hope you arent angry when subsidies come into play like the us.
Which by the way, you never comment on the subsidies the US gets, only keying on our side.
Why would that be? Partisanship I guess.
Now he's making a big deal about the dispute-resolution procedure. Why? [quote]
Considering the US and Canada has made out well with Chapters 11 19 and 20 , it is wanted on both sides by industry.

What can you expect when we turned our future over to a failed drama teacher and a pushy reporter?

Well, since we will get a deal thats beneficial to us all, I guess we can expect a win win.

And that will sting you like nothing else. LOL!

Who's the pushy reporter?

Whats a letterkenny while youre at it?

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TC seems to be basing his confused thinking on the NY Times (a former newspaper) anonymously sourced op-ed. Other, more seasoned and aware, point out that White House staffs are assembled out of a pool of people who have previous experience and are hooked up with other interests. These are the kinds of things that happen in many administrations.

The New York Times (a former newspaper) is now basing featured pp-ed pieces on rumours. And the dumb-guy-who-thinks-he's-smart -- there must be a Yiddish word for a schmuck like that, no? -- anyway, what else is a guy like that to do, as he stirs his latte and delves into Metro so he'll be right up to date. (To be fair he gets glimpses of Channel 24 on the subway, and sometimes CNN at the airport ...)

Nobody knows what Trump's doing. He lays it all out in his book on negotiating, in general terms. The tactics are not in the book.

All I am saying is that world trade works through a system, and for the system to work in a sustainable way, it has to be tweaked. Big economies are gaming the trade system. We ought to have been cooperative and recognize the problem, and worked with the Americans because they do it to us too. That's all I am saying.

Instead, our failed drama teacher/Prime Minister chose to act as if our rights were being violated, and never fear. Justin's here to defend us. All 'narrative' and no real substance beyond helping the "Resist!" movement in the USA. Big mistake!

Their lead-off demands were ideological nonsense. And now we are over the barrel. if cartels are off the table.

And for our pushy reporter turned Minister of International Trade (it being a woman's turn for the job), how could you find a more abrasively smug and stubborn diplomat?

I am hoping that Trump liberates parts of our economy from government protection while taking his full revenge on Justin by making his defeat as humiliating as possible in the circumstances.


I honestly feel that Canada has never been in worse shape for leadership. The Conservatives have their choice of dweebs, the NDP's Singh is lost in the job, and the Liberls are stuck with what they've got. And Bernier has no party, and is starting at square one.

I don't feel very partisan at all.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

`M-i-l-k’ blocking NAFTA, says Trump adviser as Freeland, Lighthizer talk
By Mike Blanchfield — Sep 7 2018

WASHINGTON — The vexing issue of securing more American access to Canadian dairy remains the major obstacle to the two countries concluding their negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement, says a top Trump administration adviser.

Larry Kudlow, the director of President Donald Trump's National Economic Council, laid that out in the plainest terms possible during a televised interview Friday morning an hour before Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland started her latest meeting with her U.S. counterpart, trade czar Robert Lighthizer.

"I think the United States would rather have a trade deal with Canada, but it has to be a good deal, right? And the word that continues to block the deal is m-i-l-k, OK?," Kudlow said on the Fox Business Network show "Varney & Co."

"I'm just saying, 'Let go. Milk, dairy, drop the barriers, give our farmers a break and we can fix some other things.' So I want to predict. I'll just say Bob Lighthizer is doing a great job and the president is encouraging it."

Freeland isn't talking specifics, having made a deal with Lighthizer not to negotiate in public.

But as she emerged Friday from her latest meeting with Lighthizer, she said the talks have entered a "very intense" phase of "continuous negotiations."

Officials are meeting "24-7" and "when we find issues that need to be elevated to the ministerial level, that's where Ambassador Lighthizer and I need to talk," Freeland said, adding that "there continues to be a lot of goodwill and good faith on both sides. The atmosphere continues to be constructive."

Freeland departed the headquarters of the United States Trade Representative for the Canadian Embassy. It wasn't clear whether she would be speaking to Lighthizer again before the weekend.

Her departure was part of a familiar rhythm that has taken hold this week during her time in Washington — back and forth between the two locations, while officials continue the nitty gritty negotiations, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is kept in the loop in Ottawa.

The U.S. wants Canada to open its dairy market to greater American access, as it has done in two previous major trade agreements, with the European Union and in a re-booted Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The latter deal offered 10 other Pacific Rim countries access to 3.25 per cent of Canada's dairy market — and most analysts predict the U.S. will settle for nothing less in NAFTA.

Trump also wants Canada to scrap its two-year-old pricing agreement that has restricted U.S. exports of ultra-filtered milk used to make dairy products.

Both those issues are non-starters for the Canadian dairy industry, which makes the subject particularly politically charged in Ontario and Quebec.

In addition to dairy, the two countries still have to resolve differences on culture and the Chapter 19 dispute resolution mechanism.

Canada and the U.S. are trying to agree on a text that could be submitted to the U.S. Congress by month's end in order to join the deal the Trump administration signed with Mexico last week.

The hope is for a trilateral agreement in principle that Congress can approve before Mexico's new president takes office on Dec. 1.

Trump is threatening to move ahead on a deal that excludes Canada, but he also needs a win on trade ahead of midterm elections in November that will test his ability to keep control of Congress.

"We do love Canada," Trump told supporters at a rally in Montana on Thursday night.

"They've treated us pretty badly in trade for the last 40 years, but that's OK, it wasn't my fault. We're going to make a fair deal with Canada, just like we did with Mexico."

Trump reiterated his desire to rename the 24-year-old continental trade deal after his "historic announcement" with Mexico.

"We're replacing NAFTA with a beautiful new brand, because it's a much different deal. It will be called the U.S.-Mexico trade deal," he said to partisan applause.

Trump said he thinks Canada will join the deal. But if it doesn't, the U.S. can live with that.

This is way past stupid. As this looks to me, the two can talk and talk as long as they like -- it's the heads of state that make the important concessions. It looks to me as if Trump will not accept a deal that makes Justin and Chrystia look good. And Justin and Chrystia are demanding some face-saving gesture from the other side to legitimate their incompetence and stupidity.

You could call it a Mexican Standoff.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is an analysis of the new NAFTA treaty ... by the MacDonald-Laurier Institute.


Seven minutes of high quality informed expert opinion by policy experts.

I don't say this in defence of Trump -- I say it to expand understanding. It is this -- the milk tariff is a way he 'rallies his public to his side of the issue. Who can justify 270% tariffs to the public mind? It isn't what the issue really is -- it's rallying public opinion to get the negotiations going.

But he knows what it's about. He is a property developer on a Manhattan scale. He knows Canada isn't the problem. If Harper had been PM, we'd have signed away enough of supply management to give Donald his quick victory, and been participating as fully as we can in the American boom right now!

I think that as much as anything, Justin and Crystia have become persona non grata around the White House.

Scott Adams has a good handle on this. Basically, he makes you aware of how much political leadership is like driving a herd. Because of the personal animosity, the milk tariff that has become a symbol, a sacred cow on both sides. It isn;t that important in itself -- but it means somebody wins and somebody loses.

If I am right, it's personal, and that should never happen in negotiations like this.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another confirmation ...

This is Ezra interviewing Frank Buckley, a professor at George Mason University in the subject, asking him to justify his withering comments on the Canadian performance in Washington.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT8c2INpC4k It's 18 minutes but the first five minutes will give you enough.

He confirms my suspicion, growing since they gave out the location of the meetings, was that they should be meeting in more sumptuous quarters. The protocol is that the meeting occur between officials of equal rank. If they treated France like that, they'd probably call their ambassador back home.

Because Crystia has been fobbed off on an ambassador. Really, a bureaucrat with a title. Not a real ambassador.

She has made herself a persona non grata in official Washington! For what principle? For none, for simply narcissistically preening her anti-Trumpism in the very centre of the Empire. She's a stupid asshole, I don't care if she is a woman. (She's dined out on being a female her whole professional career -- as a reporter! Nothing else!)
Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1463
Reputation: 128.7
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
She's a stupid asshole, I don't care if she is a woman. (She's dined out on being a female her whole professional career -- as a reporter! Nothing else!)

Wow. Someone sure doesnt know what he is talking about.

She accomplished more in 8 years than youve managed your whole life. Your pettiness speaks volumes.

Hope your daughters read your trash. But not if they learned at your feet this hooey

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As usual, you have no point. If this were as big a 'win' for Canada as it is a loss -- thanks to her, as these experts attest -- you'd be leading the cheerleaders in singing her praise, of what she, as a woman, could do.

She must have some talent, but her political value is multiples of what the same stack of skills would get in a man. It's good for the theatrics. Their approach to these negotiations was so bizarre that it is making Canada a laughing stock. The only reason I mention her sex is that that's the biggest reason she's where she is.

Not bad for a plain Jane ...

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Freeland not returning immediately to Washington after briefing PM on NAFTA
By The Canadian Press — Sep 13 2018

SASKATOON — Canada's negotiating team spent several hours Wednesday updating Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the state of NAFTA talks and getting his marching orders for the days ahead.

Foreign Affair Minister Chrystia Freeland refused to go into any detail about the issues on which the prime minister needed to sign off or what instructions she and the rest of the NAFTA team received.

However, she said lead negotiator Steve Verheul and David MacNaughton, Canada's ambassador to the United States, would be returning to Washington immediately to resume negotiations on Thursday.

Freeland herself will not be returning to Washington right away, but said she'll be keeping in close contact with her American counterpart, trade czar Robert Lighthizer.

She said the fact that she and Lighthizer are not immediately scheduled to meet again should "absolutely not" be taken as a sign that the talks are stalled.

"This is absolutely a process which is moving forward. It is a continuous negotiation," Freeland said after her second briefing of the day with Trudeau.

"In negotiations, you do work and resolve the issues that you can at the ministerial level and then you reach points where what is needed is continued technical work."

Freeland, Verheul and MacNaughton flew in from Washington on Tuesday to brief the prime minister in Saskatoon, where he was attending a Liberal caucus retreat.

Freeland said the atmosphere surrounding the talks continues to be positive, and she believes a good deal for all three NAFTA partners is within reach.

"Getting there is going to take goodwill, good faith and flexibility on all sides," she added.

While Trudeau has been consulted throughout the 13-month negotiation, the face-to-face meetings with the negotiating team Wednesday suggested there were some big — and potentially politically loaded — issues to settle.

"This is an important time in the negotiation and so it was really important for me, for the negotiators to speak directly with the prime minister to brief him on the issues and to have him give us his instructions on where to move going forward," Freeland said.

Earlier, in a brief speech opening the caucus retreat, Trudeau went out of his way to praise the "formidable, tireless" Freeland and her determination to get a deal that is good for Canada. He reiterated his assertion that no deal is better than a bad deal.

However, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe later said he's not sure that's true.

"We cannot move forward with a bad deal. I'm not certain we can move forward with no deal either," he said after meeting with Trudeau.

"We need to engage with the United States. They are our largest trading partner."

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard, who is the midst of an election, said Wednesday he wouldn't accept an agreement that doesn't meet the approval of dairy farmers in his province.

While Trudeau has vowed to protect Canada's system of supply management which regulates the price of dairy, eggs and poultry, he has also indicated he's willing to be flexible on allowing some limited additional imports, as was done in the Trans Pacific and European Union trade deals.

However, dairy farmers maintain they've already made enough concessions and shouldn't have to do so again to get a NAFTA deal.

The talks are stalled. The minister herself said so, in the elliptical logic in which Liberal politicians in over their heads speak ... you can see for yourself ...
She said the fact that she and Lighthizer are not immediately scheduled to meet again should "absolutely not" be taken as a sign that the talks are stalled.
You won't find any clearer statement than that!

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bloomberg on the trade deal ...

Who Has the Leverage at the Nafta Table? It's Not Just Trump
By Andrew Mayeda
September 13, 2018, 4:00 AM EDT Updated on September 13, 2018, 9:39 AM EDT
Canada has backing of U.S. lawmakers who want a three-way deal
Democrats may balk if they win the House in November voting

From day one, President Donald Trump has imposed his will on talks to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement. But as his administration tries to seal the deal, it’s not clear he holds all the cards.

Trump’s repeated threats to pull out of the pact have kept Mexico and Canada on their heels. The president may still brandish the threat of withdrawal to push a deal through Congress.

Yet Canada does have some leverage as it decides whether to join a tentative U.S. deal with Mexico. Meanwhile, any agreement Trump signs then requires congressional approval, and the Democrats are favored to seize control of the House in November, making approval far from a foregone conclusion.

Here are three ways to think about the power dynamics in the Nafta renegotiation:

Trump Has All the Leverage
Trump is the reason the negotiations are happening in the first place. He demanded a rewrite, and he set the tone with a series of proposals designed to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, especially the large shortfall with Mexico.

When negotiations stalled earlier this year, the Trump administration employed a classic divide-and-conquer strategy, focusing on talks with Mexico and leaving Canada on the sidelines. The result was a preliminary deal with Mexico.

The U.S. is trying to convince Canada to join the party to keep the three-way structure of Nafta intact. But Trump has made clear he’ll sign a deal only with Mexico if necessary, and he has threatened tariffs on Canadian-made cars if it can’t strike a deal.

The clock is ticking: Trump has given notice to Congress that he’ll sign a new trade deal with Mexico -- and Canada “if it’s willing” -- by the end of November, and his officials have to present text of the agreement to U.S. lawmakers by the end of this month.

Canada may have calculated that Trump wouldn’t be able to withdraw from Nafta, in part because of the support the pact has in the business community and Congress. But the Canadians underestimated Trump’s willingness to leave Nafta, said Lori Wallach, Global Trade Watch director at Public Citizen.

“They are thinking their choice is between the existing deal or a deal that they are not very keen on. Whereas the reality is it’s a choice between a deal on new terms or nothing,” she said.

There is also an interesting video interview with Carlos Gutierez, former US Secretary of Commerce, at the site. Worth watching to see how this careful dipllomatic man judges the situation from where he sits.

Trump has said it's a take-it-or-leave-it deal, offer open until November! The Trudeau-crats are risking Canada's future prosperity on a bet that the Republicans will lose control of the House. The other side refuses to recognize that whatever leverage we could have mustered was frittered away on symbolic gestures. Because, you know ... it's 2018! This was the equivalent of Justin's Bagra dancing on the diplomatic stage. It makes Canada a laughing stock.

Hindsight, I know. But their opening was so absurd that anyone shouldn't have needed it to see the error.

What gives the Dairy guys so much leverage is Quebec! When the cartel was set up, Ontario's dairy industry was cut down and milk quota was given to Quebec. The cows follow the quota. Before Trudeau pere, those corn fields you drive by might have had big herds of prime dairy cattle grazing on them.

It was the kind of economic raiding that was a key part of separatisme. Trudeau started it, and Mulroney put it in high gear when he revived separatisme with Meech Lake. And it's still screwing us up!

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the latest video of Manny Montenegrino, a trade lawyer, who is critical of the government's strategy.


He feels that the only explanation for the Liberal approach is that they don't want a deal! He suggests they prefer to reap the anti-Trump votes.

The video starts off with some footage of the'Freeland's performance at a convention called "Taking on the Tyrant.

Montenegrino goes into the process of the negotiations as an informed person.


What if Montenegrino is right?

What if the Trudeau's team is also right? That's the case when (a) the Liberals use the NAFTA negotiations to take a pose of standing up the bully ... and pass on NAFTA. And (b) they get re-elected!

Scary thought!


There's more. This is text, but it's an American blogger's reaction to the negotiations.

Pragmatic Canadians Discuss Justin and Chrystia’s Intentional Strategy to Scuttle any U.S-Mexico Trade Deal…
Posted on September 13, 2018 by sundance

A column written by journalist John Ivison yesterday reflected how Justin and Chrystia from Canada appeared to be intentionally politicizing their trade negotiations in an effort to gain favor from domestic left-wing supporters. In essence, Justin made a decision to advance his political interests even if it means destroying the Canadian economy.

Providing a stark example as evidence toward that motive Ivison wrote: “How else to explain [Freeland’s] appearance at Monday’s Women in the World summit in Toronto, on a panel entitled Taking on the Tyrant?”

If they stay in this posture, it will destroy them before the fixed election day. If the strategy had any chance of working, it won't once it is exposed. The Liberals are going to have to face up to a humiliating defeat.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canada prepared to play deadline spoiler in NAFTA talks: source

Mexico and U.S. threaten to exclude Canada if no deal reached by Oct. 1
Katie Simpson · CBC News · Posted: Sep 14, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: September 14

A source told CBC News that pressure to meet an Oct. 1 deadline that would satisfy the United States and Mexico "is not a good enough reason," for Canada to be forced into a fast finish in the ongoing NAFTA negotiations. (Judi Bottoni/Associated Press)

In the face of mounting pressure to wrap up NAFTA negotiations by the end of the month, a senior source suggests Canada is comfortable with missing that deadline.

The source who spoke to CBC News on background, due to the sensitivity of the talks, said the external political pressure "is not a good enough reason," for Canada to be forced into a fast finish.

Mexican negotiators are pushing for an agreement to be formally signed by the leaders of all three countries before Dec.1, the day Mexico's new president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, takes office.

If outgoing president Enrique Pena Nieto signs the agreement, it will, among other things, give AMLO some domestic political cover for unpopular aspects of the pact.

ANALYSISCanada's NAFTA stance on culture is all about politics, not policy
Why Canada and Mexico don't see eye to eye on NAFTA dispute settlement
In order for that Dec. 1 deadline to be met, a series of legal hurdles in the U.S. must be cleared first.

The next step in that process is getting American lawmakers the text of a proposed agreement before Oct. 1, to begin a formal review.

The source said Canada is willing to try to accommodate the timeline, but is prepared to keep talking past the end of this month.

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to morph NAFTA into a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, if Canada is unwilling to sign on to a deal on his terms.

Last month, Trump announced the U.S. and Mexico had reached an agreement in principle.

A bilateral deal?
Trump plans to rename the agreement USM, which stands for United States and Mexico, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday. Trump reportedly said he would add a 'C' for Canada depending on what happens at the negotiating table.

On Thursday, Mexico's chief NAFTA negotiator, Kenneth Smith Ramos, added his voice to the pressure campaign.

"Mexico stated from the beginning of the negotiation that the ideal scenario is for NAFTA to remain trilateral," Smith Ramos wrote on Twitter. [....]

Government news (the CBC) is preparing the public for life after NAFTA. The negotiations are a ransom to Mexico's need to have this all wrapped up by December because the new Mexican administration takes over then, and they don't want to be the ones to sign the deal.

It takes time -- after the midterms -- for the Senate to deal with the treaty.

Watch out!

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6553
Reputation: 304.5Reputation: 304.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2018 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This, from Goverment News ...

Canada seeks tariff protections, assurances from U.S. in NAFTA talks
Negotiations 'slow,' 'frank' and 'tense,' sources tell CBC
Katie Simpson · CBC News · Posted: Sep 20, 2018 9:21 AM ET | Last Updated: an hour ago

The window for Canada and the U.S. to land a NAFTA breakthrough this week is getting smaller, as officials sit down in Washington, D.C., today for what are expected to be the final high-level meetings this week.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, who is leading the Canadian delegation, is supposed to be unavailable Friday for the NAFTA talks as she is scheduled to be in Montreal to host a summit of female foreign ministers.

This week's talks are being described by several sources with direct knowledge of the situation as "tense," "frank" and "slow," especially on the significant issues.

And new challenges are emerging as the Canadians are looking for protections against the threat of American tariffs.

One senior source says Canada is seeking assurances from U.S. trade officials that it will be recognized as a special trading partner, as a way to be shielded from what the Canadians say are punitive tariffs.

The unusual move comes after Donald Trump imposed 25 per cent tariffs on steel and 10 per cent on aluminum, through a rarely used national security provision.

The larger concern is Trump's threat to slap similar tariffs on imported autos and auto parts. If that were to happen, economists predict, the North American economy would grind to a near halt and thousands of jobs would be killed.

Trump uses tariffs as a 'toy'
The source says the Canadians recognize the Americans will never agree to restrict their ability to protect their national security interests. But Canada is still seeking a carveout of protections against the threat of American tariffs and recognition that Canada is not seen as a threat.

Canada has not been able to get any assurances, with the source suggesting Trump enjoys relying on tariffs, treating the economic measure like a "toy".

There has also been little movement behind the scenes around Chapter 19.

Canada wants to keep an independent dispute resolution system in the North American Free Trade Agreement, while the Americans have formally requested it be eliminated.

The source says it has been made clear that U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer "personally hates" Chapter 19, as it has been a long source of frustration for the ambassador.

Protections for Canada's dairy industry are also still a point of contention.

Canadian negotiators have proposed giving U.S. farmers more access to the Canadian market, but suggestions so far have not satisfied American negotiators.

The Americans, who reached an agreement in principle with Mexico last month, are pushing to get a deal with Canada before Oct. 1, the deadline set in hopes of hitting the congressional timeline required for a renegotiated NAFTA to be signed before Mexico's presidency changes hands on Dec. 1.

Sources have repeatedly told CBC News the Canadians are willing to work on that timeline, but will not be rushed into a fast finish for the sake of reaching a self-imposed deadline.

Well, it is the government side of the story. Think about it, they are now meeting once a week at a lower level ambassador's office. The way these negotiations work is they fix up the non-contention stuff before they move on to the real issues. The Americans are quite clearly waiting for Canada to capitulate, and the dairy industry has become symbolic of victory. But it isn't. Victory for Canada consists in securing a market for everything we produce, not in making sure dairy farmers have an easy time of it.

A new fact about supply management. It's a great deal for the farmers when it is set up. They get allocated a share of the market, called 'quota' for no cost. They can sell that 'quota' when if they want to sell the farm. The farm, as land, is worth a certain amount per acre. The value of quota, then, is directly proportional to the additional income it can produce over what his land would produce in the other rotation of crops. The higher it is, the more overpriced the commodity is to the consumer.

How much do you think the quota costs? A normal holstein cow produces about 34 liters of milk a day. What do you think the biggest cost of production is?

The cost of feeding a cow is around $3 a day. They have to be sheltered and there are vet visits which add to the costs, and of course there is labour. But a fresh cow can produce over 9000 liters of milk a year. At retail price, that's over $20,000 a year.

So the gross profit from one cow is probably around $18,000. A dairy farm often has 100 cows or more.

Guess what the quota costs? In Alberta, it's $36,000+ per cow. The interest -- at 5% -- would cost about $1800 a year. So, if you look at the costs of production of milk, once you have the heifer, it costs you $3 a day for feed, say another $.50 for the other practical expenses, and $5 for quota! And whatever you pay labour, when most of it is your own or your kids.

This is what it costs to go off the free market. Dairy farmers are probably in big debt to the people who finance the dairy herds. That debt has been (in the end) created by the surplus profits of the dairy industry. Figure it out. Is this what we want to save?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

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

Canada faces a Friday deadline on NAFTA!!!

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB