Harper's sells us out on Softwood Lumber
Like many and both the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc Quebecois, I believe Harper has sold us out on the softwood lumber. After winning several NAFTA rulings, Harper has agreed to allow the United States to only repay $4 billion in illegal tariffs not the full $5 billion. What is worse is if we increase our market share in the United States, we will be subject to quotas and a export tax. I thought free trade meant unfettered access to the US market, not just unfettered access when it suits the US interest. Today's ruling should not be a celebration, if anything it just proves what a pushover Harper is to Bush and the United States. As a sovereign nation we must stand up for our interest even if it means not getting a settlement as quickly. I also think we should have considered the prospect of retaliation.
This is once again a common pattern of the United States having one set of rules for themselves and another for everyone else. They have treated us on this issue and other issues with contempt. It is time we seek new trading partners who respect each other rather than continue to rely on our southern neighbour who acts like a complete bully. Anyways I added the no to deep integration to my sidebar. Although I am not on the left like many of its supporters, I believe defending Canadian sovereignty is something all Canadians should support. I have also considered although haven't decided yet on possibly boycotting all travel to the United States. Any suggestions on that idea. I feel if Canadians quit spending their hard earned dollars in the United States, it might send a message to them to stop treating us so poorly. With the way they've treated us, we certainly shouldn't be in Afghanistan. We are there to help out an ally and the US is treating us like an enemy not an ally; not that I saw them as an ally anyways in the first place.
This is once again a common pattern of the United States having one set of rules for themselves and another for everyone else. They have treated us on this issue and other issues with contempt. It is time we seek new trading partners who respect each other rather than continue to rely on our southern neighbour who acts like a complete bully. Anyways I added the no to deep integration to my sidebar. Although I am not on the left like many of its supporters, I believe defending Canadian sovereignty is something all Canadians should support. I have also considered although haven't decided yet on possibly boycotting all travel to the United States. Any suggestions on that idea. I feel if Canadians quit spending their hard earned dollars in the United States, it might send a message to them to stop treating us so poorly. With the way they've treated us, we certainly shouldn't be in Afghanistan. We are there to help out an ally and the US is treating us like an enemy not an ally; not that I saw them as an ally anyways in the first place.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 7:58 PM
24 Comments:
I have no problem with what the US government did. It is the job of a government to protect the interests of its citizens so you really cannot blame the US government for doing its job.
I only wish this government would have remembered that, grown some balls and protected Canada's interests.
Certainly I think our government was too determined to take the earliest deal they could. Obviously some will point to the support of the three provincial premiers, but they really had no choice. They were told by the PM's office to either support the deal or get no deal, so off course they will support it.
I am against what the US government did since they are breaking their word on NAFTA. The Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports has every right to lobby their government, but the US government shouldn't cave into them.
If the Liberals would still be in power the softwood debate would have gone on for years and years. Not because they would have tried to get a better deal but because their anti-American sentiment would have stalled the talks. Make no bones about it. If the Liberals had the same deal on the table prior to the election, they would have jumped on it and paraded it around during the election. So we didn't get all our money back. What if this debate had gone on for another 5 years? How many companies, families and support companies would have gone bankrupt? More that a billions dollars worth. Of course everyone knows that if the Conservatives struck a deal that would have paid back 10 billions dollars, Liberals would still have bitched about it. I think what the Liberal's have a hard time accepting is the fact that Canada now has a leader who can make decisions and get things done.
Harper, the softwood "deal", and implications for Canada.
"Sellout" Stephen has "resolved" the softwood dispute, so the news says. He has done this by going on bended knee to a President who has gained a reputation – not shared by any other President to date – for spurning legalities, ignoring the rule of law, and unilaterally breaking legally binding treaties entered into between nations.
In so doing, Sellout Stephen has agreed to allow the USA to breach its obligations owed to Canada under a legally binding treaty (NAFTA), despite clear court and tribunal decisions supporting Canada's position.
What are the implications of this incredibly shortsighted and stupid decision by this so-called "policy wonk" Prime Minister? Here are a few:
• Harper has telegraphed to the USA and to others that Canada will not insist on legally binding international treaties being upheld.
• Harper and his New Tories have shown that Canada is run by a weak government, which can be easily browbeaten, and which will settle for less than the country is entitled to.
• Harper has shown contempt for the rule of law equal to the contempt shown by Bush during his failed presidency. This is a new and dangerous path for a Prime Minister of Canada to tread, and reveals a startling moral lack on the part of the New Tories.
• Harper will sell out any principles for short term political gain, especially if by doing so he can curry favour with the USA.
The question can now be asked: Who speaks for Canada?
Apparently not this Prime Minister.
It is time for him to go.
curiositykilledthecat . . . I guess it's far better to keep poking a stick at the Big Bad Bear and allow the on-going dispute to last many many more years until the softwood lumber industry is dead. Unlike the Liberal government, at least a deal is reached. Of course it's not everything we want. Of course it's not going to satisfy everyone, especially Liberals. But now the working families of the softwood lumber industry can have a steady income for the next 7 years at least. What did the Liberals accomplish with this file? And don't tell me that they were holding out for a better deal. They would have jumped at this deal if it were put before them a few months ago.
He has done this by going on bended knee to a President who has gained a reputation – not shared by any other President to date – for spurning legalities, ignoring the rule of law, and unilaterally breaking legally binding treaties entered into between nations.
curioustitykilledthecat, you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about. And given that you're probably spamming as many blogs as you can, you'll probably never read this, but whatever.
You can find a brief history of the softwood lumber dispute
here and a brief outline of the previous softwood deal
here
You'll notice that the previous deal, signed by a Liberal Prime Minister and a Democrat President, also included quotas and restrictions on access to the US marker.
Now, to avoid being fairly labelled a total hypocrite, I would expect you to also label Jean Chretien and the Liberals as weak-kneed sellouts, and I would also expect you to condemn Bill Clinton for "spurning legalities, ignoring the rule of law, and unilaterally breaking legally binding treaties entered into between nations."
But I'm not going to hold my breath. Because this has nothing to do with standing up for Canada, and everything to do with scoring cheap partisan points against Harper.
The hypocrisy that I have witnessed from the other side over the past 24 hours is enough to make me genuinely sick.
I agree anonymous has a good point, but I don't think we pursued all options. The Liberals never tried retaliation, which they should have. We should have slapped huge tariffs on California and Florida fruits as well as California wine. An export tax on oil should also be considered with all the revenue going to the oil companies affected.
By capitulating we've given the Americans a full opening to go after any other industry they wish to. Its not just Bush who ignores international treaties, this has been something the Americans have been doing for years. The reality is the United States is a bully and there is good reason why they are so hated globally and even here in Canada.
Americans need to realize they are widely disliked globally and have to decide is that something they can live with and if not then they need to change their behaviour.
The 3 provinces who have the most to gain/lose endorsed the deal. And all 3 provinces have a Liberal government.
BC Liberals are a coalition of Conservatives, Federal Liberals, pro-free enterprise and those who hate the NDP. They are not really a "Liberal" government.
As for Quebec Liberals... Charest used to be a leader of PC and they are also not affiliated with federal Liberals.
Woosang is right here. Although I am a federal liberal and a BC Liberal, both the Quebec and BC Liberals are coalitions of Conservatives and Liberals. Now it is true the Ontario Liberals are essentially the provincial wing of the federal Liberals.
But is Gordon Campbell is a sellout for accepting this deal?
He could have nuked it if he really wanted to.
Brandon - British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario both were initially against the deal. He agreed since he was told either accept it or get nothing. Trade is federal jurisdiction, so Campbell couldn't have done anything to stop the sellout.
The fact Bush is praising the deal and Harper is very concerning to me.
Cripes. "Hypocrisy"? Please- fare more Liberals wanted Martin to go to the wall on this issue than wanted the kind of cowardly settlement that Harper got.
The point is not the existence of the previous memorandum of understanding, either, but the FTA/NAFTA rules, which (as was seen again and again) ruled in Canada's favor. The criticism of George Bush and the Republican Congress is absolutely valid- they were bound by a free trade treaty that they had no right (and certainly no obligation) to ignore. They did it anyway, because they believe (and continually assert) that the United States is above international law. Criticizing that isn't hypocritical, it's sanity.
ottlib: Part of protecting the interests of your citizens is recognizing when protecting a certain industry (like the softwood lumber industry) hurts the interests of the rest of the citizenry. The citizenry benefits from a trade environment where their government is seen as trustworthy and consistent.
About the only consistent thing about the Bush administration is that it's anything but trustworthy.
That doesn't benefit Americans one iota.
I think that is a real problem with the United States and international treaties is they ask others to follow them and don't follow them when it doesn't suit their interests. They have every right to pull out of NAFTA, UN, or any other international organization, but international relations are a two way street. If they want to break the rules, they have no right to complain when others do.
I was also wondering demosthenes which country you were from since your blog makes it difficult to tell. Certainly if you live in the United States I am impressed by your knowledge of Canadian politics, although if a Canadian you seem to know American politics quite well too.
"Obviously some will point to the support of the three provincial premiers, but they really had no choice. "
You're stating that the premiers couldn't have gone public to stop this deal? Do you believe that Gordon Campbell has no spine?
"They have every right to pull out of NAFTA, UN, or any other international organization, but international relations are a two way street."
So are you as a Liberal stating that you now wish Canadians to pull out of NAFTA?
Brian C - Gordon Campbell expressed concerns about the anti-surge mechanism, but later agreed to deal after BC Forest minister Rich Coleman and Ontario Natural Resources Minister David Ramsay would lobby for the concerns of the other side and if achieved both would support the deal. However, rumours have come out since reading the deal Campbell may withdraw support at least according to a Vancouver Sun article.
I don't think we should pull out of NAFTA. I am simply pointing out that if the US doesn't want to live up to its international obligations withdraw from the organizations it doesn't wish to follow, don't just flout the rules.
"However, rumours have come out since reading the deal Campbell may withdraw support at least according to a Vancouver Sun article."
Rumors are not facts. If your premier feels that he is unable to work within this agreement, state in or out. Yay or nay. Decide. In the time that it would have taken the Libs to negotiate "the perfect agreement", Canada can sustain an industry and work towards the next agreement.
"I am simply pointing out that if the US doesn't want to live up to its international obligations withdraw from the organizations it doesn't wish to follow"
Such as, oh say, growing our greenhouse gas emissions by 28%?
Miles, I thought you were a lot more intelligent than this, I guess not. The fact is, as an economics major, I figured you would have learned in some business course just how collective bargaining works.
This was an agreement between the Canadian lumber industry and the US industry. Of course any Canadian would want the $5B back, but it became evidently clear that that wasn't going to happen. So the only option was get $4B- 80% of the money owed- or nothing, and keep trying month after month, with legal battle after legal battle, and pour all our money into something that wouldn't turn out successful.
The bottom line is this: the only reason- ONLY REASON- the Liberals call this a sellout is because they didn't make the deal.
They pretty much implied that, were they in power, they would have made that same deal. Graham pretty much contradicted himself on that one. The Liberals are only jealous that they didn't make the deal, that in 12 years, they couldn't do what Harper did in 7 days.
So what do they do? They rip off some John Turner speech from the late 1980s and accuse Harper of selling out to the Americans. When we outright know they would have made the same deal.
Furthermore, I would like to ask how spending $500M on rebuilding Hurrican Katrina disaster areas is also selling out? How getting 80% of the money is selling out? The Liberals are trying to make people focus on the $500M that went to the companies- which is about the bare minimum of what they would have kept- versus the the other $4.5B.
The Liberals are full of BS on this one and it is so clear. And Miles, your imperceptible transition into a Liberal partisan hack is more than evident now.
BC Tory I think the bigger issue here is the Americans were violating NAFTA so by signing this deal we have sent a message to them it is open season to target any industry they like and after suffering for a few years of job losses, we will cave in. I am very concerned this sets a very dangerous precedent. The Liberals may or may have not made the same deal, but I believe anything short of full compliance with NAFTA is unacceptable. Now alternatives such as going to private land instead Crown land as is done in Atlantic Canada which wasn't affected by the dispute would be fine by me. But caving in, here is unacceptable. More importantly we are talking about managed trade, not free trade and I thought you were supportive of free markets. The new deal is anything but supportive free markets.
As a principle, I don't believe the fact the United States is the most powerful nation in the world should allow it to get away with ignoring all its agreements. Dealing with the most powerful nation on earth is difficult, but we must be willing to stand our grand, not roll over. Off course as Bill Graham said a bad deal is better than no deal, but that still doesn't make the deal acceptable. We haven't tried full retaliation yet, which I think we ought to do.
"Now alternatives such as going to private land instead Crown land as is done in Atlantic Canada which wasn't affected by the dispute would be fine by me."
That's a contradiction Miles. To argue that we should be obliged to change our system is to in effect concede the point that our system is an unfair subsidy. Hence, you would also effectively be conceding that the American position is legitimate.
Which is it? Are we unfairly subsidizing our industry or not?
I am not saying we should be forced to go from Crown Land to Private Land. I am simply saying that I prefer private land over Crown Land and a positive spinoff would possibly be ending the softwood lumber. You know me with privatization. Besides from my economics course, privately owned resources are better managed than publicly owned since under private ownership one has to assume responsibility for losses as well so they are less likely to clearcut or make the area unsuitable for future forestry practices.
The system of private woodlots in Atlantic Canada works quite well and it is used throughout much of the United States and Europe so I see no reason why we cannot go from Crown Land to Private Land.
I like the end result for Canada on the Softwood Lumber deal with the US. We have certainty for the lumber industry for the next 7 years. I've spoken with a number of lumber producers over the past few days and they all seem happy with the finality of the negotiations.
We, the public, might not like the way the US dealt with us on this issue, however Canadians and specifically British Columbian's will benefit by the unfettered access to the US market.
I agree it is better than the alternative for the lumber companies, but I believe it will be bad for other industries. Since Canada caved in, the United States, I am worried will go after other industries, which could have a rippled affect. I also as a principle don't believe in one set of rules for the powerful and one for the rest. The United States has acted like a bully and we must say enough. We may not be able to stop them, but we shouldn't condone or encourage them.
The deal Harper has cobbled together in his rush to curry favour with Bush is an appalling one, for the reasons mentioned, and others.
When Harper takes this deal to Parliament, it deserves to be altered. The Bloc, NDP and Liberals have the majority of the seats in Parliament, and it is the duty of their MPs to act in the interests of Canada and their constituents.
If the Liberals allow this deal to go through (either by ineptitude – such as the last budget debacle, or disorganization – due to the leadership campaign absorbing so much of their efforts), then they deserve to be punished by the voters come the next election.
If course, if by their conduct Liberal MPs (especially the contenders for leadership of the party) show that their failure to stand up to Harper on yet another rushed exercise, springs from cowardice, then the voters should take note of this, and not grant them a government minority or majority until they acquire some intestinal fortitude.
This softwood deal is more of a test of the calibre of the Liberal leadership contenders, than of Harper. We have measured Harper, and he is wanting.
Now let us measure the Liberal Party, and see if they deserve the votes of Canadians.
The deal does stink and this one is even worse than the original. At the very least the Liberals should insist the 23 month opt out clause and requiring permission from the Americans to change forestry practices be eliminated. Ideally they should demand the whole $5 billion back, but at the very least, put a much higher limit on exports then currently negotiated. As soon as the dollar drops, we will have to impose an export tax.
Post a Comment
<< Home