PMO worries Rae visit to UAE will undermine Canada

I'm really enjoying watching the Harpocrites sling mud at our allies over airline subsidies while at the same time rationalizing lumber subsidies to another.

Ballsy move by Rae on this one. First decent chess move the Libs have made in recent memory.

hmm, looks like Rae is getting ready to 'bob' his head up and down,
hope some camel spit will help wash out the taste.


Bad move.

Also bad moves?

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 ?

Unfortunately we don't have a government for that. Instead we have a government pretends to be tough on crime.

At the end of the day its the ordinary Canadians that are suffering, I was just talking to one of my Canadian mates today and he really needs to sort himself out in order to continue working leagally that requires some breaucratic loop holes to be jumped in order to change is work sponsorship, without boring everyone with the legal process how this works here, now he is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

As before he could just cross the border and re-enter on a free tourist visa and then easily sort himself out and get a new residency visa.

As always its the ants that get trampled when elephants tussle.

Are we actually allied with UAE? They provided a space for us to use, and have since kicked us out. I'm not sure if that would be enough to call them an ally at any point in our relationship. Sorry, I'm just not sure about that term in this case. They are not a part of NATO or NORAD.

I know we're going to court again over the "salvage wood" in BC, but the legal battles so far have favoured Canada in proving that Canadian lumber is not subsidized significantly (official results in 2006 declared it a de minimis subsidy, meaning less than 1%) and that the blocks on Canadian lumber using that reason have been illegal. There were other cases where NAFTA representatives found that countervailing duties on Canadian softwood well outweighed any potential subsidies. Other reasons, however, have been successful in going through, such as ones regarding quotas which have resulted in fines on the Canadian lumber industry.

In comparison, they are discussing a heavily subsidized airline. I think, personally, that you are a bit off base in considering the two situations to be equal, Curtman.

Also, on the other politicians going, I would assume that those were sanctioned by the government. It is clearly pointed out that Rae's visit was not sanctioned, or funded by the government as a result. Trade missions, as a government function and funded by those governments, most likely must be sanctioned for these people to visit.

I also have to point out that what Bob Rae has said from his blog seems offbase. He has chosen to take the one of someone else over the words of another, without telling us why, and at the same time attacks Harper for poisonous rhetoric. After that, he tells us that he has met with these nameless folks and representatives and has said basically what people in the government have already said, words without meaning other than typical diplomatic niceties, in my own opinion. That we need a good relationship with them but that it doesn't necessarily mean we are going to budge on our policies.

This isn't a visit in good faith, in my opinion. It feels more like a visit in spite, and I have to admit that even though I'm not enthused with Harper (a reminder that the C is not my actual political leanings, bugs and such) I can see why this doesn't really do Canada any good.

As I see it the UAE decided to try and extort landing rights out of us. Now Rae is flying in to say, "Why dont you contribute to the Liberal party? If we get voted in I'll get you landing rights where ever you want." Of course I might be a little paranoid.

Got anything to back that up other than the initial 10 million the got to start off in the mid 80's

Trade with Dubai amounts to about 1.5 billion per year. Of this, about half is money put into the Canadian economy. I'm not really worried about pissing off a country that accounts for 0.6% of our national GDP.

It was our right to say no to landing rights. Whether it was right or wrong for us to do is another story.

It was their right to kick us out of Mirage. Whether it was right or wrong for them to do is another story.

Whats pissed the rest of the world off now and made Dubai look like a bunch of fools, was the Visa requirements. They chose to escalate the diplomatic riff raff when as far as we and the rest of the world was concerned the issue was over and done with.

Going to them now to beg for forgiveness would be a bad move.

I'm interested in hearing Harper's response to this:

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.

Got anything to back that up other than the initial 10 million the got to start off in the mid 80's

For both Curtman and desertdude,

As the national airline of the UAE, and is given preferential treatment or support over other airlines as a result, even if not monetarily, in the form of landing slots and political support abroad. This is "non-financial" assistance as the government blocks out competition so that the financial support provided as start up capital can do it's job.

This does mean that it is subsidized as this is a form of financial support. That it plays such a big role in Canada-UAE relations should show you that it is receiving support from it's government to ward off competition in this case at the very least. This is an "infrastructure" subsidy. 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.

Keep in mind that since it's owned by a shareholder with sovereign borrower status, it also has a subsidy due to the effect of debt guarantees, regardless of whether or not it operates at an arm's distance from the government of the UAE.

Besides which, in the last 25 years the company has admitted to getting 8 times what you said. Of course, this is still a small amount, and they have paid it back, but there is the proof you requested.

This is a form of subsidy. That it's not monetary, as the debate between the leaders claim, does not mean that there is no subsidies in a non-monetary form. The fact that the UAE demanded it's national carriers be given more slots shows that infrastructure subsidy straight out.

Hence, I would like to see Tim Clark respond to that, since it is true. Even though he, and what seems to be half the worlds experts are caught up in financial subsidies, the fact is is that there are other forms and definitions of subsidy which they are not looking at, in my opinion, on either side. I don't mean to support claims which are potentially erroneous, desertdude, and I didn't mean to discuss the financial aspects, Curtman, and I apologize for using language which implied as such.