shadow

Tuesday December 14, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday December 14, 2021

Canada threatens U.S. with tariffs, partial suspension of CUSMA over electric vehicle tax credit

November 18, 2021

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland has written to top U.S. senators threatening to suspend parts of the CUSMA trade agreement and impose tariffs on American goods unless U.S. officials back away from a proposed tax credit for American-built electric vehicles.

“We are deeply concerned that certain provisions of the electric vehicle tax credits as proposed in the Build Back Better Act violate the United States’ obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement,” Freeland and International Trade Minister Mary Ng say in the letter.

“The proposal is equivalent to a 34 per cent tariff on Canadian-assembled electric vehicles,” the letter says. “The proposal is a significant threat to the Canadian automotive industry and is a de facto abrogation of the USMCA.”

November 19, 2019

The Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) is known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in the United States.

Congress is proposing sizeable tax credits worth up to $12,500 US to buyers of new electric vehicles — as long as those cars are manufactured by union workers in the U.S.

Experts agree the tax measure would deal a major blow to the Canadian automotive sector, which is trying to attract new investment as the industry transitions away from internal combustion engines.

Freeland and Ng also say in the letter that they will “consider the possible suspension of USMCA concessions of importance to the U.S.” They specifically mention the possible suspension of “USMCA dairy tariff-rate quotas” and the possibility of delaying implementation of CUSMA copyright changes.

December 11, 2019

“To be clear, we do not wish to go down a path of confrontation,” the letter says. “That has not been the history of the relationship between our two countries – nor should it be the future.

“There is an opportunity to work together to resolve this issue by ensuring Canadian-assembled vehicles and batteries are eligible for the same credit as U.S.-assembled vehicles and batteries.”

Ng said the letter is Canada’s way of indicating that it’s prepared to play hardball on the trade file, although she would prefer to come to a compromise that avoids trade actions. (CBC) 

 

Saturday April 10, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday April 10, 2021

Prince Philip loved Canada, and knew this country in good times and bad

Prince Philip, in personal encounters, had a special ability to put you immediately at ease at the same time as he kept you on edge. It was his style: he loved to demystify the monarchy so you didn’t sound like a blithering idiot when you were addressed by a member of the family. But at the same time, he also brought to conversation a degree of forthright questioning that sometimes could turn you into … well, a blithering idiot.

October 3, 2002

He loved Canada and probably visited this country more than any other on the planet, both officially with the Queen he served so dutifully and lovingly all those years, and privately on many more occasions, especially in connection with the Duke of Edinburgh Awards or the World Wildlife Fund.

In a life spread throughout most of the 20th century and well into the 21st, he met thousands of people and graced hundreds of institutions. When he made one of several visits to Massey College in the University of Toronto during the Golden Jubilee Year (2002) to become the college’s first Honorary Senior Fellow he was asked — inevitably — to unveil a plaque honouring the visit. The college flag was draped somewhat ornately over the plaque and he went up to it with a certain degree of familiarity:

June 11, 2016

“You about to see the handiwork of a master unveiler of plaques,“ he said with a wry smile. Then he took one corner of the flag and with a few twists of the wrist made it twirl in the air which made everyone laugh.

He wrote later that he had “a soft spot” for Massey College. He had laid its cornerstone in a previous visit in 1962 and he was a particular friend of the college’s founder, Vincent Massey, the first Canadian-born governor general. It was part of a much larger soft spot for Canada as a whole.

January 23, 2021

And he knew the country in good times and bad. Famously, during the troubled visit of 1964 during the height of the Quiet Revolution Quebeckers backs were turned on him and the Queen as their official car headed for the provincial legislature. Later at a press reception, he pointed out that if Canada was tired of being a monarchy perhaps we could try to end it with a bit of civility. “We don’t come here for our health,” he pointed out. “We can think of other ways of spending our time.”

Although a deeply intelligent and inherently kind man with an extraordinary sense of duty, it was his testiness that was a big part of his appeal, and also what got him into trouble. Depending on your views of the monarchy, his off-the-cuff quips were either a sign of the blatant ridiculousness of the Crown or proof of its enduring power. It was usually a matter of perspective.

April 9, 2002

He certainly understood the often murky deal between the Crown and the media that both sides played. On the one hand, there was deep resentment within the Royal Family and those officials who served them at the brutal way the media could often push into their lives during troubled periods. At the same time, the media has for some time now been the leading handmaiden in securing the Crown’s hold over people’s imagination, to the equal irritation for their own reasons of republicans and royalists alike.

He was a man marked for life by his earliest experience of being poor but royal, impoverished but often in the presence of vast wealth, alone in the world but determined to survive and make his mark. And it was all done with a sense of duty that has few parallels in our own time. (National Post) 

 

Friday March 19, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday March 19, 2021

A big deal threatens bigger cellphone fees

There are two things you can bet on when it comes to this week’s $20.4-billion bid by Rogers Communications to snap up rival Shaw Communications.

First, the deal would be very good for both of these telecommunications giants, and not least members of the Shaw family who would personally pocket $920 million in cash for their troubles.

Second, the current takeover plan threatens to be very bad for Canadian consumers, and that probably means people like you. 

Think your monthly cellphone fees are sky-high today? They could blast into the stratosphere if this deal goes through as is. Because if one of Canada’s four biggest telecom companies is bought up by one of the others, there will be even less of the competition so urgently needed to keep some kind of a lid on prices. 

Let’s hope Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is watching this one closely. Let’s hope even more that he’s ready to stand up for the interests of ordinary Canadians. The fact is, cellphone users in this country are already saddled with some of the most bloated cellular fees in the industrialized world. On average, Canadians spend 20 per cent more than Americans and an eye-watering 120 per cent more than Australians for cellphone plans that offer comparable service.

Canada’s “Big 3” telecom companies — Rogers, Telus and Bell — defend the high prices as the cost of providing a first-rate service in a vast land, though the U.S. and Australia are also pretty big places where bills are a lot lower than here. It’s also worth noting that a review by Canada’s Competition Bureau found that those Big 3 telecom companies, however they excuse their pricing, were racking up far stronger profits than their Group-of-Seven or Australian counterparts.

One of the problems industry analysts consistently point to is the lack of competition for providing wireless services in Canada. Today, Rogers, Telus and Bell control nearly 90 per cent of the market. If Rogers is allowed to gobble up Shaw, the Big 3’s market share will rise to 95 per cent. 

Federal government after federal government has agreed more, not less, competition is what this sector needs. And they were all correct. Freedom Mobile, which was started by Shaw in 2016, has been credited with driving wireless plan prices down to at least some degree in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

So what happens if big-fish Rogers swallows up smaller-fish Shaw and takes over not just Shaw’s cable and internet operations in western Canada but its Freedom mobile business? Rogers has tried to silence concerns about its takeover plans by promising not to raise cellphone fees for three years. However sincere that offer is, it would do nothing to stop a whopping fee hike on Day 1 of Year 4.

While Trudeau knows that telecommunications companies need to earn enough money to underwrite expensive investments in internet and wireless networks, he and his party declared they would lower cellphone fees by 25 per cent by the end of 2021.

Given that both the Competition Bureau and the Canadians Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will now take a year or more to review this deal, Trudeau has time to think this one out carefully. But at the end of the day he should be willing to intervene strongly on behalf of consumers. One option among many would be to approve the deal — if Rogers agrees to sell Shaw’s Freedom Mobile business to a company such as Cogeco, which is interested in expanding into the cellphone business.

Such a deal between Rogers and Shaw might not be as big. Almost certainly, neither would the cellphone bills be in this country. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Friday April 5, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday April 5, 2019

The world still needs NATO after 70 years

The 70th birthday of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization this week deserved far more attention and celebration than it received.

November 23, 2002

There were no parades, no fireworks, no self-congratulatory gatherings of presidents and prime ministers clinking champagne flutes to recognize an alliance that has done so much for global peace and security.

Instead, and in marked contrast to the three-day extravaganza that saluted NATO’s accomplishments on its 50th anniversary in 1999, there was only a low-key ministerial meeting Thursday for the organization’s members in Washington, D.C.

This was likely because an ambitious, A-list gathering of NATO-nation leaders would have had to include the volatile, NATO-bashing American President Donald Trump. Having no party was preferable to having one he’d ruin.

Yet NATO was worthy of better. Whatever challenges it faces today — and some coming from disaffected members like Turkey are urgent — NATO must be judged a rousing success.

According to the Brookings Institution research group, NATO is one of the most enduring military alliances in the past 500 years. It rose from the wreckage of the Second World War, when European nations so recently freed from the scourge of Nazi Germany were confronted by an aggressively expansionist Soviet Union.

May 29, 2002

Some critics insisted NATO had passed its best-before date. Russian President Vladimir Putin showed how wrong they were. Today, and with support from Canada’s Armed Forces, the 29-member alliance has deployed troops in the Baltic States, Ukraine and Poland to halt Putin’s territorial ambitions. When the Russians annexed Crimea and destabilized eastern Ukraine, an impotent United Nations watched. NATO acted.

Despite Trump’s rants and threats, Congress and the American people are largely supportive of NATO. They know the alliance helped them in Afghanistan and how much the friendship of so many nations counts in a changing, uncertain world just awakening to the rise of a headstrong, authoritarian China.

Today’s world is very different from what it was in 1949. But for seven decades NATO has helped guide it through seas both calm and rough. Change it must and will. But NATO is still needed and we hope it lasts at least seven decades more. (Source: Hamilton Spectator) 

 

Tuesday October 31, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday October 31, 2017

Morneau not the only cabinet minister using conflict-of-interest loophole

 
Finance Minister Bill Morneau isn’t the only cabinet minister who used a conflict-of-interest technicality to maintain control of their assets while in power, the ethics watchdog confirms.
 

September 22, 2017

The office of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson wouldn’t identify who else at the cabinet table holds controlled assets indirectly. It would only confirm “fewer than five cabinet ministers” do so, and they are not required to sell those assets off or put them in a blind trust.

 
The story was first reported by the Globe and Mail on Monday morning.
 
The Conflict of Interest Act covers assets that are directly held, a loophole Dawson has complained about.
 
The act defines controlled assets as “assets whose value could be directly or indirectly affected by government decisions or policy,” and includes things like publicly traded securities of corporations, registered retirement and education plans and stock options.
 

September 15, 2017

After being dogged by controversy over the shares and his use of private corporations to hold his assets, Morneau announced earlier this month that he would place his assets in a blind trust and divest shares worth about $20 million in his family-built company.

 
He later said he would donate to charity the difference in the value of his shares in Morneau Shepell between when he was elected in October 2015 and the day they’re sold.
 
Dawson is now considering whether to launch a formal investigation into whether Morneau had a conflict of interest in sponsoring a pension bill known as Bill C-27 while still owning shares in his family’s pension company. (Source: CBC News)

SaveSave

SaveSave