D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi

Moocows and Moo-opolies

Moocows and Moo-opolies

The babe of Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau was Justin Pierre James Trudeau who eyed and eared the whirly world from the ayes and nayes of the parliamentary playpen. “Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo”1. Oh, "moo me" said baby tuckoo as he peaked out and peared from pouch of cluckroo as moocow walky down milky way. "Me nee milky moo" he said to baba cluckroo. "Oh, donna drinky too mooch moo" said baba roo. Thus, came about the birth of Justin Trudeau on Christmas day 1971 along with Supply Management of Pierre Elliott Trudeau wherein federal legislation was passed in December 1971 which limited the supply of dairy products and mainly benefited the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and its farmers.  

Notwithstanding the federal, Canadian Competition Act which is intended to protect consumers by prohibiting anticompetitive business practices and promoting competition in the Canadian marketplace, today, Canadians are faced with a Supply Management system which over the years has seen a reduction in participating farmers from 110,000 to 11,000 with the emergence of larger, corporate farms. To the ordinary Canadian it has the appearance of a monopoly which uses exclusive contracts to prevent new entrants and smaller competitors from gaining access. Therefore, it came as a surprise to Canadians that Canadian Supply Managment was one of the greatest impediments to free trade negotiations between Canada and the United States. Speaking of moo cows, why does my half and half cream still contain deadly transfats after they have supposedly been banned in Canada and the United States? Zero tolerance.

Canadians were not privy to in camera talks between Canadian and American negotiators. They were aware though that Supply Management was a major sticking point because Trump railed and rallied against a 270% tariff on Dairy Products. While Canadian negotiators made concessions to the Americans on Supply Managment it is not evident what the Canadian negotiatiors received in compensation for Canadians. One might suspect it was linked to Canada's desire to preserve a resolution of disputes under the old NAFTA agreement which allowed "for a panel of representatives to decide whether countervailing or anti-dumping duties have been imposed unfairly by one of the countries in the deal". In USMCA, the trade dispute mechanism was maintained allowing parties to appeal to an arbitration panel for trade disputes.

The surprise concession made by Freeland under the direction of Trudeau though centers on the China clause or 32.10. It is uncertain or unknown if Canada received a quid pro quo for this monumental concession. One can hardly accept the arugument that it could have been much worse. Anything could have been much worse.  Specifically, 32.10 relates to the necessity of informing the United States and Mexico of Canada’s intention to commence negotiations on a free-trade agreement (FTA) with a non-market economy (China) three months in advance.

If Canada were to enter a free-trade agreement with China then either the United States or Mexico could terminate USMCA. In other words, Canada might have to make a choice between free-trade with the United States and Mexico or free-trade with China. A tripartite USMCA generates USD$1 trillion in trade. With respect to the US-Canada trade in goods and services during 2017 the total was $USD 677.1 billion. This was just slightly less than the overall trade between the US and China in the same year at USD$711 billion.

With regard to merchandise (goods only) the total trade between Canada and China in 2017 was roughly CAN$44 billion where Canada experienced a large trade deficit. This should be of no surprise to Canada since China basically determines the price of raw materials it buys and sells steel at a steal. Why would Canada enter into a free-trade agreement with a non-market economy (China) where overall trade is significantly lower than either USMCA or US-Canada trade and potentially sacrifice its trade within USMCA on a trilateral basis or without USMCA on a bilateral basis? From an economic point of view alone one would rather see Canada pursue and protect a known free-trade deal with the United States and Mexico rather than risk its loss through an unknown, free-trade deal with China which is anything but free as a non-market economy and where the Canadian trade deficit would dramatically and undeniably increase.

In addition, Canada would lose not only its sovereignty but be subject to suzerainty as a vassal state of China. Do you really want Canada to be a new Ming vassal state of the Middle Kingdom which closes the South China Sea with a wall of man-made islands and keeps open your Northwest Passage through its icebreakers and navy for predominantly its own trading benefits while leaving behind one environmental disaster after another? Will you continue to disregard the various Canadian elections that have been historically based on the free-trade issue with the United States (and Mexico) and acquiesce to free-trade talks with China in the guise of sectoral or transaction talks. Duplicity knows no bounds. Can we really expect you to do the honourable thing-- honourable members--and call a free election to decide the fate of a free-trade deal with a non-market economy?

China has asked Canada for free-trade since the USMCA deal was announced. China has asked Great Britain for free-trade since Brexit was annnounced. In both cases, China holds out imaginary trade benefits which will not materialize under free-trade with countries of much smaller scale or with different views on rule of law and civil rights. China is asking both countries to allow Huawei free reign in 5G technology. This free reign will eventually vastly tilt the trade in information services in favour of China until it has achieved a world-wide monopoly position. It also means that Canada will help Huawei with its technology and communication version of One Belt and One Road which has become an infrastructure debt-trap for developing countries.

Oh, ah, the government has been monitoring Huawei equipment since 2013. However, Huawei now knows exactly what you are looking at and exactly what you are not looking at. Huawei will make comparisons with the monitoring in Great Britain to see what the Brits know and what they don't know. You know what you know and you don't know what you don't know. Your tests in Canada are paid for by Huawei. Your intelligence is dependent on funds from Huawei. You ignore the basic rule of economics. He who pays says. He who pays not says not.

Do our government and intelligence services think they can co-exist with or even control Huawei's advanced 5G technology? It seems that our Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development thinks so as he oversees or should one say overlooks our services. It is an illusion if our intelligence services are told to treat all threats as equal. One should not underestimate or ignore the threats from nation states such as Russia, China and their surrogates. They go after the jugular--infrastructure. They often co-operate in the area of intelligence with one another as the author has observed in China.

The average Canadian though views matters from a more basic perspective. He/she pays the highest phone or bundled communication services in the world. He/she asks why our monopolistic, Canadian phone and cable companies are not required to pay the cost of a 5G network? Why are we relying on a foreign company in a non-market economy within an authoritarian state to do something which is critical for us when it can jeopardize our communication, defence and security infrastructures?

Who really are the Chinese experts in the Canadian government?  Let me see. Could it be Trudeau, Butts, Freeland, Bains, Goodale, Morneau, McCallum, Carr, Jones or perhaps Sajjan?  I don't think so. It can't be Pierre Perron who was the Chief Information Officer with the RCMP. He's been hired as a brand officer with Huawei Technologies. I could count the visible experts outside of the government on two hands. Some of them are retired or semi-retired. The government is not listening to any of them. If it doesn't listen to former officers of CSIS then why would it deign to even hear the opinions of members of the security and intelligence services of the United States, Australia or New Zealand?

The government does not base its decisions about China on the views of a majority of Canadians, intelligence and security experts, think-tanks or Canadians who are Chinese experts. Rather, its decisions are purely based on political instinct. To say its decisions are not politically based as Trudeau proffers is utter nonsense. One might go as far to say that the government prefers to listen to non-Canadian Chinese officials, Chinese plutocrats, executives of Chinese SOE's, private Chinese firms with ties to the Party or lobby groups like the China-Canada Business Council. Money talks. The government listens. That is Canadian politics. It is a dirty business.

They will say that they can "walk and chew gum at the same time". What impressive skills! But can they do even this? They undertook free-trade negotiations with the United States at the same time that they proposed progressive ideas to the Chinese in Beijing about free-trade. The Chinese dismissed progressive trade ideas and so did the Americans. Furthermore, the Americans insisted that Article 32.01 be included in the USMCA free-trade agreement--probably, in part, as a result of the Canadian free-trade fiasco in Beijing. Now, China has offered to discuss free-trade with Canada by telling us in effect that Canada is being exploited by the United States. That is not news, but don't you think they are trying to drive a "wedgie" between us to conquer? What IS news is that our foreign minister says that Canada will not be cowered or cajoled by what it agreed to in Article 32.01 with respect to Canada's trade negotiations with a non-market economy. It will listen to China's overtures about free-trade. He who pays says and he who doesn't pay says not.

It seems that Justin Trudeau hadn't given much conscious thought or expressed much opinion about China since his childhood days when he accompanied his father on a trip to communist China and Cuba. His father met Mao briefly and talked with Fidel at length. The revolutions in both countries had ended and the quiet revolution initiated in part by Pierre Elliott Trudeau had subsided. Then came the pre-election of 2015.  

All of a sudden Trudeau--I mean Justin Trudeau--was waxing eloquent in a statement about the power of authoritarian leaders. There was next to nothing about China though in the Liberal platform. When the Liberals achieved a majority they decided to press on with explorative, secret, free-trade negotiations with communist China without consulting the majority of Canadians in a meaningful way. You get it. Consult with the Communists, but not with Canadians.

Today, we have a repeat of the old theme. Be coy about free-trade with the Communists by hiding under the veil of sectoral or transactional trade with a competitor which only wants free-trade along with an extradition treaty in order to challenge and crush the United States through Canada on its One Belt and One Road to world domination. Let Canadian family entrepreneur John Chang languish in a Chinese jail while you toast a drink of baiju to your hosts. You really don't know what the word "exploited" means until you are "exploited" by the Chinese communists. If you think that China wants any win-win agreement you are deluded and will soon be denuded.

1.  James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi