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

Wascally Wabbit

To take those thoughts further Dot – do you think it is ultra left wing to propose that the resources within a nation are the property of that nation and its citizens? Look around the world – heck even in the US – the so-called haven of free enterprise – royalties are exacted at the state and federal level.
Ask Danny Williams in Newfoundland – he’s going ABC/ABH precisely because Harper apparently reneged on a promise of royalty distribution that favoured Newfoundland more than the current regime…
What is at issue with NAFTA is that buried in the agreement are clauses that give preferecne to the US – not just over the rest of the world’s consumers of oil – but over CANADIANS too!
FRankly, that’s why I scoffed when McCain AND Obama were nouthing threats to reopen NAFTA – because right now – it is in Canada’s interests to do so…
Eureka…Ms. May is on the right track – and it isn’t a commie idea…
T. Thwim

Dammit Ti-Guy.. I’ve been there. It’s painful memories man, why’d you have to bring it up.

No coconut shrimp.. *sob*
Dot

OK WW, I’ll reply to your points in a second.

In the interim, this is quoted from a recent G&M ROB Magazine profile of Lougheed (Sept 2008)

Elizabeth May is in fact supporting George Bush’s view of the eergy provisions of Nafta . Peter Lougheed is supporting the more informed view (mine)

The first evidence that Lougheed was emerging from political hibernation came at a barbecue he attended at the Calgary home of the United States consul general in the summer of 2005. It was an impressive gathering. The U.S. ambassador, David Wilkins, had flown in from Ottawa, as had then-finance minister Ralph Goodale. The guest of honour was John Snow, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

Snow had arrived in Canada to discuss the oil sands. Alberta was already shipping more than a million barrels of crude oil to the United States every day; Washington, anxious about energy security, wanted more. Lougheed was invited because of his stature in both business and politics—and because of his friendship with the United States. He was, after all, one of the instigators of Canada-U.S. free trade.
Snow and Lougheed got to chatting during the evening. For Snow, it was a shock when the former premier said Canada should consider exporting its oil to China, India or other Asian markets. Why not, Lougheed asked: It’s Alberta’s oil.

Snow was visibly surprised and upset. He protested that the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement forbid sales of surplus oil to China, that Canada is obliged to sell to the U.S. Lougheed interjected: Having been on the Canadian team that negotiated NAFTA, he knew for a fact that Snow was wrong.

As he recounts the conversation with the agitated Treasury Secretary, Lougheed smiles the smile of a man who does not mind the prospect of a fight, even with a friend and neighbour: “It was quite an unusual dinner. It was polite, but, you know…”

However, after the smile, Lougheed acknowledges there is contention regarding NAFTA’s proportionality clause, which specifies that Canada must not reduce the share of its oil production that it ships to the U.S. The clause was inserted in NAFTA because Canada thought it needed a guaranteed market for its oil—what a difference a few years make!
Lougheed seems ready to dispute the American interpretation of the clause; that is a fight that would involve the federal government as well as Alberta. To the simple question of whether Alberta can resist the American pressure for guaranteed oil, he has a simple answer: “Sure. We own it. We’re in a seller’s market.”
Ike

It is about time somebody called the Greens and NDP on their promises. It is so easy to promise the world when you know you won’t be in government. Bob Rae got caught and look what Ontario lived through. Bob Rae and Mike Harris. Of course Lynn McLeod of the Liberals had it won until she opened her mouth.

If I’m right and the Liberals do get a minority I wonder how far our dollar and markets will fall on October 15th?

BTW I’m not trying to scare anyone. It is me who is scared!
Dot

WW,

You’ve apparently been listening to Dvid Orchard and Elizabeth May or other lefties too much.

The energy provisions of Nafta only kick in when there is rationing due to an unforseen problem (say the Middle East shuts down world production)or there is a terrorist attack on a pipeline, say, and we lose production. Both countries, in the interim ration scarce oil or whatever proportionally, as both have invested billions in infrastructure.

But, there is nothing preventing an oilsands pipeline to eastern Canada, or to China if that makes economic sense. The reason that eastern Canada imports crude from overseas (rather than from Alberta) is because it is cheaper.

If there is a concern about energy security, then one would need to subsidize the O&G companies to build pipelines and upgrade refineries to get it there. Otherwise, it will go to the cheapest place, right now the US, but could be China etc.

Nothing in Nafta precludes this, despite what the lefties claim.
Wascally Wabbit

Whatever Lougheed said in that speech – he said it off the record…
but here he is on the record…look at page 2…
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080825.rmlougheed/BNStory/specialROBmagazine/home/?pageRequested=2
Wascally Wabbit

Unlike you apparently Dot – I do my own research.,..and appraoch much of this with scepticism – but I don’t spout partisan talking points – which I think I might be hearing from you…
Dot

Whatever Lougheed said in that speech – he said it off the record…
but here he is on the record…look at page 2…
…
Unlike you apparently Dot – I do my own research.,..and appraoch much of this with scepticism –

Yeah, some research, and some “off the record speech”

The stuff I quoted was from the article you linked to, – part of it is right at the top of page 2!!!

FOOL
T. Thwim

Actually Dot, NAFTA just says that the government cannot place any restrictions on export due to supply shortage. So it doesn’t have to be anything unusual.

Now I’ll agree, it doesn’t place market restrictions on it, so if we happen to be short for any reason, we’re certainly allowed to get into a bidding war with the US for our own oil. Boy, that sounds grand.
Wascally Wabbit

I retract my snide last comment Dot – your well researched comment had not popped up when I wrote it…
however – that said – Lougheed is quoted as saying much the same in the ROB article I quoted…
and it seems its not the lefties who are misinterpreting NAFTA – but the Yanks!!
I agree with Lougheed about who owns the resources – that was the point of my earlier post!
However – we thought we were in the right on pulp lumber too – and so did the World Tradce Organization – but the Yanks continued to go with their “interpretation” and whacked us good on counter-vails..
you want to go on…?
Dot

Now I’ll agree, it doesn’t place market restrictions on it, so if we happen to be short for any reason, we’re certainly allowed to get into a bidding war with the US for our own oil. Boy, that sounds grand.

We pay the world price for oil wherever it comes from. Nafta does not change this.
Ferg

wow. good for Elizabeth May. It’s hard to watch Mr. Duffy some nights, especially since the Conservatives have gone done in the polls he seems to be letting a Conservative bias slip out more and more. MSM media bias my a**… I notice when the Conservatives make much of journalists connections to Liberals they seem to leave out any Conservative connections. Isn’t there a big one between CTV and Peter MacKay? Or is he loving and leaving them again?
velveeta

See Layton, Media Coverage of Jack.

Actually, that should be “See Layton, Jack, Media coverage of”
velveeta

And by the way, Duffy really needs to lay off the cheeseburgers. How can we trust anyone who can’t stop stuffing his face?
MJ Patchouli

Elizabeth May, impressive, feisty and classy at the same time.

Hope Central Nova folks give her a chance; she’d wake up HoC. Petey Mackay is weak — everyone loved his father (Mulroney and Schreiber simply glow when they speak of him).

Yeah, good to see someone slap Duffy.

How can he get his senate appointment from harper if harper does away with the Senate (in a fit of petulance)?
http://www.flickr.com/theveil Karen Krisfalusi

In the English leader’s debate Elizabeth May said that all it would take to realize Universality in Healthcare would be to enforce the Canada Health Act and in the same breath she intimated that the provisions of NAFTA could threaten the Act. No wonder she couldn’t get an answer to that question because it was so clearly naive. The Canada Health Act does not protect Universality. There are already American organizations providing healthcare in Canada. The Ontario Liberals are the worst offenders against Universality with their Family Physician Plans that micromanage doctors in a system that is designed to manufacture wait times in the doctor’s office and create user dissatisfaction through rules that force doctors to address only 1 complaint per visit and second-tier walk in patients who didn’t sign away privacy rights to be restorized. Ms. May is ill informed and Duffy was right to say how can you argue with that?
http://cork2toronto.blogspot.com Mark Dowling

I seem to recall the Minister of Foreign Affairs having no problem with the renegotiation of NAFTA as floated by the Obama campaign on the basis that Canada had its own list of issues it would welcome an opportunity to fix.

Was David Emerson out to lunch too?
Dot

I seem to recall the Minister of Foreign Affairs having no problem with the renegotiation of NAFTA as floated by the Obama campaign on the basis that Canada had its own list of issues it would welcome an opportunity to fix.

Was David Emerson out to lunch too?

Only if he, like Elizabeth May and the Green Party, feels it would be limited to the issues THEY want to renegotiate. The WHOLE Nafta agreement, including water rights, would be back on the table.

Emerson, I suspect knows the reality.

May is delusional.
Pingback: May v. Duffy || A Must See @ c a n a d a n c i a
Brian

Interesting that Macleans, and its single most biased columnist would invite conversations about media bias.

Just so I’m clear: bias in media is only a conspiracy theory when its coming from conservatives. Right.
Jack Mitchell

Dot, you’re surely right on policy, if that’s the right word for May’s stance, but you have to admit this clip is the single best “attack the interviewer” response ever seen on Canadian TV.

Ti-Guy, your comment cracked me up.
Pingback: Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy :: Peter MacKay Grabs the Microphone and… [UPDATED]
Pingback: May v. Duffy at The Public Post
Dot

Yeah, good theatre, I just wish some of the media would dig deeper into what she is saying. She throws a lot of mud, and constantly calls people names. Much of it could be turned around and properly directed at her. But you have to research what she claims.

Most MSM are too lazy, or don’t have the necessary background to understand the issues, or just enjoy her personality or watching horse races, and so give her a free pass.
http://cork2toronto.blogspot.com Mark Dowling

“The WHOLE Nafta agreement, including water rights, would be back on the table.” – except by expanding our roster of FTA agreements with partners like the EU, we reduce the necessity to make a bad deal such as flogging water. The time to make a deal is when we’re stronger than they are (or at least when that’s the perception).