I find it extremely frustrating the our Governments speak out of one side of their mouth on free-trade vs. protectionism, but on another subject that is not really so different they are of the completely opposite opinion.
With regards to our largest trading partner, Canada’s government is trying very hard to convince America to tone down the “Buy America” provisions in that countries legislation and activities, and also trying to convince the provinces to reduce interprovincial trade restrictions in an attempt to placate the EU so a free-trade agreement can be negotiated.
But they continue to impose restrictions on which airlines can fly into Canada, how often and to which cities. Emirates, the flag carrier of the UAE, land of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, is currently allowed to fly to Toronto three times a week fom their hub in Dubai. They want to fly daily to Toronto, and to add flights to Calgary and Vancouver. But Ottawa says no. The arguments are ridiculous, as no Canadian airline flies to Dubai (or anywhere else in the Gulf). I have trouble understanding why the pilots union would be lobbying for such protectionism, but they are. We are basically limiting the opportunities for business and leisure travel between Canada and the Persian Gulf region (and beyond). And all these restrictions really do is make sure that someone who wants to travel between the Gulf and Canada must fly through Europe or the United States – whose jobs are we trying to protect?
1 comment
1 ping
Right On
5 June 2009 at 1:39 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You are right.
Protectionism has a very real cost. Instead of “Buy Canadian” bumper stickers, I want a “Get The Best Value For Your Dollar” bumper sticker.
If I buy Canadian and as a result don’t get the best value for my dollar, I’ll have fewer dollars to buy other things that are potentially Canadian made.
Governments have an special obligation to receive the best value for dollars spent. It isn’t their money.
Canada skies all but open, carriers say « Musings of the Technical Bard
27 July 2009 at 13:08 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
[...] Further to a story I wrote about previously: [...]