Softwood Lumber Deal Unacceptable
I would like to add my name to a growing number of people who believe the softwood lumber deal negotiated between the Harper government and the United States as falling well short. While this deal may have been better than no deal at all, it was clearly slanted towards American interests and should therefore be rejected by parliament. BC industry and the BC government who supported the agreement in principle in April have now withdrawn their support for the new deal. In particular I would like to outline some of the flaws here:
1. Allows the United States to pull out after 23 months therefore re-starting the trade war in a mere 23 months. So much for long-term stability.
2. Requires permission from the Americans to change any forestry practices while there is no such stipulation for the United States if it wishes to change its forestry practices. This is a clear violation of our sovereignty and totally one-sided. I agree our forestry policies cannot controvene NAFTA and the WTO, but as long as they comply with our international trade agreements we should be free to set our forest policies as we choose.
3. Only returns $4 billion of the $5 billion in tariffs illegally collected, despite repeated NAFTA rulings against the United States. If they gave us unfettered access to their market, I would be willing to accept this as a trade-off, but this plus restrictions on entering their market, it is not a compromise, but a sell out.
4. Quotas are done based on monthly shipments, not total sales so if one month a high volume of lumber is shipped over the border, this cannot be carried over to the next month.
5. $355 US/1,000 square feet of shipped board, which means as soon as the market changes or the dollar drops we have to impose an export tax.
Now I know some will say this was the best deal we could get, but I look at this from the bigger picture. If we capitulate here, it may help us in the softwood lumber industry, but what other industries will the protectionist forces in the United States go after. Signing this deal will show Canada is a weak country that will easily capitulate under pressure and will be bad for Canada in the long-run. I understand Harper wants to improve relations with the United States, but this is simply going too far. We can improve relations but stopping the name calling, but we don't need to start agreeing with the Americans more often. We should continue to disagree with them when they are wrong, we just need to be more mature about our disagreements. The United States may like poodles, but they show more respect for countries that stand up for themselves while continue to bully those who they are easy push overs.
Now this deal will require parliamentary approval and will likely be a confidence vote. I understand the Liberals may be reluctant to vote against it if it triggers an election. I would argue we should vote against it, unless it can be radically altered, even if it means risking an election. We have a process in place to ensure we have a new leader if a fall election occurs. Secondly we lost the last election partly because we spent too much time basing our policies on public opinion polls rather than on principle. We will regain the trust of Canadians when we stand by our word even if it is not the most politically popular thing to do at the moment. If the Bloc Quebecois wishes to pass this agreement, they can go ahead, but we shouldn't pass it even if the NDP and Bloc Quebecois decide to oppose it. Neither should we abstain. We need to stand up for what we believe in.
1. Allows the United States to pull out after 23 months therefore re-starting the trade war in a mere 23 months. So much for long-term stability.
2. Requires permission from the Americans to change any forestry practices while there is no such stipulation for the United States if it wishes to change its forestry practices. This is a clear violation of our sovereignty and totally one-sided. I agree our forestry policies cannot controvene NAFTA and the WTO, but as long as they comply with our international trade agreements we should be free to set our forest policies as we choose.
3. Only returns $4 billion of the $5 billion in tariffs illegally collected, despite repeated NAFTA rulings against the United States. If they gave us unfettered access to their market, I would be willing to accept this as a trade-off, but this plus restrictions on entering their market, it is not a compromise, but a sell out.
4. Quotas are done based on monthly shipments, not total sales so if one month a high volume of lumber is shipped over the border, this cannot be carried over to the next month.
5. $355 US/1,000 square feet of shipped board, which means as soon as the market changes or the dollar drops we have to impose an export tax.
Now I know some will say this was the best deal we could get, but I look at this from the bigger picture. If we capitulate here, it may help us in the softwood lumber industry, but what other industries will the protectionist forces in the United States go after. Signing this deal will show Canada is a weak country that will easily capitulate under pressure and will be bad for Canada in the long-run. I understand Harper wants to improve relations with the United States, but this is simply going too far. We can improve relations but stopping the name calling, but we don't need to start agreeing with the Americans more often. We should continue to disagree with them when they are wrong, we just need to be more mature about our disagreements. The United States may like poodles, but they show more respect for countries that stand up for themselves while continue to bully those who they are easy push overs.
Now this deal will require parliamentary approval and will likely be a confidence vote. I understand the Liberals may be reluctant to vote against it if it triggers an election. I would argue we should vote against it, unless it can be radically altered, even if it means risking an election. We have a process in place to ensure we have a new leader if a fall election occurs. Secondly we lost the last election partly because we spent too much time basing our policies on public opinion polls rather than on principle. We will regain the trust of Canadians when we stand by our word even if it is not the most politically popular thing to do at the moment. If the Bloc Quebecois wishes to pass this agreement, they can go ahead, but we shouldn't pass it even if the NDP and Bloc Quebecois decide to oppose it. Neither should we abstain. We need to stand up for what we believe in.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 8:55 PM
23 Comments:
I am wondering if point one, the 23 month pull out option times well with a couple of months following the next Canadian election?
It would be a nice slap if the Liberals were back in power at that time and Bush was still in power and slapped Canadians on the wrist for voting left.
Just a thought... and if so, it might be a big plus in my right wing mind.
How about all of the protectionist policies in Canada? Have you ever compared duties between Canada and the US and what you are allowed to bring over to one side vs. the other?
How about all of the restrictions on media, financial industries, and basically any other good brought across the border?
You can come up with all of the excuses you want, but in reality you are either uninformed or a hypocrite. Take your pick
I am wondering if point one, the 23 month pull out option times well with a couple of months following the next Canadian election?
It would be a nice slap if the Liberals were back in power at that time and Bush was still in power and slapped Canadians on the wrist for voting left.
Just a thought... and if so, it might be a big plus in my right wing mind.
I think the United States will pull out no matter who is in power and I would never even if I was a conservative wish for them to do this to us.
How about all of the protectionist policies in Canada? Have you ever compared duties between Canada and the US and what you are allowed to bring over to one side vs. the other?
How about all of the restrictions on media, financial industries, and basically any other good brought across the border?
You can come up with all of the excuses you want, but in reality you are either uninformed or a hypocrite. Take your pick
I am well aware that Canada has many protectionist policies be it in agriculture, media etc., however none of those violate NAFTA. NAFTA doesn't deal with restrictions on foreign investment and culture is exempt from NAFTA. This is about the United States deliberately ignoring an international treaty, which they seem to like to do. I agree some of our protectionist policies such as foreign ownership on telecommunications and the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly should go. Others such as supply management in agriculture are necessary as long as the US and EU continue to subsidize their agriculture. While in the case of culture, I believe all countries should be able to preserve their unique culture and therefore culture should be exempt from all trade agreements. The point here is the United States is violating NAFTA, Canada is not. You can argue the agreement doesn't go far enough, but at least we keep our word, they don't.
Lumber is covered by NAFTA, which is why Canada won all of those NAFTA panel decisions regarding the duties the US government imposed on Canadian softwood. If lumber was not covered by NAFTA then Canada would not have been able to launch those challenges, let alone win them.
Ex-dipper, you are slipping. Usually when you make a statement you can at least back it up with some facts. This time your statement is just wrong.
With regard to this deal saving Canadians jobs, it will not happen. When the US first imposed its duties on Canadian softwood it cost thousands of Canadian jobs. The only way to bring those jobs back is for the Canadian softwood lumber industry to expand its exports to the US. Unfortunately, this deal is specifically designed to prevent that from happening. So that $4 billion dollars that Conservatives keep talking about will allow for great balance sheets the year they are received but they will not have any lasting beneficial effect on the industry.
I've screamed it until I was a nice shade of Tory blue in the face, so I'll just say this, and nothing else, once more:
$4 billion = more money than $0.
That's about all I have to say on the matter.
BC Tory,
It's a matter of principle. If you're willing to compromise your principles, even just a little bit, then they aren't very meaningful and it makes it easier to compromise even more the next time. I believe that our government should act with integrity and stand up for our principles, even when the going gets tough. This is economic appeasement.
I agree with Brian and Ottlib. Yes BC Tory, $4 billion is better than $0, but if you consider the other components of this agreement it falls well short of what is acceptable. Besides as Brian suggests, sometimes you need to stand up for what you believe. If we cave in here, the United States will only bully us more. Harper may want better relations with the United States, but at what price? I happen to agree with Bill Graham that cozier relations don't benefit Canada in the long-run. I would argue we need to do more to create more distance between ourselves and the Americans, not get closer. This doesn't mean taking cheap shots at them, we should be respectful, but firm.
I just find it amusing to see Liberals try to argue on nothing more than "principle".
Jarrett - Yes we Liberals do have principles. Specifically, our party has long stood up for Canada and understands that just because the United States is the most powerful country in the World doesn't mean we have a separate set of rules for them and then another set for everyone else.
The alternative to the craven New Tory party's capitulation to Bush on the softwood issue is very simple.
The NDP, Bloc and Liberals have the majority votes in Parliament. They could agree to pass legislation which would direct the government to table the following revised proposal with the Bush government:
1. Term - The term should be ten years, with no early termination possible unless both sides agree, and the Canadian government is to agree only if a majority of MPs through a free vote (on a non-party basis) in Parliament for an earlier renewal.
2. Automatic renewals - Renewal period should be for automatic five year periods, unless notice of termination is given by either side 12 months before the end of a term (and the Government of Canada would need a majority vote of MPs to give such notice, through a free non-party vote).
3. Payment - Full payment of the $5 billion (yes, that is right, the amount owed under the applicable laws), plus interest on overdue amounts at 5% p.a..
4. No litigation - American lumber companies to agree not to litigate the settlement.
5. Reaffirmation of NAFTA - American government to reaffirm its commitment to the NAFTA treaty.
6. Failure of US to agree -
a. Should the US government not agree to this proposal, then Canada to continue with litigation.
b. Canadian government to fund such litigation by Canadian companies.
c. If the USA takes steps to penalize lumber imports from Canada due to failure to reach agreement as above, the Canadian government is to appoint a Royal Commission with a mandate to review what steps should be taken by the Canadian government to uphold the NAFTA, including whether to terminate the NAFTA (what is the point of an agreement with a government which does not honour its commitments?).
d. Royal Commission to report by February 28 2007.
e. Canadian government to review the findings of the Royal Commission and take such steps as the majority of MPs agree to through a free non-party vote.
f. Canadian government would use taxpayers money to assist Canadian companies who needed assistance due to the non-payment by the Americans of the debt they are refusing to pay.
So, you see: the answer is really simple. All you need is a bit of backbone as the Prime Minister of a country which entered into a treaty with another government in full expectation that the other government would honour its obligations, and not welsh when it suited it.
Our MPs would be in a position where they could reflect the views of their various constituents, as the later votes would be a non-party vote on the issues set out above.
Who will take the lead to stand up for Canada?
Interesting ideas Curiositykilledthecat, although I don't think you can mandate a free vote, but other than that sounds good on the whole.
Sounds fine except that the vote for Harper's made-in-america solution will be a confidence vote, and the Libs & Bloc do not want an election now.
Also Canada will never re-consider NAFTA - considering our now deep economic integration with the US, cancelling it over this would be cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Sounds fine except that the vote for Harper's made-in-america solution will be a confidence vote, and the Libs & Bloc do not want an election now.
It may not even get to a vote. If less than 95% of softwood lumber firms don't drop litigation it won't proceed. I agree the Liberals and BQ aren't keen on another election although the Liberals do have a contigency plan to make sure they have a leader in place should a fall election occur.
Also Canada will never re-consider NAFTA - considering our now deep economic integration with the US, cancelling it over this would be cutting off the nose to spite the face.
I personally don't support pulling out of NAFTA. For all its flaws, it is better than having nothing. I support similiar free trade agreements with more countries so we are less dependent on the United States.
The urgency for Harpor to have this bad deal accepted is also exaspirated by the fact that he funded many of his election promises on the tax he'll rake in off that $4B... It is not fundamentally a money bill but Harpor keeps on saying that a no vote would be an issue of 'non-confidence'. We Liberals must show him the backbone by saying that's fine. His seat total, while greater than ours, would be less than ours and the NDP combined and we could then approach the governor general and ask to take over -- this is just a thought that he should remember. Harpor seems to think he's emperor of American north. Leaving nafta isn't a solution, but a deal like this, which cuts our ability to speak firmly and loudly and go through the designated dispute mechanisms provided by nafta, only pushes us closer to linkage should there be a major dispute. That should frighten many in other sectors. This deal is so bad that industry --usually more than friendly with conservative business ideas -- is digging in its heels. It'll be interesting to see if the Tories don't apply some elbow and toe grease with pressure to get them to cave...
Actually the $4 billion won't go into the government coffers, but rather be returned to the companies who paid the duties. Still it is their money, not the American government's.
I believe forming a coalition with the NDP and going to the governor general to remove Stephen Harper as PM would be a bad idea. Since we won fewer seats, I think this might hurt us in the next general election, so we would be better to bring down the government and go to a general election. We already have a contigency plan in the event of a Fall election to ensure we have a leader in place. Also this would be an unstable coalition since it would only be 131 seats, which is 24 short of a majority so we would have to rely on the Bloc Quebecois to pass all bills, something I am not too keen on never mind I prefer the Conservatives over the NDP even though I would rather we had a majority and didn't have to deal with either party.
Finally since the deal requires 95% of businesses to drop litigation, I am hopeful that more than 5% continue litigation thus killing the deal before it even gets to parliament. As Peter Julian said on question period, we were about to have a NAFTA extrodinary challenge, which was binding and likely would have gone in our favour. We should have waited for that to finish rather than pull the plug. But Harper seems to keen to please Bush or justify Emerson's defection or perhaps both.
Congrats on getting your question to Wilkins asked.
I am actually a regular commenter on the globe, so my questions are almost always posted. I felt he gave a very good answer. Our two countries have many similarities, but also many differences too. Also I think the difference between the border states and Canada is less stark than Canada and the Deep South.
Yeah, the border states probably are more "Canadian" than the ones in the deep south, although believe it or not I have spent some time in Greenville, SC and was suprised by how much it was more or less like Washington State. It had more churches, but was pretty much to me just "America"... a lot less "Southern" than I had expected.
I wouldn't say the border states are more Canadian, but rather more liberal and Canada is a more liberal country than the US. Lets remember with the exception of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota, Kerry won all the other border states and those four states aren't heavily populated. I generally found the US to be quite conservative compared to Canada outside of a few urban liberal bastions such as Boston, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle.
"Allows the United States to pull out after 23 months therefore re-starting the trade war in a mere 23 months. So much for long-term stability."
Isn't it true that any of the 3 countries can similarly pull out of NAFTA? I've heard that it only requires a 6-month notice. Does that make NAFTA inherently unstable?
Brian C - The deal on the whole is a lousy deal so a lousy deal for only 23 months is useless. NAFTA is not a lousy deal and besides the 6 month termination clause is unlikely to be used since NAFTA has benefited all three countries. The 23 month opt out for the United States will likely be used as the lumber lobby doesn't believe in free trade in lumber and they are a powerful lobby in the US.
Harper is an amaturish pushover.
Canada wins key softwood lumber ruling
I think Harper is not only being a pushover but wants a deal desperately even if a lousy one so he can say he achieved what the Liberals couldn't in 13 years come next election. This decision will likely be appealed and even if we win, it won't take effect until another year (likely after the next election) so while it is better to wait a year for a better deal, Harper cares more about getting a majority than doing what is right.
Post a Comment
<< Home