Posts
The US government has just released a new list of trade irritants preventing a new trade deal with Canada. It reveals the crucial point that the US is negotiating in the best interests of Canadians, and the Canadian government is our worst enemy.
As summarized by ChatGPT, Canada’s system of “supply management” is the prime irritant. It artificially jacks up the price of essential staples like dairy and eggs, for the benefit of a few thousand agribusinesses. Here especially Canadians should be cheering for the US government. Supply management sacrifices the interests of ordinary Canadians for corporate benefit. Trump wants to help us with affordable food.
Next in the ChatGPT list is “Canada’s Online News Act,” that “requires large platforms to pay Canadian media.” This is in practice a censorship bill, limiting Canadians’ access to news and information about Canada, again for the benefit of a few favoured businesses. This is just about the opposite of what a responsible government should be doing. Canadians should be cheering for the US government.
Third on the list is “government procurement policies favouring Canadian suppliers.” The fix is simple. Canada has in the past protested US “buy American” policies. It is only fair that this work both ways. If both countries go instead to “buy North American,” it is a net benefit to Canada: the US has the larger market. And it means cheaper government procurement, a cost savings for taxpayers. Once again, the US government is negotiating in the Canadian national interest, and the Canadian government is working against us as Canadians, for the sake of handouts to a wealthy elite.
Fourth on the list is Canadian cultural and media protections: “Canada’s support for domestic cultural industries (broadcasting, publishing, etc.)” Presumably a big chunk of that is Canadian government subsidies and direct funding to the CBC and news media. These subsidies are again against the Canadian national interest: they tend to restrict public discourse, turning news media into government propaganda outlets.
One can argue for supporting a distinct Canadian culture, for government support to poetry, dance, the visual arts, and the like. But I doubt this is the US objection, since US governments do this too. Moreover, at present, government funding for the arts in Canada is actually doing the opposite, with systemic preference for artistic expressions that are NOT distinctly Canadian, under the banner of “multiculturalism.” Such expenditures are directly counter to the Canadian national interest. Again, patriotic Canadians who want the best for Canada must cheer for the American negotiators.
Next in line are “Laws requiring French-language labelling and branding adjustments.” One can sympathize with the desire of French-Canadians to preserve their language. However, there is no question that this is a serious barrier to enterprises wanting to sell consumer products into Canada—and not just US enterprises. Even Canadian enterprises. Everything must be specially repackaged for Canada, a relatively small market. This limits choices and boosts prices for the Canadian consumer. Is the game really worth the candle? Can’t this be left to the free market, and Francophones and sympathizers left to vote with their wallet?
Next is agricultural and food regulations. I do not think there would be any serious risk to the health of Canadians by simply entering into full compliance with US food regulations—something the members of the EU have done among themselves. It is not as though the US is some corrupt Third-World country without effective government supervision. It is not as if the US government is likely to play fast and loose with the health of their own citizens. If this is really a sticking point for Canadian negotiators, one almost has to assume they are using these regulations as a covert barrier to trade, as the Americans claim—once again to reward business cronies qt the cost of average Canadians.
Now we come to the enforcement of intellectual property rights. “Rules affecting digital content and streaming.” Here I think the Canadian system is better. The American regime gives more rights to the producer, and fewer to the consumer. However, the US side apparently cites this as a minor irritant—and mostly a matter of enforcement. Whatever...
Next, the US cites regulatory complexity, especially with regard to resource industries. Again, the Americans are arguing for the best interests of Canadians. Simplifying and streamlining regulatory processes would be a big boost to our economy and our prosperity. Given Canada’s resource wealth, every single Canadian actually should, on paper, be a millionaire. That we are so far from this is a measure of how badly government overregulation is holding us back.
Then there is the longstanding matter of softwood lumber. The US claims the Canadian system in effect subsidizes Canadian lumber. What then is the problem? Do we, indeed, want to subsidize lumber going to the US with our taxpayer dollars? Why not get full value? Suppose this means fewer exports. Is there no value in allowing some trees to remain standing? Do we not want to preserve more forest cover? Allow for more carbon capture? Even if we do not, no value, no money, is lost, by conserving the resource. The value of the lumber remains in the tree to be exploited later. Other than subsidizing specific businesses, why should the Canadian government have a problem here?
In sum, the real problem here is that we Canadians are suckers easily exploited by cynical politicians appealing to a juvenile anti-Americanism. Elbows up, indeed.
