Changing trade rules

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Recently, our government modernized the General Preferential Tariff (GPT)  program.

This is a foreign aid program designed in the 1970s to help the poorest countries in the world.

But the program hasn’t been properly reviewed in decades and is out of date.

How so?

Canada is giving special breaks, through special lower tariffs, to foreign companies in countries like China, South Korea, India and Brazil. These are companies that are competing with Canadian businesses and their workers for global business.

In fact, nearly 80 per cent of these special breaks are going to China — even though China now has an economy over four times larger than our economy (China’s economy is valued at $7,318 billion compared to Canada’s $1,736 billion).

Without our changes, Chinese companies will continue receiving special breaks when competing with Canada.

Canadian manufacturers and their workers are being punished.

Even worse, it is a disincentive for these growing economies to enter into free trade agreements with Canada, agreements that would level the playing field and help to create more jobs for Canadians.

Without these necessary changes, China and others will continue to get a one-way trade deal, special breaks for them and nothing in return to help Canada’s economy.

This makes no sense and has to change.

Liberals won’t change

But Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and local Liberal MP Scott Andrews don’t agree.

Both Trudeau and Andrews, who always vote against our government’s tax relief for Canadians and Canadian businesses, amazingly are demanding we continue with these one-way trade deals that offer special breaks tor China and other countries competing with Canada.

The Liberals should show a little concern for Canada’s economy, our manufacturers and our workers — and stop worrying about companies and job creation in China and beyond.

They should support our government’s plan to end these special breaks and move toward more reciprocal trade agreements — meaning lower tariffs for consumers and more opportunities for Canadian business and goods (and the jobs they support) to grow around the world.

Shelly Glover

parliamentary secretary to

the minister of Finance


Geographic location: Canada, China, South Korea India Brazil

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Folks please Listen to Business Man's commentaries since he is a great educator on the corrupt way businesses operate, without concern for those who own the natural resources.
    May 14, 2013 - 09:31

    Business Man you appear to have all the "Stars" aligned with your imaginary business ventures, since you say you have many customers in the United States who buy more product from you than the rest of North America, thus the US means more to you than does Canada. You also said that the Muskrat Falls Project will be better for Nova Scotia and you like that because your Nova Scotian customers buy more from you than do your Newfoundland and Labrador customers. That is wonderful! Your, it seems, imaginary business business ventures have bucked the trend, since most Canadian businesses have lost a lot of sales to their US customers, since the Great Debt invented/Financial Recession took hold in 2008 and has been showing its ugly head for the past 5 years. Business Man, I will give you credit for one thing though, that is you are quite aware of the way businesses operate in this Crony Capitalistic Economy we live in and my theory is that you are trying to educate people, especially your Newfoundland and Labrador kindred to be wary, AND there is Nothing Wrong with that. Please keep up the great work! You are a Genius in your thinking, since there is nothing that effects change more than making people MAD, thus making them crave Economic Reform and seeing it through. I just hope everyone reads your commentaries, you certainly make people take a second look at the way today's Capitalism works.

  • Cyril Rogers
    May 11, 2013 - 10:09

    Whenever the Cons write stuff like this, you always need to see it in context. They have this habit of twisting phrases or using partial quotations to pillory opponents.....the truth is the last thing on their minds. Having said that, there may be a kernel of truth in their sudden new concern, despite their own shoddy approach to trade and their joy at giving away our raw resources to bolster the economy, while pretending to be stewards of our economic growth. They will sell all of our resources to the any of these nations, if they think it makes us look good, no matter what the consequences will be for Canada in the long term.

  • Ed Power
    May 10, 2013 - 15:31

    "A Business Man" forgets that if people can't afford to buy the goods and services that he claims his myriad of fantasy enterprises provides, then he too will find himself out work, and his mother might insist that he find himself a real job and move out of her basement rec room. Perhaps he slept through that particular lesson in his Economics 101 class....

    • a business man
      May 14, 2013 - 06:46

      Actually, I sell goods and services all over north america. My USA customers are more important than the Canadian customers because they are greater in number and thus buy more product. Every business needs customers and clients, but a business can be successful without Canadian customers. Take Muskrat Falls for example. My Nova Scotia customers are more important to me than are my Newfoundland customers because the Nova Scotians buy more. Overall, I make more money in Nova Scotia than I do in Newfoundland, so I support MF because it is good for Nova Scotia even though it will likely be bad for us at home. I cast my vote here based on what is best for me in Nova Scotia. That is my right. I accept that because it is in my best interests. I also accept that I may lose Canadian customers as our economy transitions away from dirty blue collar work, but as long as I get customers from elsewhere, all is good. There was nothing in Economics 101 about selling to Canadians or blue collar workers. Yes, there HAS to be a middle class, but it really doesn't matter WHO is actually in the middle long as they exist and spend.

  • Is BUSINESS MAN an Economic Psychopath?
    May 10, 2013 - 11:04

    I truly believe that BUSINESS MAN is an Economic Psychopath, who isn't a Business Man at all, but instead wishes he were involved in shafting us in the way that WE ARE shafted by the real crony, corrupt Business Men. This dude must be a fake or else he must be involved in the least time consuming businesses that are operated out there. Where else would a Business Man, who purports to have so many irons in the fire, find the time to write so many commentaries and still have all these great businesses staying in orbit?

    May 09, 2013 - 23:18

    "A Business Man" is certainly a figment of his own imagination. For too long this imposter has trolled the postings of the only Daily Newspaper we have. Note to - A Business Man - most who follow these postings consider you a laugh and a half - you know , a posting that is good for a laugh and a laugh only. A joke, if you will, and most serious posters are sick and tired of your postings. Go back to a private school and get your GED and forget about the imaginary business you own. HAAAAA Don't you realize everyone considers you a joke ?? A pathetic loser who has his mindless rants , making every poster laugh harder and harder, each time you post. You Sir are entertaining and that's as far as it goes!! Time to come up from your basement and enter the real world , you pathetic loser!!.

  • Ed Power
    May 09, 2013 - 12:50

    "A Business Man" comments are as inane as they are tiresome. For someone who claims to be a business and financial wizard, it's amazing how little he learned in his Economics 101 class. Perhaps if he had paid attention to his lessons, he wouldn't still be living in his mother's basement, fondling his dog-earred copy of Atlas Shrugged.....

    • a business man
      May 10, 2013 - 07:07

      Sure, insult me without refuting the validity of my statement. Clearly, you are highly educated because you choose to insult me rather than refute the validity of my statement [end sarcasm]. In all seriousness, the article discusses problems that manufacturing workers are facing, but does not address the benefits of off-shoring that consumers receive. Whether you like it or not, I have saved more of my hard earned money BECAUSE manufacturing jobs have left Canada for Asia. Whether you like it or not, I can get more for my money BECAUSE of off-shoring. Frankly, I am happy the jobs are gone because it means my dollar stretches further. Further, in economic class we learn that an increase in the supply of money causes inflation because there in more money chasing the same amount of goods, and that a decrease in the supply of money causes prices to drop because there is less money going around. In short, the loss of manufacturing jobs and the workers' income have made everyone else richer because our purchasing power is greater. I would certainly sacrifice a strangers job and livelihood to increase my purchasing power. I owe nothing to strangers. And lastly, I make great profits selling imported goods. So I have a self-interest in the off-shoring of domestic manufacturing goods and the ability to import goods.

  • Maurice E, Adams
    May 08, 2013 - 07:03

    ....and the export of our unprocessed fish for processing in China. ---- Even better, the import of foreign workers and the use of Chinese factory freezers to catch and process our resource........... Just have our local companies lease their quotas offshore.

  • a business man
    May 08, 2013 - 07:02

    Honestly, while Canadian manufacturers and their workers are being punished, every single Canadian enjoys cheaper goods and increased spending power as a result of the trade rules. I am not willing to pay more and have less so someone else can have a job. I work for benefit of MY family, not for the benefit of manufacturing workers' families. Furthermore, I makes lots of money by importing and selling foreign goods, and in turn make a significant contribution to our tax base because of the availability of foreign goods. Frankly, while Canadian manufacturers and their workers are being punished, the benefit to Canadian consumers makes it okay. Furthermore, I do not value manufacturing jobs. I believe that our economy and middle class should be comprised of white collar workers. Therefore, I cheer whenever I see Canada lose manufacturing jobs, because I believe that as Canadians, we are ALL deserve better than blue collar work. Yes, I worry about our economy, but I look forward to an economy that does not entail domestic manufacturing.

    • Another business man
      May 09, 2013 - 11:08

      The only problem is what happens with all these displaced blue collar ex-workers. At best they will be scrounging off our tax dollars, if we cut them off, they will be begging in the streets and annoying me. At worst, they may organze and riot. Of course the first phase would be to abolish the unions and arrest the leaders as well as any known radicals and the NDP. We could lock them up on charges of vagrency, but that's expensive. We could deport the unemployed non-citizens. We could put them in forced labor camps in isolated areas like Bennett did in the '30's. I suppose they will eventually starve but the stench and the disease... Maybe we could have some sort of internal deportation like they did in the States and the Soviet Union to some area in the NWT. Just a few thoughts.