Replies

I still don't buy your theory, but it doesn't really matter what Martin's motivation(s) for sinking MD were. My basic point is that it was incredibly stupid and outside the interests of Canadian security for him to do this. Canada has a 1000 different ways to exert pressure on the U.S. to resolve trade disputes, not the least of which are treaty organizations built to resolve such disputes. Shooting himself and his country in the proverbial foot over an issues of national (nay, continental!) security just to make a point about "unfair trade practices" would be senseless, in any event.

Also, it is hardly the Bush adminstration's fault for not giving Martin something to work with. Martin, and Martin alone, is responsible for this grievous lapse. He is the one who is acting against the interests of the Canadian people. He is the person charged with protecting the country, and he has failed in that respect.

Since Liberal notions of the "Responsibility to Protect" apparently don't include a responsibility to protect the Canadian people, then I would suggest Canada has far bigger problems than trade disputes.

Well Bourbon I applaud the sincerity of your post. Unfortunately, the irony is there is no way to test my theory unless we have fair trade between the US and Canada.

Right now we don't, in spite of NAFTA.

I can tell you that to a great extent the resistance to MD on the part of Canadian voters is due to resentment that has built up from US protectionism over the last decade and a half.

You said, "Canada has a 1000 different ways to exert pressure on the U.S. to resolve trade disputes, not the least of which are treaty organizations built to resolve such disputes."

The US Department of Commerce has consistently ignored rulings by trade panels on eight different occasions by launching new appeals when the rulings aren't favorable to the US.

Not once have the US accepted a ruling from the WTO (which the created), GATT (to which the US is a signatory) or NAFTA (which the US initiated).

Nafta wasn't our idea it was yours. It was signed under the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney and the ink wasn't dry before the softwood embargo was initiated by the US forestry lobby.

Same goes for beef the incidents of Mad Cow were discovered because Canadian ranchers reported them before they could enter the market.

Canada has agreed to ship only cattle under three years old to the US market and Montana ranchers went to court to block it.

I saw the news report showing Montana ranchers coming out the the court house dancing and yelling, Yippeee!

That lawsuit had nothing to do with safe beef and everything to do with Western ranchers protecting higher prices for their product. Even President Bush wants to renew imports of Canadian beef. Unfortunately he either can't or won't translate stated policy into concrete action.

Now when it comes to oil there is no problem at all. No complaint there. Ship all the heavy oil you want at $30 + a barrel.