[Curtman]

Khar Khar:

The government also supports the airline through using it over other alternatives, hence there is also a "procurement" subsidy. The Canadian government does the exact same with Air Canada, in addition to direct financial subsidies.

$1:

Emirates latest annual report showed that the Dubai government was paid a dividend of AED956m ($260m) in 2010, compared to AED2.9bn ($793m) in 2009.

Strange they've got the subsidies flowing in the wrong direction. Maybe that's what is wrong with Air Canada.

[bootlegga]

Curtman Curtman:

$1:

Emirates latest annual report showed that the Dubai government was paid a dividend of AED956m ($260m) in 2010, compared to AED2.9bn ($793m) in 2009.

Therein lies the real reason the UAE government is in such a tizzy over this.

They probably need it to help make their mortgage payments on all the buildings they keep throwing up...

[Guy_Fawkes]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

martin14 martin14:

Not our job to run around apologizing for their stupidity,
especially linking a state run company special status and the war on terror,
where we bleed and they sit on their asses.

And certainly not Bobjob's job. We have a government for that.

Or maybe this is a fundraising trip ?

We're not in a war on terror. We're in a war in Afghanistan. Apparently the UAE gave us some space to operate a military base. I can just imagine what response you would have if the tables were turned--if the UAE floated the idea of setting up a military camp in Canada so they could conduct a war against some neighbour of ours. What do you say, Martin--would you accept a Muslim-run UAE military base in your neighbourhood?

Regardless of the merits of UAE's proposal, the Conservatvies botched it, as they botch many sensitive foreign affairs files with their ham-fisted ideological responses.

You are correct, it is not Bob Rae's job to negortiate foreign policy overseas. However, there's nothing the Conservatvies can really do to stop him, and when they castigate him for it, all they do is draw attention to how they screwed the whole thing up.

That's why this was a smart move.

To be fair though the UAE has invested in the NATO mission in Afghanistan. As far as I know the UAE has contributed cash and consultants, as well as aircraft to the Afghan government. They will not contribute a military force but they have been supporting the current administration of Afghanistan.

[Khar]

Curtman Curtman:

Khar Khar:

The government also supports the airline through using it over other alternatives, hence there is also a "procurement" subsidy. The Canadian government does the exact same with Air Canada, in addition to direct financial subsidies.

$1:

Emirates latest annual report showed that the Dubai government was paid a dividend of AED956m ($260m) in 2010, compared to AED2.9bn ($793m) in 2009.

Strange they've got the subsidies flowing in the wrong direction. Maybe that's what is wrong with Air Canada.

Air Canada is subsidized so that, amongst other reasons, the Canadian government has a carrier which can go to destinations which would otherwise be uneconomical to have flights in and out of, to counteract transportation problems in a nation as large as ours. The UAE would not have provided anti-competition measures and political support if there was not something to be gained as the shareholder of Emirates Airline, just like most nations defend industries and interests which lie within their borders.

After all, we have tax subsidies in support of the Oil Sands. There are benefits for us doing so, even if it is at the costs of others. Support for Emirate Airlines works in a similar manner. The fact that these subsidies have benefits does not stop them from being subsidies, after all. Others may view dividends as "rent seeking" behaviour, to procure further assistance or subsidies to bolster forms of protectionism or anti-competition practices. Some view the Oil Sands as just that here in Canada. I don't have a firm stance in that regard for either situation. Both our nations do, however, benefit financially from the existence of these industries and because of our support of them.

For the record, I am not saying whether this is a negative or positive thing. I am pointing out that this is very, very different from the supposed subsidies in the softwood lumber industry. The simple difference is that one is supported where the other is not. The Canadian government perceived what the Americans did as protectionism which broke FTA regulations, whereas the Americans viewed our wood as being unfairly supported by some form of subsidy (originally suspected to be artificial pricing), and that is what brought us to court, where it was decided that subsidies did not exist.

[desertdude]

At the end of the day my views on this remain unchanged. Canada was and is being overtly obtuse over this.

[EyeBrock]

This is just politics. Harper kinda fucked this one up a bit by refusing to bow to UAE pressure.

Negotiation maybe less honourable, but it's the way to do business with the autocratic.

Rae is just seizing a political opportunity to make the Tories look bad. True, it isn't in the best taste, just like Iggies comments on the Security Council seat, but it is pretty standard partisan stuff that I'm sure the Tories would be doing if the tables were turned.

[Khar]

desertdude desertdude:

At the end of the day my views on this remain unchanged. Canada was and is being overtly obtuse over this.

There is some degree of "obtuse"-ness on both sides of this issue.

A vindictive response to a no is hardly a soft, pleasant retort to being denied further landing rights on Canadian soil in one city with a strained and restricted load already, even when spots were allowed in the two others requested.

The degree of "no" which Canada had was not to the same degree as the response given, which included essentially forcing a 300 million dollar charge on Canada ahead of schedule, barring a lead Canadian diplomat from UAE airspace without explanation, disallowing other Canadian officials into the airspace, revoking preferential status for Canadian citizens, reduced effectiveness of an internationally agreed upon military dispute and potentially playing a role in Canada's showing for the UN security council two year seat.

Canadian officials tried conciliatory notes throughout this period which were ignored. Your nation was thanked for it's assistance and we left as requested, without heavy handed rhetoric. As far as I am aware, we have not enacted any other policies which would be detrimental for the UAE. That the article shows a man going there without the support of the government to speak to unnamed ministers to say the exact same thing hence means to me that little will be accomplished.

Citing economic reasons for support of this cause does not change that those 27,000 Canadians they said lived in the UAE must now deal with the VISA requirements forced on them. An unnecessary, uneconomical move.

Canada cannot be blamed alone for this one. Our government did have a screw up here, and some stuff was said which should not have been. They are not the only one's who can say the first thing to try and mend ties, and the Canadian government has stated it wishes to do so already -- to a generally mute response. This is a two group thing, on the backs of both Canada and the UAE to fix. If anything, the degree of escalation of this affair was definitely not helped by any of the above, which was at the very least equally overtly obtuse. I am definitely not saying Canada was without blame in this case, since I am no expert, but the UAE is not exactly being a paragon of virtue here either.

[EyeBrock]

The other difference Khar is that both Harper and Rae are accountable to the electorate. In the UAE you can't vote, it's a benign dictatorship.

[gonavy47]

Maybe he's going over there to explain how "Rae Days" works, or didn't.

[EyeBrock]

I'm just waiting for Bobby to topple Iggy, then we will see a collapse of Liberal votes in Ontario.

[Curtman]

Khar Khar:

The Canadian government perceived what the Americans did as protectionism which broke FTA regulations, whereas the Americans viewed our wood as being unfairly supported by some form of subsidy (originally suspected to be artificial pricing), and that is what brought us to court, where it was decided that subsidies did not exist.

I notice you are using past tense.

U.S.-Canada lumber trade dispute heating up again

Despite Harper having "solved" this issue four and a half years ago

Harper snookers Liberals with softwood lumber deal

[Curtman]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Maybe he's going over there to explain how "Rae Days" works, or didn't.

About the same as "Filmon Fridays", which is what the Conservatives called them in Manitoba.

[EyeBrock]

Yea, but Manitoba is a lot smaller than Ontario Curt. We all remember Bob.....

And I'm not looking for a fight because I truly love you....in a very manly way...

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Yea, but Manitoba is a lot smaller than Ontario Curt. We all remember Bob.....

I'll never forget that POS sonofabitch...ever!

[EyeBrock]

Agreed PA9. The Libs try and kid themselves that Bobby won't hurt them in Ontario. Wrong, very wrong.