MP Monte Solberg is as frustrated as I am regarding the coverage of Opposition Leader Harper's speech regarding NAFTA.
As I posted here, (of which I noticed was post incorrectly and has been corrected) this is what MP Harper actually said.
...It is possible that 17 years after the original Free Trade Agreement and 12 years after NAFTA, it is time for a new relationship – I would hope a stronger one, with closer trade ties, and a dispute settlement mechanism that is firmly binding and not subject to the vagaries of domestic politics.
But of course that does not sell newspapers. This is how MP Solberg describes things:
...I am so slow. I read the National Post editorial yesterday about how Stephen Harper SUGGESTED in his Halifax speech that NAFTA, "is so inconsequential to Canada that it could be easily revisited and potentially replaced". The Post editorial went on to say other things that Stephen SUGGESTED, but I note, were not quoted in the editorial, and now I know why.
See, I was actually present to hear the speech and I didn't hear any of the things the editorial board at the Post attributed to Stephen. But then again I can't read between the lines like the beautiful minds who wrote that editorial. I missed the code that only those with soaring IQs can discern in the jumble of letters that make up that speech. I was naive enough to accept what was said at face value, but then I'm no John Nash. When Stephen said that we would strengthen
NAFTA I should have seen that what he really meant is that NAFTA is inconsequential and should be weakened in favour of trade with China. The fact that Stephen pointed out that the US exports more to Ontario than it does to Japan was clearly a clever ruse designed to make us think he favours free and open trade with the US.
The good news is that we can check these things out for ourselves. The bad news is not very many people take the time to do so.
