deep flaws in what you propose:

Here's an article about the automotive industry you might like to read:

CBC

The Japanese cars are increasing their sales while the big 3 are losing theirs.  The article at the end states,

"The federal government should listen to Canadian consumers (who are also taxpayers) and the message from the market, not the self-serving pleadings of the CAW and the ex-Big Three."

And don't these huge manufacturing-based industries extort money because of their size?  They get all kinds of tax breaks and lower taxes in communities where they are located.  That's one of the reasons, they are able to produce the products they do.  

Softwood is a subsidized industry and they're not faring very well.  

Who are you going to sell the finished product to if you tick off the States?  And they would put a tariff on if they knew the government was subsidizing one or more industries.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree that subsidizing is an answer.  Price controls and subsidizing never does.  Market based economies do much better when 'minor' corrections are made to offset Walmart-type rapaciousness.

It's better to work for change in the NAFTA parts (Chapter 11) of it that are offensive.  

There was an agreement signed December 13, 2005, The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin

 Sustainable Water Resources Agreement' That agreement is coupled with: "The Great Lakes Charter Annex" agreements are intended to implement the 2001 Great Lakes Charter Annex, in which Ontario, Quebec and the eight Great Lakes States committed to protect and manage the waters of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin

 through agreements that set a common standard for decisions about proposed water uses.

I understand some of those agreements are flawed:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SECOND

DRAFT AGREEMENTS?

They threaten Canadian authority over the Lakes

The Annex is composed of two agreements: an agreement between the eight U.S. states that is legally binding and approved by Congress, and a "good faith" agreement between the U.S. states and the Canadian provinces. Canada does not have an equal seat at the table, but instead assumes a "consultative" role. If the U.S. decided to allow diversions, it could do so without Canada's consent.

They allow diversions from the Great Lakes

The second draft of the agreements states that no diversions will be permitted from the Great Lakes. But this is undermined by an exception for the Chicago diversion, the largest diversion from the Great Lakes. The agreements also grant special rights to communities and counties that straddle the Great Lakes. Through these exceptions, the agreements continue to allow vast and ever-growing amounts of water to be diverted from the Great Lakes to cities outside the basin.

They marginalize the International Joint Commission

The International Joint Commission (IJC) is responsible for overseeing and arbitrating transboundary water issues, especially disputes. Canada and the U.S. have equal representation on the IJC. The second draft agreements set up a separate, parallel body to the IJC, wherein Canada is not fairly represented, to settle disputes over the Great Lakes. By allowing another body to do the work of the IJC, the agreements will essentially make the IJC irrelevant, therefore restricting Canada's ability to responsibly steward the future of the Lakes.

They ignore the public

The already inadequate public consultation process has been shortened from 90 days to 60 days. It will also take place during the summer when fewer people are able to participate. It is inadequate and completely inappropriate to silence the voices of concerned citizens.

The Council of Canadians, with Clean Water Action and Public Citizen from the United States, requested an extension to the public consultation process from the Council of Great Lakes Governors.

From:  Vivelecanada

Those types of agreements put Canada and Ontario between a rock and hard place.  We'll always be at a disadvantage because the super power to our South is more populated.  Yes, it's worthwhile to keep pursuing better solutions, but you just have to live in the real world and do the best you can.

Alberta would never consent to having NEP on the sale of their oil.  

Alberta Oil  

It was really ugly when it was done years ago and absolutely impossible to do now.  

----

The 1997 economy of Ontario GDP factor of cost=435,7030.0 broken down into Goods producing industries: 131,293.0 compared to the services industries: 304,671.0.  

Ontario Industry stats

----

And the clincher is we've just elected a Conservative government who looks no further than profits for industry.  They just don't care if Ontario's resources take a beating, or natural resources, or anything that doesn't bring higher profits for Alberta.  

We're just all going to have to struggle to get to the next election when there is a government friendlier to the types of topics you're agonizing with.  

Just make very sure you have an MP that will speak loudly in parliament so the least amount of damage is done.  

I'm not an economist, but our company is an Ontario manufacturing company, but I do think you should rethink your strategy.  Our ability to export without NAFTA and no customers in the States would absolutely collapse with what you are proposing. This is a bigger enemy than Harper could ever be in the short time he'll be the Prime Minister.  

China has just passed the USA as the #1 importer in the EU.

Eurozone has now trade deficit, unlike a year ago.

By the way, it seems that the old rich EU countries have trade surpluses and the new poor countries trade deficits. That is about being poor and globally competitive.

The US dominance as an export target is terrible. A recession will have a significant negative effect in Europe.

David Ljunggren | Jan 31

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada last year became only the fourth nation in the world to allow same sex marriages but that right could be scrapped after the new Conservative government takes power next Monday.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who campaigned on the promise that he would allow Parliament to vote on whether to reopen the issue, said last week he "would prefer to do it sooner rather than later, but not immediately".

If Parliament approved the motion, the government would then introduce legislation changing the definition of marriage back to that of a union between a man and a woman. The gay marriage law was brought in by the outgoing Liberals.

Both supporters and opponents say the vote will be very tight, especially since Harper does not control a majority of the 308 seats in the House of Commons.

"There's a real risk that this motion could succeed ... and we need to deal with it," said Laurie Arron of the gay rights group Egale, who calculates that around 150 legislators would for certain oppose the motion.

"We don't want to take any chances. We've got social peace right now. We've got the right to marry and it's working and nobody's been hurt as a result," he told Reuters.

Harper's gay marriage pledge reflects the views of social conservatives who are unhappy that the House of Commons voted last June by 158 to 133 to allow same-sex marriages.

"We're just happy, to be honest, to have a chance to deal with this," said Derek Rogusky of Focus on the Family.

"I'd put it at 140 to 130 (legislators) in our favour. I think we're out in front but that doesn't matter if you don't know where the undecideds are."

Harper stresses he is committed to same sex rights and promises to ensure the 3,000 gay marriages that have already taken place would not be annulled.

Some observers speculate Harper secretly wants to lose the vote and thereby ensure the issue does not dominate headlines, thereby alienating centrist or soft-left voters whose support he will need at the next election to win a majority.

But one leading Conservative said on Tuesday it would be wrong to assume scrapping gay marriage was a vote loser.

"Is it something that would cause huge numbers of people to vote against the Conservatives? ... It is a good issue and I think you'll eventually find we got a hell of lot of votes from people on that issue," the Conservative told Reuters.

Harper is under pressure from groups such as Focus on the Family to produce results.

"If he fails to deliver on this issue, he'll have to deliver on some significant other issue," said Rogusky. One example would be raising the age of consent to 16 from 14.

Rogusky suggested social conservatives might not support Harper next time if there was no movement on issues important to the movement, prompting the senior Conservative to reply: "They are going to support us. They're certainly not going to go vote for the Liberals."

A law changing the definition of marriage would undoubtedly face a series of court challenges. The Liberal government introduced its same sex law after courts in some of Canada's most powerful provinces ruled in favour of gay marriages.

Groups such as Egale say a law banning same sex marriages would clearly be unconstitutional and would eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court. The Conservatives say the courts should respect the wishes of legislators.

"We think Parliament is supreme and we think if Parliament was to take a position by a majority vote on an issue that the courts would not interfere, especially on a social issue," said the senior Conservative.

Globe and Mail Commentary

By JOHN ENGLISH

Saturday, January 28, 2006 Page A21

Canadians judge politicians by the company they keep. During his campaign, Stephen Harper travelled with Senators Hugh Segal and Marjory LeBreton, planned his victory with Derek Burney and sought counsel from the most successful Conservative leader of his lifetime, Brian Mulroney. Both voters and his own colleagues forgot how, not so long ago, Mr. Harper had denounced and abandoned Mr. Mulroney's Conservative government, which the very talented Mr. Segal and Mr. Burney had served as Chiefs of Staff and which Ms. LeBreton loyally and effectively defended. In tracing the path of the Conservatives to victory on Monday night, it is clear that the steps Stephen Harper took to embrace the Conservative past brought him the richest rewards.

Such reconciliations have been rare in the history of the Conservative Party. In 1980, the year Joe Clark fell after a brief taste of power, Queen's University political scientist George Perlin published The Tory Syndrome, a study of the "recurring crises of internal conflict" surrounding the Conservative Party leadership. Prof. Perlin was fascinated by the "open and often continuous challenges to their authority" that all Conservative leaders had faced since John A. Macdonald's death in 1891. John Diefenbaker summed up the situation well when he declared, "No leader can lead when he has to turn to see who is trying to trip him from behind." Yet Mr. Diefenbaker, whom Dalton Camp and others tripped from behind and in front, spent the last decade of his life tripping up Bob Stanfield and Joe Clark.

In analyzing the "Tory syndrome," Prof. Perlin proposed that "conflict involving the party leadership" was a key factor in the party's many electoral failures in the 20th century. And fail they did, as the Liberals held power in 80 of the 110 years since Laurier's election in 1896. The 20th century may not have belonged to Canada, but it most definitely belonged to the Liberal Party. For Liberals, the beginning of the 21st century has not been promising. In analyzing Monday's defeat, Liberals must consider whether they are now afflicted with the syndrome that so long plagued their Tory adversaries. The symptoms are many.

First, long service in the trenches brings neither great honour nor even much attention. Unlike Mr. Burney and Mr. Segal, the best Liberal strategists of their generation -- John Rae, Eddie Goldenberg and Jim Coutts -- watched the campaign on television. Those whom Liberals recently thought of as potential leaders -- John Manley, Brian Tobin, Alan Rock, Sheila Copps and Frank McKenna -- did not sit in the House of Commons, stand as candidates in the election or participate in the Liberal campaign. Mr. Manley and Mr. Tobin were occasional television commentators, while Mr. Rock and Mr. McKenna were muzzled in their diplomatic positions. Ms. Copps, of course, cannot be silenced, and her distaste for the Liberal government was expressed almost daily in a newspaper column. While many Liberals wanted to forget her, the voters of Hamilton apparently did not, as they elected only NDP and Conservative MPs in the town where the Copps name still possesses political magic.

Second, Quebec, the Liberal fortress that Conservative assaults never levelled in earlier elections, is now crumbling. When Mr. Diefenbaker swept the country in 1958, and the Liberals won only 48 seats nationally, they still retained 25 Quebec seats and received 45.6 per cent of the province's popular vote. Again, in 1984, when Mr. Mulroney trounced John Turner, Quebec gave Mr. Turner 35.4 per cent of its votes and 17 of his 40 seats. In 2006, the Liberals won only 13 of their 103 seats in Quebec and, more troublingly, carried only 20.7 per cent of the popular vote. The Quebec weakness is especially significant. Since Laurier's victory in 1896, much of the party's appeal in the rest of Canada has rested upon the argument that Liberals can build the best bridges to Quebec. The Liberal architects and engineers who could rebuild those shattered bridges are currently in short supply.

Third, the Liberals should look south to understand better what is happening north of the border. U.S. political analyst Thomas Frank recently wrote a book titled What's the Matter with Kansas? Why, Mr. Frank asked, do Kansans vote Republican even though they are among the nation's poorest citizens and were once among the most radical and populist? His question should prompt Canadian Liberals (and New Democrats) to consider why Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Southwestern Ontario, which were once the centres of Canadian liberalism and populism, are now overwhelmingly Conservative. The economic interests of voters in these areas remain largely the same as they were in the first decades of the century, when they were deeply skeptical of banks, Bay Street and big business, and expressed that skepticism by voting for socialists such as Tommy Douglas and populist Liberals such as Jimmy Gardiner.

(more)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060128/COLIBERALS28/TPComment/TopSt
ories

(You Canadians are hilarious!)

A Long and Friendly Conversation, Indeed

By ROSS McLENNAN

U.S. President George W. Bush called prime-minister designate Stephen Harper on Wednesday to congratulate him on winning the federal election.

Other than saying the men had a long and friendly chat, White House spokesman Scott McClellan would say nothing about what the two said during the conversation.

However, thanks to my many influential and powerful contacts in Ottawa and Washington, I obtained a transcript of that conversation.

BUSH: Hello there ... er ... Excuse me ... (Muffled but faintly heard: Scott ... Scott ... Scott! Who am I talking to again -- that Pakistani guy? Huh? Who? Of what? Canada? Canada ... Oh ... Canada! Sure, I remember.) Hello there, Mr. Prime Minister. I hear congratulations are in order.

HARPER: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I can't tell you how much that means to me, coming from you.

BUSH: Of course, of course. Heh, heh, heh. So, you managed to wipe the floor with that other guy ... uh ... (Muffled again: Scott ... Scott! Uh ... Martin? Oh, yeah ... Martin.) You wiped the floor with Martin. Paul! Paul Martin! (Muffled: Scott ... Scott! I remembered that guy's name ... Paul ... Say, wasn't he some kind of pain in the ass?)

HARPER: Well, Mr. President --

BUSH: Let's not stand on ceremony ... Uh ... (Muffled: Huh? Stephen? With a "V"? Oh ... ) Let's not stand on ceremony, Stephen. Call me George.

HARPER: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I can't tell you how much that means to me, coming from you.

BUSH: Of course, of course. Heh, heh, heh.

HARPER: Unfortunately, I didn't quite wipe the floor with him. I just managed to win a minority.

BUSH: A minority? (Muffled: Scott ... Scott! What's "a minority?" Well, if you don't know, how the hell ... ) Er ... Stan ... Stephen! Stephen, I'm a little rusty when it comes to your politics there ...

HARPER: Well, a minority means we hold more seats than any other party does but less than all the others combined.

BUSH: Others? How many are there?

HARPER: Well, there's four main parties and a few other smaller ones ...

BUSH: Four! (Muffled: Scott ... Scott! Did you hear that? Did you know that? What the hell's going on down there ... Huh? Er ... up there. Sounds like some kinda tinpot banana republic. Do we have any guys up there keepin' an eye on things?) Ah, Stephen, I know there's you guys ... the, er ...

HARPER: The Conservative party.

BUSH: Yeah ... Good! Good! That sounds real good. Conservative, eh? (Muffled: Scott ... Scott! They actually call their party Conservatives. Out loud. We should do that.) And the others, Stephen?

HARPER: The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois.

BUSH: Liberals! (Muffled: Scott ... Scott! They actually have a party that calls itself the Liberals! Out loud. Are you sure we have guys up there keepin' an eye on things?) But you beat those Liberals, eh, Stephen?

HARPER: Yes, but when you add their seats to those won by the NDP and the Bloc, well, that's a lot of people ganging up on us.

BUSH: And I thought I have it bad, what with all those bozos in the courts and boneheads in Congress. NDP, eh? A party with initials for a name. Sounds European. Swedish. Even French.

HARPER: NDP stand for New Democratic Party. They're socialists.

BUSH: I knew it! I knew it! The initials! I knew it! Man, you have socialists and liberals to fight, and they have their own parties, too. That is tough.

HARPER: I admit it's going to be quite a job turning this country around but I have you as my inspiration.

BUSH: Of course, of course. Heh, heh, heh.

HARPER: Not that that's always a plus. The liberals and socialists claim I'm going to make Canada into a mirror image of America under your administration.

BUSH: If you do, let us know how you did it. Maybe we could use it in Iraq. But you mentioned the Bloc.

HARPER: They're dedicated to breaking Quebec away from Canada and making it independent.

BUSH: And they're allowed to run for election? (Muffled: Scott ... Scott! We do need more guys up there.) Hey, you know, there's still a lot of room in Gitmo if you need it, Stephen.

HARPER: Thank you, Mr. ... er ... George. But I think I can handle them.

BUSH: Well, Stephen, I look forward to workin' with you. Hope you can come down to the ranch some day.

HARPER: And I hope you can visit me in Calgary, George.

BUSH: Calgary! That's ranch country. And oil country. Hell, that's practically Texas. (Muffled: Scott ... Scott! To paraphrase John Wayne in True Grit: This guy reminds me of me!) So long, Stephen, and God bless Canada.

HARPER: And God bless America, George.

BUSH: Scott ... Scott ... What is all that damn clicking on the line?

Ross McLennan is a Sun columnist. He can be reached by e-mail at: rmclennan@wpgsun.com.

Letters to the editor should be sent to letters@wpgsun.com.

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/McLennan_Ross/2006/01/28/1415250.html

TorontoStar

Road to recovery begins in Quebec

Liberal party needs fresh face free of ties to past scandals

Jan. 30, 2006. 10:26 AM

CHANTAL HÉBERT

Strip bare last Monday's federal results and what you have is the execution of Paul Martin's government at the hands of Quebecers.

Subtract the 10 Conservative gains in Quebec, move just a few thousand federalist votes from the multicultural ridings of Montreal to the Liberal column, and the result is a virtual tie.

Without the Conservative surge in Quebec and its attending positive impact on many voters in the rest of Canada, pundits could well be weighting the leadership merits of Peter MacKay and Bernard Lord, rather than those of Michael Ignatieff and Frank McKenna this week.

When they rewrite the history of Martin's fall from grace, his coterie of loyalist insiders will undoubtedly lay the blame for the virtual elimination of the party from francophone Quebec, and the resulting Liberal defeat, at Jean Chrétien's doorstep. Nowhere has the sponsorship scandal poisoned the Liberal well to the degree that it has in Quebec.

But the subtext of this Liberal rout is also a massive rejection of Martin's uncertain handling of the Quebec file. By election day, some of the province's staunchest federalists could no longer stomach the prospect of having to fight a possible referendum under his leadership.

With mediocre antennas in the province and, in too many cases, minimal understanding of the language, Martin's so-called board spent the past two years flying blind in Quebec.

Perhaps their biggest delusion, one shared by the outgoing prime minister himself, was the notion that Martin's status as an adopted Montrealer would trump his lack of a coherent Quebec message. The assumption was that the native son factor would always give the Liberals a decisive Quebec edge over other federalist parties.

Another assumption was that Stephen Harper's policies ran counter to everything that was mainstream in Quebec. Lost in that equation was the fact that since the patriation of the Constitution, the federal Liberals have systematically been on the wrong side of Quebec on the issue that most defines the province's politics.

Regaining the trust of Quebecers will be a key part of the upcoming Liberal leadership campaign. A comeback in Quebec is a probable prerequisite to the return of the party to power and essential to its future as a national institution.

In the aftermath of the sponsorship scandal, that goal will be further advanced by offering voters a fresh face, free of association with the sponsorship scandal and the Chrétien-Martin civil war, than one from Quebec.

Whoever the Liberals put forward will have to lead the party back to the field of ideas. Over the years, the Liberal party has allowed itself to be dominated by political operators and, again, nowhere more so than in Quebec.

Regardless of its ultimate outcome, no Liberal leadership lineup could be complete without at least one Quebec contender and this one is no exception.

But if the Liberals are to turn the page on one of the most undistinguished chapters in their history, they will have to field Quebec leadership candidates who are not living reminders of their recent misdeeds.

Former justice minister Martin Cauchon -- who has so far been the most eager to claim the Quebec spot in the succession lineup -- is burdened both by past personal ties to some of the players in the sponsorship affair and his role as a Chrétien warrior.

If the Liberals are to move them past those episodes, they may have to look beyond Cauchon, perhaps to the brainy Stéphane Dion, to help them get there.

If this is to be a Liberal year when talking heads matter more than political animals, a rare time when participating in the race could be as important as winning it, Dion would be a good fit for this campaign.

bloggers, including Captain's Quarter, who blogged the Canadian election for the Republican National Committe:

Politics: No Longer Lying Low, 'Rove Is in the House!'

After months out of the limelight, Karl Rove is back and circulating

Newsweek

Jan. 30, 2006 issue - The Republican National Committee organized a forum for conservative bloggers earlier this month, telling attendees they'd be briefed by RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and other party operatives on the 2006 political outlook. But a surprise guest arrived. "Karl Rove is in the house!!!" wrote Matt Margolis, who was live-blogging the event for his site, Blogs for Bush. While Rove implored the group to keep the substance of his remarks off the record, some bloggers posted photos and snippets of their talk with the president's top political adviser, which included a discussion on the politics of the war and the upcoming midterm elections. Rove told the group that he regularly reads their blogs and spent more than a half hour answering questions. "I think we all found ourselves a little surprised to have received that kind of attention," Ed Morrissey, who wrote about Rove on his blog, Captain's Quarters, told NEWSWEEK. "I think he was taking our temperature a bit, which I found interesting."

After months of staying out of the limelight amid scrutiny in the CIA leak investigation, Rove is back and circulating, as Bush and the GOP prepare for battle on the eve of the 2006 midterm elections. He's traveling on domestic swings with Bush and taking high-profile trips of his own. On Jan. 12, Rove was roasted by the Austin Headliners Club, where he faced friendly jabs from a bipartisan panel. In his roast, Democrat Lowell Lebermann cited parallels between the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Valerie Plame case: "They involved two pudgy people in the White House who couldn't keep their mouth shut." Rove, who sat center stage, blushed and laughed. Last Friday, Rove delivered a lunchtime address before several hundred RNC members, defending the president's eavesdropping program and blasting Dems critical of the war on terror. Yet Rove, who is still under scrutiny in the Plame leak, didn't stick around for the lengthy standing ovation he received. Within seconds of concluding the speech, Rove had dashed offstage and out a side entrance, avoiding a group of protesters dressed as plumbers to signify the ongoing leak investigation.

--Holly Bailey

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10964629/site/newsweek/

unclear as to what you think I'm proposing Canuck.  Mainly because I'm proposing exactly nothing in that article. I'm telling you what the incoming Conservative government is thinking, and why.  It's an analytical piece.  They are planning on using subsidies - and this is why.

I am quite aware of what is happening to GM and Ford and have written a couple of pieces on it - one of them is linked in the article.

Finally - we already subsidize both auto manufacturing and aircraft manufacturing.  The US hasn't said boo about it, and they aren't going to.  Why? Because they subsidize both more than we do.

that points out more flaws than I've already illustrated in my previous response of why it is that subsidies usually don't work.

It's entitled, ""Direct Investment in Business or Indirect Infrastructure and Business Support: Finding the Right Balance""

Public finances

and another one discussing Perverse subsidiesdefined as those government payments that undercut economies and environments alike.  

Politics does rear its ugly head in trade and when it does, it's usually for protection of goods or agriculture.  The example I gave for the Great Lakes water, shows the influence that have to be overcome somehow.  

When I looked at your site where you had posted this, most of the criticism for your article that you had received were very partisan.  Perhaps I shouldn't have read them and concentrated more on your data?