Con/Lib Inc.

So much for all the talk about the Libs supposedly moving to the left to offer an alternative to the Cons, as those parties' respective members of the International Trade Committee couldn't agree more in wanting to divert federal resources toward more free-trade agreements and U.S. integration:

A Commons committee is urging the federal government to invest a lot more money and effort into securing bilateral trade and investment deals around the world.

The international trade committee calls for a 50 per cent increase in federal spending on trade and investment promotion, including more trips abroad by Canadian officials and MPs.

However, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs on the committee warn some of the 22 recommendations in the report tabled late last week pose an economic, social or political threat...

The NDP dissenting report is especially critical of recommendations urging greater integration of the Canadian economy into the U.S. dominated North American economy...

“Generally, the report is based on the assumption that fast-tracking deregulation and blind faith in bilateral free trade will create sustainable and positive prosperity and employment,” the NDP says in its dissenting report...

“This report, based on an ideology that was popular in the 1980s and 1990s and according to which market openness has no harmful secondary effects and no need for safeguards, is now completely outmoded and unsuited to Quebec’s economic reality,” the Bloc report stated.

Of course, both the Libs and Cons are fighting each other for the backing of corporate Canada (which presumably has much to do with the "natural governing party" status that each wants to claim). Which means that it's not entirely surprising that neither wants to go on record pointing out the real concerns about yet another round of deregulation and integration.

But then, the Libs' calls for effective government are bound to ring hollow one it's pointed out that they're eager to restrain government action as long as it's matched by a similar commitment in another country. And one would think that the official opposition would at least be willing to point out some issues with the Security and Prosperity Partnership to at least shape where future talks end up going, rather than simply choosing not to deal with it (or worse yet providing what sounds like unconditional supprt).

As usual, it's worth clarifying that expanding trade is indeed a worthy effort, and the recommendation to increase and improve Canada's presence abroad should be followed. But there's no reason why such an effort has to be accompanied by agreements to tie down Canada's governments. And ultimately, Canadians who want effective governments at both the provincial and federal levels should be just as concerned about the Libs' willingness to limit our scope of action through agreement as they are about the Cons' plan to dismantle the state from within.