Daily Gleaner | Brent Taylor
As published on page D6 on May 30, 2006
Protesters do little to further debate on Atlantica
Brent Taylor
REALITY CHECK
Next week a conference will be held in Saint John that will draw together an impressive group of business people, and an equally impressive group of protesters.
The meeting's purpose is to further explore the concept of "Atlantica" - a name given to the region encompassing all of Atlantic Canada, part of Quebec, and much of the northeastern United States, including all of northern New England, and much of upstate New York extending as far west as Buffalo.
The thinking behind Atlantica is that our region is bounded within a natural and historical trading zone that has been divided and interrupted by national, provincial and state regulations and commerce restrictions.
Those seeking recognition of Atlantica as a trade region are advocating government withdrawal of those barriers and even creating new infrastructure that would improve trade connections.
One of the most interesting pieces of that infrastructure would be the construction of a highway connector between St. Stephen-Calais, through northern Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, to the eastern end of Lake Ontario.
Such a road, combined with existing four-lane roadways already built or planned between Halifax and St. Stephen, would restore the dominance of Atlantic coastal ports in Halifax and Saint John - a dominance that was lost when the St. Lawrence Seaway was completed, and year-round icebreaking allowed access to the Great Lakes.
That northern highway, which is already the subject of a federal government-funded study in the United States, is but one recommendation coming from the Atlantica partners.
The other ideas include border-smoothing policies: a reduction in red tape and paperwork for the crossing of imports, exports and people.
If realized, Atlantica would help restore the traditional trading relationship that existed before Confederation.
With our east-west "national dream" being realized in 1867, the Maritime Provinces became a captive market of Ontario and Quebec.
What few things we had going for us, like year-round deep water ports and healthy wood and coal resources, were later rendered neutral by new technology, a changing economy, and harmful transportation and trade policies established by an Ontario- and Quebec-dominated federal government.
But, just as business is promoting the concept of Atlantica, there are those who oppose it.
Chief among the nay-sayers is the manifold movement against globalization.
These protesters come from a diverse collection of left-wing, socially active, environmentalist and youth groups.
And they are planning to assemble in Saint John to draw attention to what they see as an attack on our society's support structures.
Atlantica's opponents include The Fredericton Anti-Imperialist Committee, the Feminist Reading Group, the Council of Canadians, the Atlantic Regional Solidarity Network, and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
The loss of minimum wage and social program protection is chief among their concerns, as are worries about a loss of environmental protection laws and sovereignty.
But, as movements of their ilk have done before during WTO and APEC conferences, the opponents of Atlantica are expending lots of energy in exactly the wrong place.
Instead of working through the political system and getting themselves elected to office, they are protesting at the site of yet another conference, trying to take advantage of the presence of the media.
After years of these bizarre tactics, anti-free trade and anti-globalization protesters have not seen their movements mature into real political power.
They persist in activities that make them feel good about themselves and their mission but contribute very little to actually bringing about the change they want.
The New Democratic Party, which is easily the closest political vehicle available to anti-free traders, never seems to benefit from more than token support - especially in this region.
One would think that a group of young, energetic, socially active protesters would be a valuable tool in the arsenal of a heretofore tractionless political party like the NDP or even the Greens.
But at election time there never seems to be the same co-ordination and energy as there is when there is performance to put on and a meeting of suits and ties to ridicule.
It is unfortunate, because the debate as to whether Atlantica is or is not a good concept should be civilized.
A thousand-strong protest does nothing to contribute to the issue in the long term.
The opponents of Atlantica breathlessly reveal that the concept is the brainchild of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, the Irving empire, the Chambers of Commerce and the America business lobby.
They also call attention to the supposedly surreptitious movement to eliminate many aspects of the Canada-U.S. border in the pursuit of a more integrated society and economy.
Atlantic Canada has drive, an entrepreneurial spirit, a strong work ethic, and a sense of justice.
A trading environment that allows us to take advantage of those traits can restore us to our proper place as a builder of Canada.
Atlantica's opponents' best strategy might be to tell us why those things are all bad ideas, rather than trying to create fear of some conspiracy.
What is their vision of the perfect future, and why don't they try to get themselves elected to pursue it?
Brent Taylor is a former MLA. He writes from Doaktown every Tuesday.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
SURPRISE SURPRISE.. IRVING WORKER CONDEMNs PROTEST AGAINST ATLANTICA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
He is not an Irving worker. He works for Atlantic Business College.
Brent Taylor's "Reality Check" may get a few people to think about "Atlantica" -and that's not a bad thing. They might want to think about whose studies and recommendations they should support, particularly when one group is actually composed of tax paying New Brunswickers who come from all walks of life, and the other group the owners of multinationals who provide only a small percentage of the workforce, yet have access to virtually all the resources. While one of the standby's of the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies is denegrating canadian trade, one of the sponsors is Bank of Montreal, a central canadian multinational which sucks out massive amounts of maritime savings to their headquarters in Montreal. And Irvings, which sucks out an equal number of tax concessions, wealth, and resources to their headquarters in Bermuda.
Protests are usually very civilized, and typically it has been shown that it has been the wishes of organizers, and the excesses of police, that have resulted in chaos. Protest is the essence of democracy, as has been recognized by virtually every democratic thinker. Speakers, like Taylor, frequently make the seemingly banal suggestion that opponents of every stripe should simply restrict their protests to the quadrennial elections. They say this, knowing full well Canada has the least representative government in the democratic world, and that elections typically make short work of 'single issue parties'. Even a national presence like the NDP cannot get more than 10% of the vote in this province, and of course we should note that of the groups supporting the protest-the NDP is not among them.
One interesting thing in Mr. Taylor's 'reality check' is the admittance that virtually all the 'recommendations' from AIMS should be done in Washington, not here. Why then is the conference even being held here? It is the United States which is the problem-not Canada, or the region. The highway from Halifax to St. Stephen is very nearly complete, trade through the border has increased over 50% from just five years ago. The Halifax Port recently completed a major development in cooperation with one of its tenants, and now is benefitting from the presence of yet another large scale shipping conglomerate. So just what the heck are we even talking about?
Ironically, one of the things we are talking about is AIMS attack on the market. Yes, you may have heard that this is a 'neo conservative' or 'neo liberal' or neo something think tank which accepts the mantra of the market without question. Yet such is not the case. Here they are abandoning the market and free enterprise, the system that supposedly bestows all the goodies on populations. Why would they be doing such a thing?
That is a very good question, contrary to AIMS beliefs, the maritimes is just so business friendly, that there is little left to espouse in the merging of corporate-legislative union. Corporate think tanks all over the world consistently rank Canada as the top place to do business, while the maritime region, with its few environmental restrictions, lax corporate legislation, and business friendly climate (meaning low wages and few unions) rank at the top of list. Yet where are the benefits? Why is unemployment still higher than a economic pariah like Cuba? Why are 15% of workers classified as 'working poor'? Why is the population shrinking? Why are over half the citizens illiterate? How come the enhanced trade of the last decade hasn't benefitted more citizens of Atlantica?
These are the questions more and more people are asking. We can include many more about our largest trading partner. How has the massive selling off of canadian companies helped canadians? If the US can simply abandon free trade in softwood and tell our industries how to operate, as well as cut them off at will, why seek even more trade with them? If merged industries such as beef can be have trade policies specifically censored against Canada, then how is that trade free?
Those are the questions more people are asking, so AIMS attack seems to be to throw it off track. Why else would it abandon its long cherished beliefs? That's an answer we don't have. Yet we do know clearly in what ways they are hypocritically abandoning them. The 'market' is ubiquitous, yet AIMS wants protectionism on its pet project - the Halifax Port. The port has been growing as the market demands, yet what AIMS wants is massive government spending on the port. The thinking is that this will benefit other ports in the area, but there is no proof of that. What if the market sees more benefits in St. John, or lower costs in Belledune? What if Portland, Maine is the best location? What if, as shipping studies have frequently mentioned, deep sea berths worldwide are going to be downgraded and replaced with "Equatorial Ocean Harbours". These will be located at the main equatorial canals, in the ocean, far from actual ports, and will be serviced by smaller post panamax vessels. This, obviously, will put Halifax at a considerable disadvantage, since trade would then travel westward and northward from the southern US and bypass our region entirely. This, of course, is why they want government to pay for it.
There is also the question of highways, while one ontario commentator has mentioned privatizing highways in the US to get them built. AIMS is consistently silent on the market driven use of tolls on the highways in New Brunswick. It has been the almost complete withdrawal of the corporate sector that has meant governments have no money to do all the things requested of it. In New Brunswick, corporations provide a mere 5% of total government revenues, yet the province is home to two of the wealthiest families in the world. If these companies would see fit to contribute, there would be ample funds for highway construction.
The 'northern highway' is an issue for the americans, as is the " red tape and paperwork for the crossing of imports, exports and people". Since 911 it has been increasing US protectionism that have been the biggest barriers to trade. What Brent doesn't mention, is the conclusion of his sentence: "Atlantica would help restore the traditional trading relationship that existed before Confederation". The conclusion of that sentence is that it was AMERICAN cancellation of the Reciprocity Treaty (free trade) which was the main impetus to confederation. Today, they do not need to cancel treaties, they can simply ignore the parts of them they don't like while holding Canada to the rest. They can take advantage of canadian divisions and american ownership and not worry about a trade war in the only comparible commodity which Canada has an advantage-energy.
Brent claims: "with our east-west "national dream" being realized in 1867, the Maritime Provinces became a captive market of Ontario and Quebec" To combat this, rather than looking at legislation which would favour the area, he advocates becoming a captive market of the US. While canadian policies like equalization as well as the high number of maritimers now living elsewhere might enable some future provincial resolutions, the US certainly will feel no compulsions, as they have proven.
As Brent even admits though, economic trade is not the chief worry for canadians, but rather "the loss of minimum wage and social program protection is chief among their concerns, as are worries about a loss of environmental protection laws and sovereignty." We can note that while Brent expends considerable energy espousing AIMS views of economic trade, he doesn't mention a thing about these issues, only that protestors would be better off "getting themselves elected". When the idea is to protest policy, it seems odd to suggest a group should instead 'get elected'. When Irving wanted an LNG tax break, they didn't run for office. The Chamber of Commerce is not a political party, it is a LOBBY group, just as these individuals are. The difference is that some groups have easy access to the halls of power, while these people don't.
However, Brent is plain wrong when he says "after years of these bizarre tactics, anti-free trade and anti-globalization protesters have not seen their movements mature into real political power." Why trying to get attention of the media is 'bizarre' I don't know, however, there were real gains made in Seattle, mostly in solidarity with third world countries, which then derailed the negotiations. That was real political power, of a kind that canadians have never possessed. In fact, many of these tactics are used by various industry groups, such as the lumber lobby and meat processors in the US. They saw considerable advantage to helping fund such protests, as now they have legislations which guarantees their markets, to the detriment of canadian producers who now no longer have 'free trade'.
Of course such armchair critics are always full of suggestions on how other people are supposed to behave, claiming that "Atlantica's opponents' best strategy might be to tell us why those things are all bad ideas, rather than trying to create fear of some conspiracy. What is their vision of the perfect future, and why don't they try to get themselves elected to pursue it?"
For this the pundits need only check out www.stopatlantica.com, or even www.councilofcanadians.ca , however, as usual, the real motivation is to remind those who don't know any better that opponents simply have no ideas of their own
Post a Comment