Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

BTC: By request

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 6:31pm - 53 Comments

Mike Duffy v. Elizabeth May.

According to a rough transcript sent this way—the full video does not appear to be on CTV’s website—Duffy was setting up a piece on Peter MacKay and Elizabeth May debating at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia. At the debate, May said something about renegotiating NAFTA. Duffy described her statements as “pretty bizarre” and “off the wall” and “bizarre.” He then apparently asked MacKay, “How do you debate someone who is never going to be in power and can promise the world and never have to back it up? I mean doesn’t it put one at a disadvantage.”

That seems to have led to this.

Tags: Election Watch, Elizabeth May, Mike Duffy, Peter MacKay

More by Aaron Wherry

Dot

Mark,

I don’t disagree with diversification into other markets. This, in effect, will weaken NAFTA.

Similarly, when one is losing secondary or tertiary industries to developing countries (as in China/India) many anti-Nafta activists incorrectly blame this on Nafta. Renegotiating Nafta won’t change this reality.

I disagree with you on timing. With Canada’s exports to the US currently amounting to in the neighbourhood of 85%, there is nothing that would be more disruptive to business/investment decisions than uncertainty over changing rules/regulations that would result in a wholesale renegotiation of Nafta.

That is why most businesses, if faced with dealing with emissions, would much more prefer the certainty with a carbon tax as they could forecast their costs, as opposed to a cap and trade where the marketplace will determine the cost of carbon.

Elizabeth May, in bringing up and incorrectly categorizing the energy section of Nafta (as well as Chapter 11 as she also often does), is, in my estimation, appealing to the protest and/or anti-American voters. It’s pure politics, lacking substance once you look into the facts.
Don

NAFTA, as it currently stands, has enormous impact, is manifestly controversial and challenges many of our principles and institutions. To preclude it from renegotiation:

1) accords it a perfection which no man made legislation has ever acquired,

2) reinforces its failures for its want of enforceability

3) ignores the possibility of trilateral satisfaction through renegotiation, which, improved by experience, would be more informed than the initial negotiation which created it.

The mainstream view of Canadians toward NAFTA is skeptical. How could mainstream become “bizarre” except in Mr. Duffy’s highly subjective charge against Ms. May. Moreover which of them do you think has more likely read the actual Act?

Admittedly, my own viewpoint would be more informed from first reading the NAFTA legislation. Here’s a link for anyone who wants to join me in exercising their civic responsibility. (Legal dictionaries and lot’s of coffee at the ready!!).

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/texte/index.aspx

Skeptically Yours
Don
Chris

Wow… Duffy and both of his chins got TOLD