SOFTWOOD LUMBER DEAL: Not long ago, I said a softwood lumber deal with the U.S. was "iffy at best".
Well, we have a deal. It's kind of iffy, but it's a deal.
America's going to give back four of the five billion dollars it essentially stole from us, and as long as "current conditions" obtain--meaning as long as the price of lumber doesn't fall--Canadian lumber can move freely into the U.S. market. If, however, there is a drop in the price of lumber, an "export tax" of between five and fifteen percent will kick in.
This isn't exactly free trade, but it's a far cry from the 27% import duties levied on Canadian lumber in the past.
The U.S. has been arguing for decades that Canadians subsidize lumber producers, who in turn "dump" their products on the U.S. market for less than the cost of production. Canada, in turn, has taken its case to the World Court and various trade tribunals, winning nearly every time. No matter: the States has always been a court unto itself.
I'll give Harper, Mackay and--yes, Emerson--credit due. That the U.S. would accept a deal which gives us most of what we asked for is nothing short of incredible, given the acrimony and bickering which has plagued this dispute for a generation. It probably didn't hurt that American interests have been agitating for cheaper lumber.
There are many in Canada who would prefer we fight on until the Americans capitulate completely and accept our lumber at any price. I sympathize, I really do: every once in a while I like to shake my puny Canadian fists at those Yankee bastards.
But in the real world, this is probably as good a compromise as we're ever going to see. At some point you need to weight the costs of continued court battles--which have gotten us nowhere, even as we've won most of them--against the benefits in this resolution. I believe the benefits win out here.
At any rate, the fact that this dispute has been solved, even if it's left wood shavings everywhere, offers hope in case of future trade disputes.
-------------------------------------------------------
FLAG FLAP: I've stayed silent on this too long. Yesterday at work a couple of people categorically stated that the flag on the Peace Tower in Ottawa should be lowered to half-staff every time a Canadian dies in the service of his or her country.
With all due respect, no, it shouldn't.
Before 2002, it wasn't. As of that year, Chretien reversed many years of protocol and flew the flag at half-staff in response to our 'friendly fire' casualties in Afghanistan. At the time, many veterans' groups protested loudly, saying in effect that this new protocol was disrespectful to our thousands of prior war dead who were never accorded this honour. But Chretien and company never paid much attention to our vets in other matters, and they didn't in this one. The flags remained at half-staff. (Incidentally, "half-mast" only applies to flags at sea.)
Essentially, the veterans' position was and remains: do this for everyone or do it for no one. And in my view, if it is done for everyone, our national symbol becomes a yo-yo and the tradition is grossly cheapened.
Note that this protocol applies only to the Peace Tower flag, which is lowered to half-staff once every year on November 11. You are free to fly your own flag at half-staff whenever you want. Flags in Wingham were lowered to salute Matt Dinning, as is only proper.
As for the related banning of the media at CFB Trenton as the bodies of our soldiers came home, I'm less sold on that. I'm not a fan of the government telling anyone what is and isn't news. That said, has anyone asked the families of our fallen what they think? Perhaps they want privacy, which ought to be their automatic right at such a time.
-------------------------------------------------------
FREEDOM TOWER: I'm not sure what to think about the new tower on the site of the World Trade Centre. On the one hand, I have to admire the resilience of the American people. On the other, I can't help but think they're just building a bigger target.
Personally, I think it would have been better to leave the World Trade Center plaza as it was, or as close to what it was as possible. Memorial or no, I suspect future generations of Americans will come to regard Ground Zero as just another place to do business. It's just a little like building a shopping mall at Auschwitz.
--------------------------------------------------------
LIBERAL LEADERSHIP RACE: I'm thinking of entering my dog. Or maybe one of my cats. This is quickly turning into a national joke. Q. How many people will run for the Liberal leadership? A. All of them.
The sad part is, there isn't a potential leader among the bunch who stands out. Not one of them impresses me enough to even consider voting Liberal. (And to all you wags out there, I would consider voting Liberal--hell, I'd just do it--given a cleaned up, corruption-free, rift-free party with national vision and a leader with ideas beyond slagging the Tories at every opportunity.
6 comments:
Harper's Munich?
When Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stepped off the plane on 30 September, 1938 after the Munich Conference had ended the day before, he waved an infamous piece of paper, which read as follows:
"We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe."
Chamberlain later went to 10 Downing St. and said:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
Now, in April 2006, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, is symbolically waving a piece of paper and speaking of a "good deal" he has struck with President Bush of the USA.
"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.
Wow, curiosity, tell me how you really feel. I especially like the subtle equation of Bush to Hitler. That oughta impress all the American Jews, eh?
Tell me, are you employed in an industry that is affected by this deal? Just, ahem, curious. Because I'd suspect if you asked any person whose livelihood depended on a softwood lumber deal to objectively rate this one, they'd say it's a damn sight better than what we had before, which was nothing.
Is it perfect? No; and I never said it was, and neither did Harper. It does, however, return 78% of the money effectively taken from us. 78% is a B+, last I looked.
How would you have done better? It sounds very much like you would have slapped retaliatory tariffs on American products, thus starting an all-out trade war and sending our economy skittering right down the shitter. Tell me I'm wrong, and tell me how.
I'd be curious to know your solution to this 25-year-old battle
Compromise: a Canadian value.
Ken, while I agree that resolution is a good thing, I have to agree with curiosity. Do you think the Americans would have backed down if the situation were reversed? OH, HELL NO.
(why the comment moderation?)
No, the Americans would not have backed down--do they ever? from anything? That's exactly why a compromise was needed. Reading the media reaction to this deal--which, by the way, is not yet finalized--I see that most of them seem to understand that something is better than nothing, that a 5-15% tax is better than one that starts at 15% and progresses up as high as 30%, and that we've come out much further ahead than we could have expected even six months ago. Also, this deal contains a mechanism to potentially make it more palatable to Canadian interests. In short, I think the cast of dozens involved in crafting this resolution should be commended.
All that said, I think we best remember the hardball game it took to get here, when negotiations come up over our oil and fresh water.
Oh yes, and as for comment moderation, it was the only way I could figure out to delete a comment I wrote in the throes of muddleheadedness. Of course NOW I see the little trash cans...
Post a Comment