Reports that U.S. telecom giant Verizon may be preparing to enter the Canadian market has sparked considerable speculation on the likely impact of a company with a market cap greater than Bell, Rogers, and Telus combined. While much of the discussion has centered on wireless pricing, the more significant development may be the shift toward a single North American communications market.
...
The prospect of a Verizon entry into Canada would put a single communications market into overdrive. On the telecom side, Verizon could use its Canadian network to change the approach to roaming in North America altogether, since it would be uniquely positioned to offer a single U.S. and Canadian network.
The company could move to eliminate roaming fees for U.S. and Canadian customers, while offering cost-competitive U.S. and Canadian roaming together for international providers establishing wholesale roaming agreements. Such a plan would obviously be attractive to the corporate sector as well as regular cross-border travellers, leading to the gradual elimination of roaming and long distance charges for calls throughout North America.
On the broadcasting side, Verizon holds exclusive U.S. rights to both the National Football League and the National Hockey League. Those rights are currently held by BCE in Canada, but a Verizon entry into Canada could shake things up. Verizon could presumably complicate the BCE rights by offering free access to NFL and NHL games to Canadian customers when they travel to the U.S. More interestingly, it could make a play for joint U.S.-Canada rights in the future, moving closer to an elimination of the geographic divide on content rights.
...
With satellite radio and Internet video already close to a single market, regulatory reform to longstanding policies such as simultaneous substitution a possibility, and the geographic lines on telecom, content, and broadcast distribution all increasingly blurred, the big question may be whether Canada is closing in on a common North American communications market.
Or as he puts it, "wage a permanent campaign in the United States on behalf of Canadian interests."
But how? In the face of tightening budgets, Canada has cut its consulate offices, the traditional way foreign offices advocate for their foreign policy interests and build strong bilateral ties.
Robertson's answer: ditch the office, take the blackberry. From his The Globe and Mail editorial, whose title regrettably distracts from Robertson's main argument:
The lesson we can draw from both the DHS kerfuffle and the bridge saga is that we need to wage a permanent campaign in the United States on behalf of Canadian interests.
We need a thousand points of contact to complement our embassy and our consulates. This means taking our game to the States because by the time a problem reaches Congress we are fire-fighting.
Recent budget paring in Canada has reduced our consulates in the United States to fifteen. Yet, what we need is representation in every state. We can do it, within budget, by doing diplomacy differently.
Recruit talent from the Canadian expatriates who are already living in each state. Let them practice digital-age diplomacy. Drop the black tie for a BlackBerry and a working knowledge of new media.
With some exceptions – our embassy’s prime location on Pennsylvania Avenue is crucial, and the Los Angeles consul-general’s residence is a second home for Canada’s entertainment industry – these diplomats can work from their homes or incubator offices to spot opportunities for trade and investment.
[Note: I suspect many of these digital diplomats--Canadian or not--will be opting for iPhones over Blackberries.]
I think Robertson's editorial starts a good discussion for all world capitals on how nations can assert their interests in the 21st century. Dispatching staff to various locations, assuming that plane fare and gas reimbursements don't eat away at office savings, does seem to make sense whether its foreign subnational governments, small and medium-sized business, or ex-patriots a point of contact.
And going with Canadian expatriates makes sense as well.
But, as a biased American citizen, I would be remiss if I didn't stress the advantages of enlisting Americans in any future Canadian digital diplomacy.
By Keith Edmund White Editor-in-Chief With all this blog's focus on the Canada-U.S. trade and economic relationship, I realized some readers may think: Canada-U.S. trade issues are so 1992. Well, just look at what barriers remain between the United States and Canada. Here's a description of Canadian barriers to U.S. trade (go to pages 53-61):
And for the Canadian perspective, check out this 2008 report (pages 19-21): (Question: Anyone know if there's been an update?)
A summary of these findings will be highlighted latter. But one take-away is obvious: NAFTA didn't end trade issues between Canada and the United States.
A diverse group of energy experts shared presentations on the changing North
American energy relationship. The main
takeaway: Canada-U.S. energy relations are changing, and whether its short-term
energy development to meet current needs, or long-term shifts to green energy through
coordinating North American power generation, sustained Canadian-U.S.
engagement will be critical.
Julie Dill: “Energy Is Good for the Region…[and building]
a Strong and Sustainable Future”
Natural Gas Is Here, And
With It Energy Will Flow to the Great Lakes Region Increasing Not From Alberta
but from the Great Lakes Itself and the Northeast.
May not seem like a big deal. But anything that could affect cross-border trade on the Ambassador Bridge could have huge ramifications. Why? From Bloomberg Business Week:
Twenty-five percent of U.S.-Canada truck freight moves across the bridge, some $82 billion worth of goods every year. That’s more than the U.S. exports to Germany or Japan.
So, in the trade world, this is a huge deal, one if it involved federal actors would be all over WaPo and the NYTimes.
So let’s check out the details of this proposed policy change, which would give hazardous waste truckers another option besides the Detroit-Windsor Truck ferry.
The Detroit International Bridge Company, which owns the Ambassador Bridge, is seeking permission from the Michigan government to let trucks carrying gas, propane, and other flammable and corrosive chemicals across the bridge.
… Under the proposed new rules, trucks carrying gases and chemicals would require Ambassador Bridge escort vehicles to make the trip across the span with them.
…
Every day, more than 8,000 trucks cross the Ambassador Bridge, which is Canada’s busiest border crossing, noted Minister of Transport Denis Lebel (Roberval-Lac Saint Jean, Que.) in a column for this week’s transportation policy briefing in The Hill Times.
If the bridge is allowed to carry hazardous materials, the increase in truck traffic would likely be just a few dozen more vehicles a day, said Mr. Stamper.
The bridge carries 25 per cent of Canada-U.S. merchandise trade, worth almost $500-million a day, according to the bridge company.
… Commercial vehicles crossing the bridge pay a toll of between $3.25 and $5.25 an axle. At current rates, which don’t include a premium for hazardous materials, a typical semi-trailer truck with five axles would pay $26.25 to cross the bridge one way.
CUSLI-Nexus talks Canada-U.S. trade relationship, with the help of some classic 60s tunes!
The Canadian Business Journal (CBJ), an excellent and free resource to catch up with Canadian business issues, offers a Canadian Chamber of Commerce article that reviews Canada's Top 11 impediments to international competitiveness (go to page 18). Top on the list: Human resources. Canadian businesses are having trouble attaining the skilled work-force they need. But, also of note, was the Chamber's addition of trade diversification, especially in energy (cough, Keystone). (Note: This 'Top 11' list built off the Chamber's 'Top 10' list in February.)
So is the Chamber telling Canada change its U.S. lullaby to this Nancy Sinatra classic?
Canada as Resource King. From the selection of articles, Canada's resource industry dominates Canada's business scene.
Canada Should Up Trade Diversity, But Loving Microsoft. While pushing trade diversification, especially in energy, note the cover story on Microsoft Canada.
Business and the public sector. Business issues are social issues: (1) note the absence of concern over healthcare costs, unlike in the United States, and (2) the need for Canada to train its workforce (or bring in skilled immigrants). Impact: government policies are business issues.
Canada and the United States: 'I Got You Babe?' I hate to repeat myself, but the defining issue in Canada-U.S. relations isn't whether they diversify their trade partners. Rather, it's whether both nations harness their relationship in order to succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.
Canada's provinces are beginning to rein in healthcare spending, which means they are putting the breaks on near-double digit percent annual increases. Sure, this is the beginning of a decade-delayed 'new reality' regarding raising healthcare spending. But, as Keith White reports, if Canadian spending on healthcare constitutes a crisis, it's a crisis the United States would love to catch.
Jeffrey Simpson at The Globe & Mail highlights a big shift in how provinces are dealing with healthcare spending, and the possibility that provinces may need to start coming to gripes with containing healthcare spending.
After a decade allowing healthcare budgets to increase, all provinces, save one (i.e. Quebec), are holding back on healthcare spending. Why? Budgets are shrinking; healthcare costs are raising; and, after years of avoidance, provincial debts have to be reckoned with.
But the lurking sense of 'doom and gloom' in Simpson's article could easily bemuse an American observer.
Wednesday’s Financial Post has a fascinating piece on the importance and changing nature the Canada-U.S. economic relationship. With so much attention paid to diversifying Canada’s trade portfolio, its importance to emphasis the unique and lasting value a close Canada-U.S. economic partnership has for both nations. The driving question in Canada-U.S. trade isn’t whether Canada and the United States look for new traders partners. Rather, it’s whether they harness their relationship in order to succeed in the 21st century global marketplace.
ZDNet.comreports on the recent release of Trend Micro Inc.'s 2013 research paper, Who's Really Attacking Your ICS Equipment? The report shows attackers didn't wait long to attack a dummy control site emulating an Industrial Control System, similar to systems that could control a water pump or monitor a power plant's output. The impact: Computer system monitoring critical private and public infrastructure in the United States is most likely being attacked repeatedly and on a daily basis. And it's as simple as having a computer and internet access. With power system systems, dam networks, and international finance dependent on internet connectivity, all wired nations must grapple with protecting their critical infrastructure.
U.S. President Barack Obama is taking heat for comparing relations between Israel and Palestine with Canada and the U.S.
Because Canadians are known for hurling rockets into Buffalo, right?
Obama made the comparison in the West Bank Thursday, saying Canadians and Americans have disagreements, too, but resolve them diplomatically.
“We can’t afford to have our kids in bed sleeping and suddenly a rocket comes through the roof, but my argument is even though both sides may have areas of strong disagreement, may be engaging in activities the other side considers to be a breach of good faith, we have to push through those things to try to get to an agreement.”
Yes, the a budget dropped in Ottawa. But I'm finding Michael Burt's Globe and Mail article a bit more significant to the Canada-U.S. relationship's overall trajectory:
In short, Canada and the United States are becoming less dependent on one another, and, in most cases, China is the X factor. The Conference Board of Canada discusses these trends, their causes and implications in its recently published report, Walking the Silk Road: Understanding Canada’s Changing Trade Patterns. The most resilient industries in terms of Canada’s share of U.S. imports are generally service industries. A highly educated work force, similar cultures, and a shared language have helped Canadian firms maintain their competitive position in the U.S. market.In contrast, Canada has generally lost the largest market share in manufacturing industries where labour is a major share of total costs, such as furniture manufacturing, printing and textiles. Industry specific issues can be an additional factor, such as the shift in consumer demand for flooring and cabinets away from traditional hardwood products toward those made from bamboo or more exotic hardwoods.
The link above goes to a webinar; if you want to access the actual December 2012 report, go here. A summary of the report and webinar will be up by next Monday.
Source: CRT Digital Library, http://crtlibrary.cbt.org/items/show/125
Editor-in-Chief A local Washington State paper, talks Columbia River Treaty (CRT) renewal, detailing the ecological pressures that accompany updating
a 20th century power generation-flood control treaty to reflect 21st
century concerns. But are renewal talks over CRT, a treaty that whose expiration clock starts running in 2014,
more likely to stumble over financial terms?
Then again, will this impressive water-management/power generation treaty, which stretches from British Columbia to Montana, be able to adapt to ecological concerns or the demands of Native peoples on both sides of the border? Keith White discusses the CRT's impressive 50-year evolution.
The Columbia River Treaty: 'Kaiser City' Floods, 50 Years Canada-U.S. Flood and
Power Cooperation Starts
In May 1948, a ten-foot high deluge inundated the city of Vanport, then the second-largest city in Oregon locate between Portland
and Vancouver. The Vanport Flood not only
washed a city (striking “Kaiser City” from the U.S. cultural lexicon), but
ushered in a impressive treaty where the United States swapped power generation in return for Canada providing regional flood control. (Page jump after the photo)
Source: CRT 2014/2024 Review-Recent U.S. Entity Study Results available in full below.
By Keith Edmund White CrimPro meets border policy courtesy of child pornography. Why an apparent court victory for digital privacy rights might be a 21st century Trojan horse, and its impact on the Canada-U.S. border security and trade relationship.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held today (United States of America v. Cotterman) that reasonable suspicion is needed to forensically examine electronic devices seized during a border search (and not risk having any incriminating evidence kicked out of court). OK, boiled down: The 9th put up red light to a "computer strip search" without reasonable suspicion. Might not sound like a big deal, but this decision reflects an interesting development in the suspicionless searches of personal property (yes, there are times law enforcement officers can search your stuff without showing an iota of cause). Oh, and it might just impact America's border security and trade policies. Disclaimer: I haven't fully digested, let alone have the expertise of others, like the Brennan Center for Justice, to fully assess this case. The post, found after the jump, simply highlights:
even a cursory read of the decision's summary suggests that this decision reflects something more complicated than a 'win' or 'lose' for digital privacy rights, and
perhaps the most important aspect of the case, whether giving heightened protection against computer strip searches impacts U.S. border security, gets shockingly short attention by the Court.
The Great Lakes are the largest system of fresh surface water, a vital resource in Canada and the United States contributing $180 billion to Canada-US trade and are surrounded by over 33 million Canadians and Americans. Despite joint U.S.-Canadian efforts dating back to the early 1900s, the quality of the Great Lakes has been declining. As a result, not only are great lake’s ecosystems in disarray, but the future utilization of this great resource is at risk. The Great Lakes are not Truly Healthy, yet. To this end, efforts are underway to ensure that they can stimulate the environment, economy, and community health and development.
Efforts adopted in the recently amended Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement include updating phosphorus targets for open waters and nearshore areas of the lakes to reduce harmful algal blooms controlling discharge from ships and vessels where discharge includes oil and hazardous polluting substances, wastewater and sewage, biofouling, antifouling systems and ballast water, and the development of conservation strategies to protect native species and restore habitat such as wetland monitoring.
But who is coordinating these efforts?
The International Joint Commission (IJC) has been a key player in coordinating and developing efforts to improve the water quality of the Great Lakes. The IJC was created after Canada and the United States acknowledged the value of cooperation in the management and protection of the great lakes for present and future generations. The IJC’s response to poor water quality continuously includes determining Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI). BUIs are important because they indicate the most harmful effects of poor water quality as currently viewed by the IJC. A BUI is “a change in the chemical, physical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes system sufficient” to cause use impairments. In addition to other uses covered in Article IV of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 14 additional BUIs explicitly designated are:
1. Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption 2. Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavor 3. Degraded Fish and Wildlife Population 4. Fish Tumors or other Deformities 5. Bird or Animal Deformities of Reproductive Problems 6. Degradation of Benthos 7. Restriction of Dredging Activities 8. Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae 9. Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption 10. Beach Closings 11. Degradation of Aesthetics 12. Added Costs to Agriculture or Industry 13. Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations 14. Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
The aforementioned BUIs’ language on their face, most closely relate to environmental issues. However, it is vital that people recognize the interconnectedness of the environment with the prosperity of the Great Lakes, its residents and its role in the well-being of the Canada and the United States.
While efforts are in motion to improve the Great Lakes’ water quality, such as those described in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a more thorough review of the Agreement is necessary to shed light on whether it will be effective this time.
Lots of varying opinions on how Obama's push for a US-EU free trade deal will impact the Canada-EU free trade talks.
Commentators Mixed on Impact of EU-US Free Trade Negotiations on Canada-EU Trade Talks
WSJ says "the heat is on" for Canada to wrap up their 3-year discussions with the EU, quoting international trade lawyer Lawrence Herman:
The U.S. move “puts pressure on the Canadian government to finish negotiating with the EU,” Lawrence Herman, an international trade lawyer with Cassels Brock LLP and a former diplomat, told Canada Real Time. The size of the U.S and EU markets means those talks will be “extremely important” for both sides and “Canada could be lost in the shuffle if we don’t manage to resolve the outstanding issues.”
But the Globe & Mail offers a more nuanced take, sampling from a variety of experts:
John Weekes, former top Canadian trade negotiator: "It puts the squeeze on us to get going and finish our deal with the EU."
Derek Holt and Dov Zigler, Bank of Nova Scotia economists: “The promise of a new trans-Atlantic partnership between the U.S. and Europe also could impact Canada as efforts continue to complete a Canada-EU agreement..."
David Madani, chief Canada economist at Capital Economics: "“I don’t think the Americans having talks with the EU changes anything for Canada. Canada’s talks with the EU started back in 2009. It seems fairly clear that both sides are committed to achieving some kind of trade arrangement..."
Pro & Cons of Canada-EU Free Trade Deal
And here are two takes on the net benefits and costs of Canada prusuing the EU free-trade pact:
"A Canada-EU joint economic study released in October 2008 shows that a trade agreement would boost Canada’s economy by $12 billion annually and increase two-way trade by 20 percent." [Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada]
Main Take Away: Competing FTAs (and Ensuing Trade Diversion?) Are Here to Stay, Sorry WTO
With the United States, under a center-left President, plunging into trade talks with the EU and with several Asia Pacific nations to achieve a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, it seems FTAs--and not WTO agreed to global agreements--will be leading the free trade parade.
The good news for trade liberalizers? FTAs move the ball forward.
The bad news? With reports already suggesting the US may get a better deal than Canada in their deals with the EU, this raises the specter of competing free trade agreements actually creating trade diversion. Instead of tariffs, the problem will be differing treatment under FTAs.
Now these competing trade deals could have countries consistently lower their trade barriers.
But there is an ironic alternative. 'Free' trade agreements may end up creating FTA trading blocks that re-create the trade barriers that have seen such liberalization since WWII.
A response to Todd Miller's recent piece in The Nation, and the dangers of histrionics in writing about the Canada-U.S. border.
Todd Miller paints an fascinating, if incomplete and somewhat falsely alarmist, view of America's emerging approach to border security.
Miller deserves credit for highlighting what could be a troubling trend in border arrests--only 1 percent of border arrests (in Rochester) being of a person of "fair" complexion.
Sure, the numbers sure seem cherry-picked, but Miller does deserve credit for highlighting what may be a serious problem of race and security border.
It's the rest of the article that has me concerned.
Bert Tussing, US Army War College Homeland Defense and Security Director, realizes that when people think of border security, what immediately comes to mind is the US-Mexico border. After all, he is speaking in El Paso, Texas, where in the early 1990s the massive transformation and expansion of the border enforcement apparatus was born. Operation Blockade (later renamed Operation Hold-the-Line) became the Clinton administration’s blueprint for the walls, double-fencing, cameras, sensors, stadium lighting and concentration of Border Patrol agents now seen in urbanized areas—and some rural ones as well—from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, California. Tussing believes that this sort of intense surveillance, which has literally deformed communities throughout the southwest, should be brought to the northern border as well.
My thoughts: Before we start seeing dysoptian images of America turning into West (or East?) Berlin, let's take a beat. Canada and America's trade relationship, wherever walls may or may not be, can't afford further delays at the border. And there are some areas--the Great Lakes, for example--where I don't think anyone would mind greater scrutiny of the goods that are traded and the people who may be crossing back and forth. Whether organized crime or terrorism, this seems like smart policy. The Private-Public Hybrid to Border Security: An Issue that Merits Our Attention
A former Marine with close-cropped brown hair, Tussing has a Napoleonic stature and despises being stuck behind a podium. “I kind of like moving around,” he quips before starting “The Changing Role of the Military in Border Security Operations,” his talk at last October’s Border Management Conference and Technology Expo.
Perhaps Tussing realizes that his audience holds a new breed of border-security entrepreneur when his initial Army-Marine joke falls flat. Behind the small audience are booths from seventy-four companies selling their border-security wares. These nomadic malls of the surveillance state are popping up in ever more places each year.
My thoughts: Now this is interesting, and if Miller provided a bit more substance could have made a great article. What are the trade-offs with taking a hybrid public-private approach to border security? Are we paying more for a quick, but lower quality security net? Miller gets credit for implicitly raising these questions. The Constitution-free zone:
That zone—up to 100 miles from any external US border—is the area that the Supreme Court has deemed a “reasonable distance” in which to engage in border security operations, including warrantless searches. As in the Southwest, expect more interior checkpoints where federal agents will ask people about their citizenship, as they did to Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy in 2008. In the zone, you have the developing blueprint for a country not only in perpetual lockdown, but also under increasing surveillance. According to the ACLU, if you were to include the southern border, the northern border and coastal areas in this zone, it would contain 200 million people, a potential “border” jurisdiction encompassing two-thirds of the US population.
My thoughts: First, I have some real concerns with Miller running with the ACLU's label of "constitution free" border. My off-putting ranting aside about the shallowness short-form reporting requires aside, I have a feeling this border zone doesn't allow the local cops or FBI of 200 million people to endure warrantless searches at the drop of a hat (err...badge). But I'll get back to this after consulting the ACLU and any other resources that might around.
Conclusion: "Drama-Free" Need for Numbers & BTB
If the United States has been on a spending bulge to secure our northern border, the rational approach would be: (1) look dispassionately at what has resulted from this security push and (2) are we getting our money's worth.
But budget and policy analysis aside, it seems that--at the very least--the United States, if it's--in Miller's view--is throwing money at private contractors, planning to seal off our nation, and taking away almost half of the public constitutional rights, shouldn't we at least put a tiny fraction of that money into ways to improve Canada-U.S. trade so that we can create more jobs.
If I'm going to live in a "constitution-free" zone, might as well get the advantage of cheaper pork at the market, a job to buy it, and then the surplus income to buy (another) flat-screen TV.
Two growing news-stories with two very different routes to prominence.
In Canada the Idle No More movement, which started as a series of teach-ins, has now turned into a growing social movement propelled by Chief Theresa Spence's hunger strike. After 23 days of nothing more than fish borth and herbal tea, Spence still remains strong in her demand: a meeting with Prime Minister Harper.
And in the United States, what was thought to be the end of 'Drama-Filled December' with the fiscal cliff resolved has been jolted by reaction to Speaker Boehner's decision to not permit a vote of Senate-passed Hurricane disaster relief legislation.
Idle No More Aboriginal Movement Is Growing, But to What End?
CTVNews.ca and Jordan Press at Canada.com offer a good primer for the Idle No More Movement.
Attention to the growing movement was sparked in part by Chief Theresa Spence, who launched a hunger strike last month in a bid to secure a face-to-face meeting with Stephen Harper. Spence has taken up residence on Victoria Island in the Ottawa River, wanting to discuss issues at Attawapiskat, her First Nations community located on James Bay.
Spence is also calling for a new relationship between the federal government and First Nations peoples.
Her hunger strike stretched into Day 23 on Wednesday, with Spence vowing to survive on nothing more than fish broth and herbal tea until a meeting is set.
The broader Idle No More movement urges the federal government to honour historic treaty agreements, and organizers are concerned that Bill C-45 -- the omnibus federal budget bill which they say erodes aboriginal rights -- was drafted with no input from aboriginal leaders.
Rail blockades have already taken place in Quebec and Ontario as demonstrations take place around the world, and Spence’s spokespeople said Wednesday in a written statement that the situation “is becoming more volatile.”
The statement added that chiefs who met in Ottawa last week plan to launch “countrywide economic disturbances” if Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn’t meet with Spence.
On social media, activists were calling for blockades of border crossings on Saturday “to show the government that we are willing to escalate this to a point where we shut down the country.”
The movement, which started as a series of teach-ins on a small Saskatchewan reserve, has grown into a national movement that is now receiving international attention. Spence has become a focal point for Idle No More, subsiding on nothing more than fish broth and water since Dec. 11. She has said she’ll starve herself to death if Harper doesn’t meet with her, but has also suggested that a meeting between the government and native chiefs to discuss treaty concerns would suffice.
Harper has so far not said if he will meet with Spence. Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan has offered to meet with Spence, but she has declined his offers.
On New Year’s Day, a close aide to Spence sent a letter to the founders of Idle No More which quotes Spence as saying that chiefs “must humble themselves and be one with the brave grassroots citizens of our nations.
But Keith Beardsley at HuffingtonPost.ca questions whether the Idle No More continued demand for a meeting with Harper may preclude the best outcome: both PM Harper and Chief Spence to have a face-saving way to improve the the challenges facing First Nations People.
From Beardsley's column where he urges Harper to meet with National Chief Shawn Atleo and former Prime Minister Joe Clark, and for Chief Spence to declare victory--steps which then allow both sides to begin substanial dialogue:
Chief Spence has succeeded in galvanizing First Nations communities, activists and youth to take action. Her efforts have helped the "Idle No more" movement which started in Saskatchewan, to take root and grow into a national movement. The movement will not go away any time soon and it is something both the present and future Canadian governments, as well as the First Nations leadership will have to deal with. There is more than enough here for Chief Spence to declare victory. The Prime Minister also needs a face-saving victory. No national government regardless of its political stripe can be seen to give into a protest for the precedent it will set. He too, needs a way out. Victory for Harper will be one where he can say he did not give in to the protest.
Harper needs to reach out beyond his inner circle, cabinet and departmental advisors. Their advice is stale and hasn't worked so far.
...
Solutions exist, but both sides have to show flexibility, they also need a win-win situation. Both sides want to improve living conditions for First Nations, both sides also want increased opportunities for First Nations, especially for the youth. Who then will be the first to offer a hand in friendship this time and allow the dialogue to begin?
U.S. House Speaker's Sandy Misstep (and now mending): Growing Criticism Over Boehner's Decision to Not Bring Senate-Passed Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill to a Vote
This morning on the House Floor, and now with New Jersey Governor's press conference this afternoon, the excoriations of House Speaker Boehner's decision to pull Sandy relief legislation is growing, and getting more and more play throughout the cable news echo-chamber.
Christie's powerful opening statement at his press conference two hours ago included:
"Last night politics was placed before our oath to serve our citizens. For me, it was disappointing and disgusting to watch...Last night the House of Representatives failed that most basic test of public service, and they did so with callous indifference to the suffering of the people of my state."
Why has passing the Sandy bill so hard for Boehner? Well, no one seems entirely sure--apparently there was a commitment to vote on the bill that then fizzled. But FOXNews says the complaints from Republicans--particularly House Rep. Peter King and Christie--may be for show:
Less than an hour after Christie’s press conference, Republican lawmakers confirmed that the backlash against Boehner was mostly for show, announcing that the Speaker promised a vote on the Sandy aid package on Friday.
Rep. Peter King, R-NY, who earlier Wednesday said that anyone donating money to House Republicans is “out of their mind”, told reporters that he planned to back Boehner for Speaker again.
Update: Boehner mends fences by agreeing to two votes on January 15, reports The Hill:
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has agreed to hold two votes on Hurricane Sandy aid after coming under withering fire from New York and New Jersey Republicans.
The House will vote to provide $9 billion to shore up the National Flood Insurance Program on Friday and will vote on another $51 billion Sandy spending package on Jan. 15, according to GOP aides after a meeting between Boehner and GOP lawmakers from the affected states.
The Globe and Mail offers some interesting graphs of where Canadian business leaders think their export market heading in the near-future. Check out all the results and related articles here, but this graph was the most surprising--showing that most participants believing America's share of Canada's export market will stay the same or even increase:
