>.  Thank you!

*************************************

Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du
Nouveau-Brunswick.  Soyez assuré(e) que votre  courriel sera examiné.

Si ceci est une demande médiatique, prière de la transmettre à
media-medias@gnb.camedia-medias@gnb.ca>.  Merci!



---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 07:03:36 -0400
Subject: Why would the Bankster Frank McKenna ask Gerry Lowe a former union rep
to run in the Harbour that is the heart of the Irving Empire?
To: "Frank.McKenna"<Frank.McKenna@td.com>,
 "darrow.macintyre"<darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca>, "brian.gallant"<brian.gallant@gnb.ca>,
ddale <ddale@thestar.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>,
sugarhil@nb.sympatico.ca, "Bill.Oliver"<Bill.Oliver@gnb.ca>,
"blaine.higgs"<blaine.higgs@gnb.ca>, "terry.seguin"<terry.seguin@cbc.ca>,
rjspeer555@gmail.com, "Ross.Wetmore"<Ross.Wetmore@gnb.ca>,
shoreviewholsteins@gmail.com, "hance.colburne"<hance.colburne@cbc.ca>, BrianThomasMacdonald <BrianThomasMacdonald@gmail.com>,
 oldmaison <oldmaison@yahoo.com>, andre <andre@jafaust.com>,
 jbosnitch <jbosnitch@gmail.com>, washingtonfield <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Robert.E.Lighthizer"<Robert.E.Lighthizer@ustr.eop.gov>,
"Chrystia.Freeland"<Chrystia.Freeland@parl.gc.ca>
Cc: "Gerald.Butts"<Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>,
"Catherine.Tait"<Catherine.Tait@cbc.ca>,
 "sylvie.gadoury"<sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca>,
"Chuck.Thompson"<Chuck.Thompson@cbc.ca>, "dean.buzza"<dean.buzza@rcmp-grc.gc.ca>,
"maxime.bernier"<maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca>,
"elizabeth.may"<elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca>, David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>


https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies




David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos 

#TrudeauMustGo#nbpoli#cdnpoli#TrumpKnew


 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-wednesday-advancer-1.4809633


 

NAFTA talks resume as questions grow about Trump's ability to deliver

Canadian negotiators led by Chrystia Freeland return to the table in Washington Wednesday

Janyce McGregor· CBC News· Posted: Sep 05, 2018 4:00 AM ET




 


Content disabled.
David R. Amos
 





Content disabled. 
David R. Amos

















 
Content disabled.
David R. Amos

"A city councillor for five years, he played a key role in successfully persuading council to ask the province to repeal the city's longstanding tax deal with Irving Oil on the Canaport LNG terminal.
He decided to run provincially for the Liberals at the request of Brian Gallant and former premier Frank McKenna.

"There are so many things that have to be changed and they all exist in Fredericton," Lowe said.
His major concerns include affordable housing and fair taxation — especially greater control for the municipality over taxes and assessments and phasing out double taxation."








 
Alex Matheson


 
Erin Wilson








 
Don King








 
Bob McRae








 
Bryan Atkinson








 
Andrew McLaren







 
Dwight Williams








 
Joseph Cluster





https://twitter.com/DavidRayAmos/with_replies




David Raymond Amos‏ @DavidRayAmos 


#TrudeauMustGo#nbpoli#cdnpoli#TrumpKnew


https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/midterm-elections-us-how-they-work-why-important-whats-at-stake-1.4755823

2018 U.S. midterms: A primer on why November's elections matter

This fall, Americans choose who controls Congress for the next 2 years

Matt Kwong· CBC News· Posted: Sep 04, 2018 4:00 AM ET



 
carl tyrell {dit antaya)










  
mo bennett

@mo bennett YO MO Methinks you must be partaking of some fairly bitter coffee first thing this morning N'esy Pas?












Craig cook





https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-cultural-exemption-1.4806919

No NAFTA without cultural exemption and a dispute settlement clause, Trudeau vows

NAFTA's cultural exemption clause meant to protect arts, broadcasting sectors

Catharine Tunney· CBC News· Posted: Sep 04, 2018 6:15 PM ET



David R. Amos






 
Bob Cole






 
Scott Gordon







 
Jeffrey Wayne








 
Arthur Gill









 
Nick Charles





Jim Payne











 
Edna Knight

NAFTA talks resume as questions grow about Trump's ability to deliver

Canadian negotiators led by Chrystia Freeland return to the table in Washington Wednesday

Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland hit pause on her negotiations with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer on Friday. The pair are set to resume talks Wednesday morning in Washington. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)


Canada returns to the NAFTA table in Washington Wednesday after a four-day break in negotiations that appeared to be pretty stressful ... for the American side.

The Trump administration's failure to secure a deal before last Friday wasn't well-received by key voices in Congress, where NAFTA's fate ultimately will be decided.

By the end of the weekend, the White House seemed to have fallen out with an ally it had hoped would back a revised NAFTA: a union representing millions of working-class Americans, now souring on President Donald Trump's ability to deliver.
As talks resume, the priority to-do list sits right where it was on Friday afternoon:

• Update NAFTA's dispute settlement chapters in ways that are both consistent and comfortable for all three partners;
• Bridge the gap between what Donald Trump wants and what Canada is prepared to give from the supply-managed agriculture sectors;
• Address nagging Canadian concerns about protections for cultural industries;
• Figure out how many of the concessions Mexico made to the U.S. on intellectual property are also acceptable to Canada.

Fresh signs of perceived weakness in Washington may bolster Canada's determination to reject a bad deal, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has vowed publicly to do. Trudeau's team spent the weekend talking to stakeholders and advisers to prepare for this week.




The tone Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland set early in her public statements during the negotiations — a no-drama approach of working "intensely" and "constructively" and praising the "goodwill" of counterparts — seems to be holding firm.

Work continues to finalize the text before the next Congressional deadline at the end of the month. If all three parties remain serious about a signing ceremony before Mexico's government changes hands Dec.1, the negotiated text is due by Sept. 30.

Congress is the 'final arbiter' 

The pressure on the negotiating teams continues. But since Friday's notification to Congress leaves the door open to a trilateral agreement, all sides have several weeks to work deliberately through the sticking points.

At the moment, the Americans may be facing more heat than those on the Canadian side. Trudeau's government won't face voters for a year, while Republicans are staring down a particularly difficult midterms season.
During a late Friday briefing by U.S. officials, a reporter pressed for details on why the U.S. Trade Representative's office believed Congress could approve a deal without Canada — essentially failing to deliver the kind of trilateral agreement Congress authorized the USTR to renegotiate.

Officials said that, in the USTR's view, it should be possible to drop a country from a multilateral negotiation if its demands can't be met.

However, the official acknowledged that Congress is the final arbiter of how (and if) trade deals get passed.

That didn't stop Trump from warning Congress "not to interfere" in the negotiations, part of a series of tweets issued Saturday morning as the late Senator John McCain's funeral unfolded — an event to which Trump was not invited.


Rosa DeLauro, a congresswoman key to mobilizing Democratic voices against trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, said in a statement late Friday that "Canada must be a party to the final deal. A deal between the United States and Mexico is not good enough."

Rep. Richard Neal, who could assume the chair of the powerful House Ways and Means committee if Democrats win control of the House in November, said the outcome of the last year of NAFTA negotiations had amounted to "little more than re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."
Representatives of Trump's own party are also concerned about the way things are going.

Republican senators like Pat Toomey continue to warn the Trump administration to not attempt to use the trade authority delegated to it for a deal unless it includes Canada.

Automotive math requires three countries 

Bipartisan legislation stands at the ready to limit Trump's trade powers should he try to go beyond what a critical mass of Congress is comfortable with — by imposing national security tariffs on automobiles, for example, or by issuing an executive order to withdraw from NAFTA altogether.

Trump's Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross confirmed a week ago it's most likely that the next Congress — the one set to be elected in November's midterm elections — will be the one to vote on NAFTA's rewrite, not the current mix of legislators.

So U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has to not only come up with a deal that his boss wants (no easy task) but one a hypothetical future mix of Democrats and Republicans could support.
Analysts noted over the weekend that the automotive chapter breakthrough previewed in Monday's preliminary agreement with Mexico is premised on preserving supply chains across three countries, not two.

The math for the new rules of origin may not work without Canada. For the Canadian side, that's leverage.

Hurt outpacing help for workers, says union

On Fox News Sunday (a television program prone to flattering coverage of the Trump administration), Richard Trumka, the head of the American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–​CIO), said the supply chains across Mexico and Canada are so integrated that it's pretty hard to see how NAFTA could be replaced by a deal that doesn't include Canada.

Trumka said his federation — which represents over 12.5 million working class Americans, including those in manufacturing-heavy districts that Republicans need to succeed — is anxious to move forward with an agreement that includes all three countries.

Trumka pointed out that, while the Trump administration has so far failed to land a three-nation deal, it continues to pursue a high-tariff trade strategy which is hiking the price of both intermediate components and final consumer goods, triggering layoffs.

"Unfortunately, to date, the things that [Trump] has done to hurt workers outpace what he's done to help workers," he said.

Undeterred, Trump tweeted on Labour Day Monday that Trumka "represented his union poorly on television" and workers in America were doing "better than ever before."




Behind the scenes, Trump cancelled a scheduled outing and spent his Labour Day making phone calls that were about trade, according to White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

So who took the president's calls? It's unclear. It doesn't seem in his nature to ask for help — but he may need it.

2018 U.S. midterms: A primer on why November's elections matter

This fall, Americans choose who controls Congress for the next 2 years

U.S. President Donald Trump won't be on the ballot for the Nov. 6 midterm elections. But the outcome of the votes will likely affect how he governs. (Jim Lo Scalzo/Associated Press)


It's a referendum on U.S. President Donald Trump. It's a chance for Democrats to steer the legislative agenda. It's a test for Republicans wondering if they should embolden their actions and themselves.

Any way you slice it, the U.S. midterm elections will allow voters to significantly change the makeup of Congress about halfway through Trump's four-year term. The outcomes could reshape the American political landscape ahead of the next general election in 2020.

Here's how the midterm elections work.

When will the midterms happen?

The midterm elections will mostly take place on Nov. 6.

They are national elections, sometimes described as "off-year" elections. The Founding Fathers of the United States set up a political system of checks involving frequent, rolling American elections in even-numbered years.

House members serve two-year terms, so they run in both "on years" with presidential contests, as well as in off years, without a presidential race, along with one-third of the Senate.
The way elections are staggered means that an election — either a presidential or a midterm — ends up being held every two years.

Why so often? Because "the founders didn't want politicians to get too comfortable," explained Mark Harkins, a Capitol Hill veteran and senior fellow at Georgetown University's Government Affairs Institute.

The idea is that holding frequent elections reins in potential "unbridled ambitions," he said.

Who's actually on the ballot?

Not the president.

The full 435-seat House of Representatives will be in contention at one time because its members serve a two-year term.

The Senate, which has 100 members, works differently. It's on its own cycle because senators serve six-year terms, so only one-third of Senate seats will be up for grabs every two years. This year, 35 Senate seats are in play: 33 senators, plus two special elections.

Aside from Congress, there are 39 state and territorial governorships up for grabs.

Why is the Senate on a different cycle?

Unlike the House, the Senate never stands for election at one time.

The Framers of the Constitution purposely designed the Senate "to be more politically insulated," explains Linda Fowler, a professor of government with Dartmouth College.

Are the midterms good for presidents?

Historically, no. It's quite the opposite — a fact that Trump is well aware of at a time when he's unpopular in the polls.

"When you win the presidency, for some reason, you always end up losing the House," Trump said in May at a rally in Nashville.

Trump has also expressed confidence he'll reverse the trend. How many seats in Congress his party wins or loses in the midterms will be a sign of how the populace feels about his and his party's performance.
"Presidents tend to overreach in the first two years, and midterms are a way for the populace to lodge their concerns with the chief executive," Harkins said. "Trump's not on the ballot, so the way they lodge concerns is in the House of Representatives."

In 2010, two years into his first term, Barack Obama's Democrats lost a whopping 63 seats in the House, with the then-president memorably conceding it was a "shellacking."

Bottom line: The party that has control of the White House typically loses seats.

Isn't that good for the Democrats?

If historical trends play out again this year, then yes.

Consider that in nearly every midterm election after the Second World War, from 1946 to 2014, the party occupying the White House ended up suffering net losses of House seats. (The only exceptions were in 1998, when Bill Clinton picked up five Democratic seats, and in 2002, when George W. Bush picked up two seats for his Republicans.)

"Generally speaking, if you're a fan of Republicans and Trump, you'll be nervous," Harkins said. That's because the average net loss for incumbent presidents after the Second World War was 25 House seats and four Senate seats.

By July, Republicans had a 236-193 seat majority over the Democrats, with six vacancies. In August, Ohio Republican Rep. Troy Balderson was declared the winner of a special election after weeks of recounts. He is expected to be sworn in the first week of September, raising the Republican edge to 237-193, with five vacancies.

The number of "pickups" needed for the Democrats to win a majority in the House this year varies depending on whether vacancies are factored in. Assuming the Democrats hold all of their current seats, the most commonly cited number of Republican seats they'd need to flip is 23.
That puts their count at 240-195 Democratic seats, meaning Democrats need 23 Republican-held seats to win the magic number of 218 — the amount needed to take control in a full House of Representatives.

Will the Democrats take the Senate?

Republicans have an even slimmer majority in the Senate (51-49), but the Senate changing hands is a long shot.

Of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs, just nine are held by Republicans. Democrats have nearly three times the number of seats considered to be must-win, as 26 seats are currently held by senators who caucus with the Democrats.
Another challenge for the party: 10 of the Democratic or left-leaning independents running will be competing in states that Trump carried in the presidential election.

Not only do Democrats have to defend all their Senate seats, they'll also have to pick up two more by flipping Republican seats to take control.

"It would have to be a real repudiation of the sitting president for the Republicans to give up control of the Senate," Fowler said. "It's not impossible — but it's less likely."

Will the Democrats take the House?

Their odds improved over the summer.

If the Democrats only need a 23-seat flip, the historic average of a net gain of 25 would seem to indicate they're likely to take over the House of Representatives. But in the last 25 years, the House has changed hands only three times during midterm elections — in 1994, 2006 and 2010.

The party is nevertheless optimistic. There's excitement about a possible "blue wave" that could sweep them into the House and the Senate.

"Political statisticians are putting the odds of Republicans losing control of the House at about 50-50," Fowler said in early July.

By the end of the month, Dave Wasserman, an editor of the Cook Political Report, was guessing that Democrats were 60 to 65 per cent favourites to prevail in the House.

Why care about who controls Congress?

As the saying goes: "The party that controls the chamber, controls the agenda."

Consider this year's backdrop of the Russia investigations, legislative battles over immigration, gun rights and health care. If the Republicans maintain control, expect reinvigorated efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and another swing at trying to get Trump's border wall constructed.

"They may try to find additional tax cuts, to find ways to roll back the regulatory authority of certain agencies using the legislative process instead of the president's executive authority," Harkins said.

A Democratic takeover might lead to re-examination of immigration reform, particularly as it pertains to legalizing people who were once protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, an Obama-era program that shielded from deportation some who came to the U.S. illegally with their parents when they were young children.

While Trump could veto a DACA bill, it might cost him votes among moderate Republicans in the important battleground state of Florida in 2020.

The threat of impeaching Trump could also rise with Democrats in control of the House, as impeachment comes down to a majority vote in the House before being forwarded onto the Senate.

Does Canada have a stake in this?

Of course. Take, for example, how Canada was hit with steep tariffs on steel and aluminum.
Trump justified the move on "national security" grounds, so Republican Sen. Bob Corker, a vocal Trump critic, tried to introduce a bipartisan bill to force the president to get congressional approval to enact tariffs on the basis of national security. He was unsuccessful.

Corker accused Republican leadership of being too afraid to "poke the bear" that is Trump right before the midterms.

If the configuration of Congress changes, one might imagine that the bill would stand a better chance of advancing. Economists would see that as good news for Canada.

 

Does turnout matter?

Yes. Democrats are worried about a "midterm falloff."

Turnout for the midterms in the U.S. is always much lower than in general elections; it was around 36 per cent of registered voters in 2014.

Registered voters who tend to drop off at the midterms tend to be: lower-income, minorities, less educated, younger, or female. That has traditionally been a problem for the Democratic Party, as older, white voters who give a boost to the Republicans continue to participate in midterm elections in stronger numbers.

Democrats are hoping their female and millennial supporters will be motivated by anger over the Trump administration's actions to contribute to a surge in support at the polls.

What about the Russia probe?

If the Democrats took the House and the Senate, they'd have the instruments of investigatory power smack-dab in the middle of an ongoing probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

"As part of agenda control, investigations are determined by the parties that control the chambers,"
Fowler said. "But if the Republicans lose one or both chambers, those investigations will become much more aggressive — because it will be Democrats looking to damage President Trump before the 2020 presidential election."
Congressional investigations are serious and each chamber would, by law, have subpoena powers.

"They could, for example, subpoena President Trump's income-tax returns," Fowler said. "I don't think this president fully appreciates how miserable his life could become if his party loses both chambers."

---

With files from Lyndsay Duncombe

No NAFTA without cultural exemption and a dispute settlement clause, Trudeau vows

NAFTA's cultural exemption clause meant to protect arts, broadcasting sectors

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks during a transit funding announcement in Surrey, B.C., on Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2018. Trudeau insists his government is holding the line on cultural industries and dispute settlement in ongoing NAFTA talks with the Trump administration. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)



Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is insisting that Canada will not sign a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement that doesn't protect Canada's cultural sectors — including the news media — or a dispute resolution mechanism.

As it stands, NAFTA includes a cultural exemption clause, which means cultural goods are not treated like other commercial products.

"It is inconceivable to Canadians that an American network might buy Canadian media affiliates, whether it's newspapers or TV stations or TV networks. It would be a giving up of our sovereignty and our identity and that is something that we will simply not accept," Trudeau told reporters during a transit announcement in Vancouver Tuesday.

"We've made it very clear that defending that cultural exemption is something fundamental to Canadians."

During the media availability he was specifically asked about the news media and NAFTA's contentious dispute resolution mechanism, Chapter 19.
The U.S. has not specifically targeted the cultural exemption clause in its list of NAFTA demands, but any changes to the pact's rules on copyright, the digital economy and other technical matters could affect cultural industries here. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has raised Canada's broadcasting content and telecommunication ownership rules in his annual international trade irritant report.

"One thing Canada is not going to do is turn over our cultural identity to the United States. Can you imagine Fox TV buying the CBC?" he said.

"Can you imagine how that would go over in Quebec? So that's on the no-fly list."

Trudeau's comments came as Canada's negotiating teams prepared to return to the NAFTA negotiating table in Washington Wednesday, after failing to secure a deal on Friday.

The Canada and U.S. teams still have decisions to make on Canada's contentious supply management systems and any updates to NAFTA's dispute settlement chapters.

Can you imagine Fox TV buying the  CBC ... that's on the no-fly list.- Unifor  president Jerry Dias

"We've said from the very beginning that we need a dispute resolution mechanism, like Chapter 19, and we will hold firm on that," he said.

"We will not sign a deal that is bad for Canadians and, quite frankly, not having a Chapter 19 to ensure that the rules are followed would be bad for Canadians."

 Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke to reporters Monday in Surrey, BC 1:37