The Toronto Star is reporting that after a two week study of the recent deal that was supposed to end the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States once and for all, Canadian lumber companies are extremely unhappy with it and are determined to change it.
"Nobody's happy with this. Our objective is to get back to free, unencumbered access to the U.S. market, but this is clearly not the way — this is a managed trade agreement," said Carl Grenier, executive vice-president of the Free Trade Lumber Council.
It seems that Harper didn't stand up for us to quite the extent that his fans suggested.
On April 27, when it was announced that Canada and the U.S. had arrived at a long-sought deal on softwood lumber exports, Harper was praised for standing up to the White House to obtain concessions for Canadian forestry companies.Harper's image as a tough negotiator had already been etched by Bush who, after meeting the PM in March in Cancun, Mexico, talked about his "steely resolve" on the softwood issue.
But a U.S. source close to the negotiations insists it was just the opposite. Harper was quietly convinced by Bush that the new government in Ottawa could achieve a major breakthrough in U.S.-Canada relations by working with Washington to resolve the nagging softwood dispute.
...
But, the source said, "on the Canadian side, the instruction was, `Just get it done.'
"And on the U.S. side, it was, `Give up nothing,' and they didn't give up anything."
Canadian producers' willingness to accept terms of the deal has also been undercut by the tactics used to win agreement from the industry, sources say.
There were complaints that Harper and other senior Conservatives told forestry company executives that if they didn't support the April 27 agreement, Ottawa would drop its efforts to put an end to U.S. softwood duties and cut off federal government support for the industry.
Describing the approach taken by federal officials, one industry stalwart said, "The expression I use is: Would you like seven bullets to the head or an AIDS injection? And most people are taking the AIDS injection because, who knows, you might be immune..." said the source, a top figure at a Canadian company that employs 10,000 forestry workers.
I suppose you could argue that the American side gave up $4 billion except that, according to every NAFTA panel that looked at the matter, the money wasn't theirs to give up in the first place.
There's nothing inherently wrong with managed trade deals but this certainly makes a fiction out of the NAFTA dispute resolution process and the idea that free trade goes both ways. And there's definitely something wrong with a prime minister who claims to be standing up for us while he's actually undercutting his own side's position for political gain.
Let me see if I have understood the comments in the article in The Toronto Star:
• the Canadian government, and Tory MPs, pressurized Canadian companies to agree to the softwood deal negotiated by Harper, under threat of withdrawal of support by the government in the future;
• the strongarm tactics were used against Canadian companies, not against the country (USA) which had breached the terms of a treaty (NAFTA), and found to be in breach by many tribunals;
• the US achieved a deal which meant a payment of $1 billion less than was legally owed to Canada, and which imposed quotas on exports permitted by NAFTA, under penalty of financial fines if the quota was breached.
And the Canadian government claims victory and takes credit ......
Let's project this behaviour into the future so that we can all see what future negotiations with this Harper government might look like:
1. If you are a Canadian, and the other side is the Bush-lead USA, your government might side with the other side in the interests of good relations with the USA, even if the USA is wrong and you, the Canadian, are right. OK, got that.
2. If the USA wants a deal done, the Harper government might use pressure on Canadians – hints of future penalties – if you do not do as Harper's government wants you to do. OK, got that.
3. If Harper wants a deal done (say, redressing the so-called fiscal imbalance so as to buy votes in Quebec), and you (say, the Premier of Ontario), do not readily agree with Harper, you can expect the Harper government to exert pressure on you (say, withholding money already promised to you by Harper, in writing) even if this means the government is breaking a promise, in order to persuade you to agree to Harper. OK, got that.
4. Harper's government gained its minority government position by making strident cries that the Liberals were corrupt and not to be trusted with governing Canadians in an honest and open manner. OK, I do not get that.
Seems to me we have more than a trace of the Bushian underhanded, deceptive and irresponsible double-dealing taking place right here, in our own backyard, by a government which says it is honest and responsible, but mugs its citizens in the dark of night, hoping noone will notice, or care.
Yes, we have learned something from ole "steely resolve" Stephen: watch your back when dealing with him, and keep your wallet hidden...
What. A. Shock.
It was obvious from the moment this deal was announced that it was a bad deal for Canada and that the PM who campaigned on the slogan "Stand up for Canada" bent over for the Americans on this issue so he could look like he was able to get somewhere with the Americans where Liberals could not. He was more concerned with how this affected his political aspirations for a majority government than he was with how it affected the lumber sector of Canada, the Canadian economy (by gutting the dispute resolution mechanism of NAFTA) and reverted to managed trade instead of the free trade we are suppose to be having.
I figured that once the business/lumber community started really looking at this deal they would find less and less enthusiasm for it. This was not a deal in the best interests of Canada by any definition, unless one accepts the premise that what is good for the CPC electoral chances for a majority is good for Canada which I most certainly do not. This was clearly a deal done so the sake of having a deal, not done for getting the best deal for Canada because that would have taken longer and not let Harper and the CPC be able to claim that the only thing holding up a deal was the Liberals playing partisan politics while they did what was best for Canada.
It was also the only way Harper might ever be able to make a credible case for his buyout of Emerson being a good thing despite the timing and manner it occurred. So I am totally unsurprised to hear that the Canadian side was interest only in a deal, any deal, while the Americans did as they always have, conceded nothing they were not being actively forced to. This is Harper's idea of standing up for Canada? Seems a lot more like standing up for America by getting Canada to bend over for America's big thick cock right up Canada's ass. Which given his party's views on gay sex is really creepy. Not to mention his statements during the election about how America is our neighbour and not our nation, yet he places their economic interests ahead of Canada's in this deal. Certainly seems like he acted like America was his nation and that Canada was his neighbour despite his obligation to represent Canada’s interests first.
I think the NEDP may just have a new slogan for the next election:
"You don't 'Stand up for Canada' by bending over for the US"
I love it.
Damn big fingers - that NDP
What are the odds this story never sees the pages of the G&M or the newscasts of CTV? They've already picked their story lines for this crowd and that stroy line certainly doesn't include shit like this.
What a bunch of baloney.
First of all most of the industry does support the deal accross the country. There are some firms worried about some of the details yet to be worked out.
Second of all we lost at the WTO. Who brought the action to the WTO - Canada.
Third, even the NAFTA panel said we subsidize lumber but didn't like how it was calculated.
Forth, the injury ruling could only look at data immediately prior to the (6 months) to the lumber coolitions action, when there was a quota in place. if they looked at after we would have lost a NAFTA ruling like the WTO one.
Fifth, if the US dismmissed the complaint of the coolition, it would have been immediatetly followed by another trade action by Canada.
Sixth, the US gave in on a number of points and no duty is paid so long as we stay under our historical percentage of the US market.
Seven, BC doesn't charge enough for stumpage of it's logs and the rest of the industry can't understand why. You would think charging more would be more to the benefit of the people of BC.
Jeepers creepers, finally a clear eyed take on the deal from someone who really doesn't know shit from shinola.
Must be a Conservative.
First of all most of the industry does support the deal accross the country
The biggest revelation in this story is the pressure applied to the industry by Harper's government. So if much of the industry has decided that they would have to fight both the Americans and their own government or accept what they've been offered and move on, is that approval? Or grudging acceptance?
Trade between our two countries is supposed to be governed by NAFTA and its dispute resolution process. None of your seven points alters the fact that rulings were in Canada's favour at every step of that process but Harper's government chose to do what the other side wanted: move outside of NAFTA in favour of a managed trade agreement that, as you yourself acknowledge, puts a cap on Canada's share of a market that's supposed to be open to us.
Harper's government pushed that agreement through because the Bush administration was up against a deadline -- it had to decide whether to file an appeal against the latest NAFTA ruling and it was an appeal they would likely have lost. So Harper let the Americans off the hook and in the process pressured his own side to accept less than they deserved and might otherwise have gotten. You're right. That's a bunch of baloney.
"I suppose you could argue that the American side gave up $4 billion except that, according to every NAFTA panel that looked at the matter, the money wasn't theirs to give up in the first place."
Isn't it funny that this is the first point raised by defenders of this deal. Strange logic to say you recouped most of the money stolen from you and somehow this equates to a net plus. Bottomline, Canada is out 1 billion- how is that a victory?
It just proves that the Americans bullying worked. The landscape is so warped that merely getting some of your money back is victory. Harper was so enthusiastic about improving relations that he blinked in the negotiations. I would like to hear McKenna and others views of this deal, compared to what was on the table prior to the election. I have a feeling that the "defiant" Canadian government would have had more leverage than this appeaser approach.
Really did wonder about that deadline deal business myself - especially given that the Cheney Administration was actually up a creek without a paddle (hard or soft*) or a faint hope clause worth pushing.
_____
*which makes Mr. Bush's 'Wanna buy some wood?' comment in the 2004 election debates all the more ironic.
.
And one can only wonder what the quo is going to be on the other end of that Quidding and Proing...exclusive TimBits coffee franchise penetration rights in Tehran perhaps?