hypocritexposer
Well-known member
I hope everyone reads this. Instead of sticking their heads in the sand, and saying, "there is no New World Order, those guys are Conspiracy theorists". I hope they will look at their definition of the "New World Order"
For those that do not know, Brian Mulroney, is a past Prime Minister of Canada.
This is a shortened exerpt of what was written, but....
For those that do not know, Brian Mulroney, is a past Prime Minister of Canada.
This is a shortened exerpt of what was written, but....
Brian Mulroney: The promise of a Canada-China alliance
Posted: September 04, 2009, 10:00 AM by NP Editor
Canadian politics, Brian Mulroney
What follows is an edited excerpt from remarks delivered yesterday in Beijing.
---
This month is the 25th anniversary of my election as prime minister of Canada. My government came to office at a time when Canada urgently needed a new direction. We had lost sight of the economic fundamentals.
As the world changed rapidly around us, we clung to an old economic model of relying upon a vast endowment of natural resources while cosseting our domestic economy from international competition. Formidable protective trade barriers, a maze of opaque and restrictive foreign investment barriers and heavy handed regulation hobbled the Canadian economy.
There was no choice but to grasp the nettle of change and that is what we did. We implemented a free trade agreement with the U.S., extended it to Mexico and created the North American Free Trade Agreement. We converted a foreign investment review agency into a foreign investment promotion agency and declared that "Canada was open for business." We now offer binding guarantees for the fair treatment of foreign investment in our country, embedded in our free trade agreements or foreign investment protection and promotion agreements.
Domestically, we moved to free the economy through deregulation, the privatization of government-owned companies and substantial tax reform. Getting the policy framework right is what government should do. That was our goal.
It was tough medicine for Canadians. Many complained that the cure would be worse than the disease. But we persevered and the record of success speaks for itself.
Like other countries, Canada has been hit hard by the global recession. As a trading country, we could not escape the impact of the rapidly contracting global economy. But our economy has fared better than any other in the G8.
It is essential to note that there was no financial crisis in Canada. Throughout the recession, our banks have remained strong. Far from needing bailouts, they are making acquisitions in the U.S. and other countries. Four Canadian banks now rank among the top ten in North America. The world economic forum accords first place to Canadian banks for their strength and stability. That is why we are understandably wary about global remedies recommended by some whose systems have buckled.
Canada is now coming out of the recession. In its June economic conditions report, the Royal Bank's forecast suggests that "the sun [is] peeking out from behind dark clouds." The IMF predicts that the Canadian economy will grow by 1.6% in 2010. Other forecasters are more optimistic. Goldman Sachs sees the Canadian economy growing at 2.7% while the Bank of Canada predicts a 3% growth rate in 2010.
But it is too early to break out the champagne. Unemployment continues to rise. International trade has a long way to go to recover from its decline.
We have learned some important lessons from this recession and forgotten others. One lesson is that the global institutions of economic governance, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, need a serious examination. These institutions served us well through the ups and downs of the global economy in the last half of the last century. But they were created at a time when the U.S. economy together with the European economies dominated the global economy.
As the global financial system threatened to implode late last year and a synchronized contraction swept across major economies, the IMF and the World Bank, as Sherlock Holmes might have said, were the dogs that didn't bark. The structure and decision-making procedures of these organizations need to match current realities. History and sentiment are honourable traits, but not when they stand in the way of sensible reforms to recognize new realities. Why, for example, does China, which holds the largest stock of world foreign exchange reserves, not have a commensurate weight in the IMF?
One lesson we have to relearn is the danger of protectionism. Despite the solemn pledge to "standstill," taken by the G20 last November, 17 of the G20 members have already adopted some form of protectionist measures. We must never forget that protectionism was tried during the Great Depression. It failed. We did not recover from its disastrous impact for many generations. We do not need to learn that lesson the hard way again.
Over the past 25 years, the centre of gravity of the global economy has been steadily shifting east. When I became prime minister, Japan was the only major economic power in Asia. China was not on the global economic radar screen. Today, China and Japan together account for some 20% of global output. Despite forecasts of gloom, China's economy has shown remarkable resilience. Infrastructure spending, along with increased domestic demand, have helped offset the decline in exports.
In the past, recovery from recessions depended upon the resumption of growth in Europe and the U.S. Now it is clear the global recovery depends upon strong economic growth in Asia.
There is another significant factor that is increasingly altering the shape of the global economy. That is the emergence of global value chains across a broadening range of economic activity as the dominant paradigm of international trade and investment.
The days are rapidly disappearing when trade and investment are transactions between only two countries. Production, technology, distribution, trade and investment are spread across networks located in many countries.
A typical product may be designed in several countries, draw on critical inputs manufactured in other countries and financed by a consortium of international banks before assembly into its final from for global distribution.
The Canadian aircraft and rail manufacturer Bombardier understands the effective use of a global value chain. The company has an extensive range of global partners in the development and manufacture of its products with a major presence in 35 countries.
China is a prime example. The collaboration between Bombardier and AVIC (China Aviation Industry Corporation) demonstrates how Canadian and Chinese companies can complement one anther to give access to strategic assets and strengthen their competitiveness. Canada's flight simulation company CAE has a joint venture with China Southern in Zhuhai that started in 2002 with six simulators for pilot training.
Impressive as these examples are, the opportunities for more are substantial.
Governments have a critical role to play in ensuring that their firms can participate fully in global value chains. Governments compete in promoting congenial policy settings to attract increasingly mobile slices of production. To do this, they need to reduce domestic barriers to trade, investment and innovation. That is precisely what Canada is doing.
I encourage you to look closely at Canada as an investment destination. We are natural-resource rich in agriculture, energy and minerals. We have impressive technologies in aerospace, health, environmental science and education. We are human-resource rich with a talented, well-educated and motivated work force.
Our government is committed to an open climate for investment. Last spring, there was a significant liberalization of Canadian investment rules. Corporate taxes are on track to be the lowest among the G-7 countries. On new business investments the tax advantage for Canada over the U.S. will be 10% by 2012. The general federal corporate income tax rate has declined to 19% in 2009.
Overall, the Canadian business climate is positive, anchored by a stable financial sector, respect for the rule of law and a solid judicial infrastructure. I also encourage you to look at Canada and Canadian firms as investment partners. For most of our history, we have been a net importer of foreign investment, first from the United Kingdom, then from the U.S. and now from a diverse range of countries including China/Japan.
In the last 10 years, Canada has also become a net exporter of foreign investment. Canadian firms are following the path of firms in mature industrial economies in seeking out profitable investments around the world. As their global investments show, Canadian firms have much to offer. And they are fully supported by the Canadian government.
But investment levels between Canada and China are modest. While many Canadian firms have invested in China, total direct Canadian investment was less than $4-billion as of 2008, accounting for less than 1% of total foreign direct investment (FDI) into China. Similarly, although Chinese investment into Canada has tripled since 2005, the total represents less than 1% of FDI in Canada.
A Canada-China investment agreement would send an important message to business and investors that foreign investment in both directions is a vital part of developing the full potential of the relationship. There have been discussions about a Canada-China Investment Agreement for more than 10 years. The time has come to get it done.
I also believe that increasing economic power conveys responsibility for more than economic issues. We have different systems of government and these can generate differences of view. But we should be able to air these differences in a mature manner that does not jeopardize the underlying strengths of our partnership. I fully expect that China's voice and influence on global concerns will become commensurate with its burgeoning economic strength. When we in Canada share common objectives, I am confident that there is greater scope for political or diplomatic partnership with China.
We are living in extraordinary times when our most pressing need is for bold leadership to chart a new way forward. History will judge us not by today's successes but on the future we leave for generations to follow. "Do not go where the path may lead," the U.S. poet Ralph Waldo Emerson once advised, "go instead where there is no path and leave it a trail."
Brian Mulroney is senior partner, Ogilvy Renault LLP.