May 2006 Archives
9 entries filed this month:
Former West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast Member of Parliament John Reynolds will be honoured at a dinner held at Hotel Vancouver this evening. The Prime Minister will be there, as will the Premier and Vancouver’s Mayor.
Reynolds is arguably one of the most influential Conservatives in the country. He’s the same former MP who played a leading role in usurping the votes of 46,168 Vancouver—Kingsway residents, as Reyolds was the middleman between David Emerson and then pm-elect Stephen Harper.
We can be sure that no one at the dinner will hold Reynolds to account for his role in this, except to perhaps cheer him on. What a way for Reynolds to exit politics – helping to weaken our democracy. Nothing to cheer about.
Italy, like Canada, has a new prime minister. Like Canada, there’s a sense of out with the old, in with the new going on. But here’s a common sense quotation from Italy’s Romano Prodi that you’ll never hear escape Stephen Harper’s lips:
We consider the war and occupation in Iraq a grave error that hasn’t solved – but has complicated – the problem of security. Romano Prodi, after being sworn in as Italy’s prime minister
Italy, along with Australia, was one of the important cogs in the so-called coalition of the willing that Bush assembled during the build up to war. Another Iraq-war supporter is John Howard, Australia’s prime minister, who will address Canada’s parliament later today. Will he call Iraq a grave mistake? He ought to, as should Harper, but don’t hold your breath.
Stephen Harper was a keen supporter of the war and the written record makes it very clear that had Harper been prime minister in 2002 – 2003, Canada would be at war today in Iraq.
Over the years my ‘old’ party, the federal Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, had many a discussion regarding NAFTA within its ranks, thanks to the influx of members behind the leadership of David Orchard. That debate was not always welcome within the party, and rarely were all sides engaged in fruitful discussion.
For my own part, while I recognized the concerns being promoted by Orchard and his supporters as being legitimate, at the time I felt that NAFTA did not need extraordinary focus. For all the talk of NAFTA Chapter 11 and its impact on Canada’s resource exportation, there was always Chapter 22 – termination – to lean back on. My thinking was that responsible government, held in check by the people who vote them in, would never trade away Canada’s sovereignty for fear of the public backlash.
My view has changed.
There’s no responsible government in sight, and the softwood lumber sellout only serves to prove this.
My party, the ‘new’ Conservative Party, is not standing up for Canada when it trades away hard-won legal battles in the name of political expediency to win an ‘apparent’ victory at home.
Messrs Harper, Emerson, Wilson, et al have not won anything but have demonstrated to much stronger forces that the rule of law is to mean nothing when it comes to our legal agreements with the United States.
Why is the Prime Minister of our country aiding and abetting powerful U.S. lobby groups and the politicians they control? How is that ‘standing up for Canada’?
When will the next powerful U.S. lobby group appear on the scene and have its way with Mr. Harper? Will it be the healthcare and drug lobby? Will U.S. businesses successfully argue along the same lines as the ‘stumpage’ argument the lumber lobby used, and portray our universal healthcare system as an “unfair advantage” over U.S. corporations? Will the privatization lobby within Canada link forces with the US in an attempt to ‘even the score’?
That’s not a far-fetched scenario. Rapidly increasing health care costs in the United States have cost U.S. automobile manufacturers significant pain.
For each mid-size car DaimlerChrysler AG builds at one of its U.S. plants, the company pays about $1,300 to cover employee health care costs—more than twice the cost of the sheet metal in the vehicle. When it builds an identical car across the border in Canada, the health care cost is negligible. Washington Post “A heftier dose to swallow”
When will the next well-lawyered U.S. lobby group launch an attack on Canada, and what will we give up then?
These attacks on Canada’s sovereignty have to stop.
This means of course that Canadians have to stop politicians that allow such attacks.
The Daily Show star and pundit Jon Stewart yesterday took on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s latest contradictions. Funny and informative, as is frequently the case with Stewart’s stuff. View it here.
At least Stewart is guaranteed an audience via his show. One of the most cutting bits of political satire seen in a long while, delivered within 20 feet of the president of the United States, might well go unheard of if not for the blogosphere.
All of North America ought to have tuned into C-SPAN (somewhat akin to Canada’s under-watched CPAC channel) last month to witness political satirist Stephen Colbert at his best, speaking at the dais of the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner. To say that he savaged President Bush would be an understatement as Colbert left no holds barred when he attacked both the Bush administration and the behaviour of traditional media.
Thanks to the magic of the Internet, you can still tune in. Google video has the full performance here. Deciding what to quote was difficult. Serious, or humorous-serious?
You write “Oh, they are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.” First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking, this administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg! Stephen Colbert, April 29 2006
As you can imagine in a room full of media people, many of which make their living through bland, uncritical and uninformed reporting of the Bush (or any) administration, laughter was not always guaranteed and certainly was not widespread in the room. Uncomfortable silence and stoney faces were not restricted to embarrassed media – those connected to Bush through government or more personal relationships were squirming. How dare someone break the ‘code of conduct’ and actually joke about the truth? As we can see, the Bush twins were not pleased. Apparently Mr. and Mrs. Bush were not amused either – they left immediately after Colbert’s piece.
Bringing this story back home, we ought to wonder why there was virtually no coverage of the Colbert bit here in Canada? We’re rabid consumers of this stuff. It was truthful, deep, dark, ironic humour – just the sort of thing for our palettes.
The Tyee has a transcript of Colbert’s monologue available here.
The so-called softwood lumber agreement recently arrived at (Basic Terms of a Canada-United States Agreement on Softwood Lumber) was hailed by the Prime Minister:
Canada’s bargaining position was strong; our conditions were clear; and this agreement delivers. It’s a good deal that resolves this long-standing dispute and allows us to move on. Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Yet common sense says that accepting an agreement which is the antithesis of ‘free trade’ provides the United States with a dangerous trade precedent, one which history suggests they will not fail to exploit.
I ask again ”what happened to the David Emerson who said just before the last election:”
People think that just because softwood lumber is a relatively small percentage of NAFTA trade, that somehow we should ignore this, but you can’t. The reality is, NAFTA covers many many sectors, and if NAFTA‘s decisions and the dispute resolution mechanism is not respected in lumber, it won?t be respected in other sectors. David Emerson, October 2005
Emerson’s acceptance of the latest deal is a big flip-flop, second of course only to his overnight post-election conversion from Liberal to Conservative.
Voices against the latest deal continue to speak out:
May 12 (Bogdan Kipling, Chronicle Herald) U.S., Canada declare ceasefire, not end to softwood lumber wars
The decades-long American tariff war on Canadian lumber is not over, the purring and glad-handing in Washington and Ottawa notwithstanding. There is no peace treaty.
The [U.S.] Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports and its friends in Congress will be back for more Canadian hide. They will start complaining around 2011, just in time to tell presidential candidates in 2012 whats coming down the chute.
They will invent new Canadian subsidies. They will charge Canada with dumping selling below cost. They will whine about injury to their industry. They will point to American jobs lost or threatened by unfair competition from Canada. They have trotted these charges out before and theyll trot them out again.
Thats the future.
The article makes reference to an address made last November by Elliot J. Feldman, a well known U.S. trade lawyer who sides with Canada on this issue and trade matters in general. Regardless of one’s views on NAFTA, its worth reading the full text of his address to the World President’s Organization (PDF)
May 11 (Steve Mertl, CP) Lumber executive confident of softwood deal despite negative legal report
In his report, [Washington trade lawyer Elliot] Feldman warns among other things that the framework accepted in late April undercuts NAFTA and gives back Canada’s victories over five years of trade litigation – wins that would have been permanently entrenched and would have given companies back all illegally collected lumber duties.
It also raises the spectre of American interference in Canadian forestry policies while allowing the United States to continue with trade practices that violate NAFTA and WTO rules.
Well no wonder Tembec CEO James Lopez is so optimistic. [sarcasm off]
Last week I wondered which was more likely true: did Canada take one on the chin with the softwood lumber agreement, or were we given a gift? As more details come out, it looks like the Prime Minister decided to push a deal through at the expense of the Canadian forest industry, without requiring that the U.S. industry give up any ground at all.
May 11 (Les Whittington, Toronto Star) U.S. `gave up nothing’ on softwood After a two-week study of the draft deal meant to end decades of cross-border friction, lumber producers have decided to pull out all the stops to try to change the agreement, which they see as a danger to free trade and thousands of industry jobs.
“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.
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.
Bush raised the possibility again when he phoned Harper on April 22 to offer condolences over the death of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
After that, there was an intense push in both capitals to craft a deal.
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.”
Caving in on Bush’s orders to give the embattled president, one of the least popular in all of U.S. history, a win on the U.S. domestic front, buys Canada exactly what, we ought to wonder. Where’s the win-win in this arrangement?
Is it too cynical to speculate that Stephen Harper was willing to trade away a billion dollars and “free trade” in order to deliver the appearance of a Canadian government win, a gift for his friend George W., and buy a little wind for David Emerson sails?
Media highlights for the past week
May 11 (NUPGE) Support the Canadian Wheat Board
On Feb. 2 of this year an organization calling itself Grain Vision sent a letter to Chuck Strahl, minister of agriculture and agri-good, also minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, urging the government to change its negotiating position at the WTO. The letter was also addressed to David Emerson, minister of International trade.
May 10 (David Crane, Chronicle Herald) Unwise to scrap Pacific council that was to help chart future
Moreover, the Harper government has apparently scrapped plans for the proposed Pacific Gateway Council, according to the office of Trade Minister David Emerson. This was to be an advisory body made up of knowledgeable Canadians from the business and other communities.
Liberal Senator Jack Austin, who served as government leader in the Senate in the Martin government, was one of the key architects of the Pacific Gateway Strategy, and has called on the Harper government to proceed with the council as an important body to help Canada advance its Asia strategy. “While the focus is on much-needed infrastructure improvements to the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, the Pacific Gateway Strategy is much more than an infrastructure mega-project,” Austin says. “It is a strategy for our future in what many expect will be the Pacific Century.”
Another important initiative from the Martin era also seems to have disappeared. This is the proposed CAN-Trade initiative, a five-year, $485-million plan to expand business opportunities for Canada in global markets, with much of the effort focused on Asia.
Scrapped in favour of something better? Or is this a sign of a Harper re-alignment back to focussing only on U.S. trade. The former government had been criticized for appearing to play off Asia / China against the U.S. Did Mr. Harper trade this strategy too, in his various talks with George W. Bush?
May 5 (Canadian Press) Vancouver Olympics chair confident Ottawa will provide extra games cash
VANCOUVER (CP) – The chair of Vancouver’s Olympic organizing committee is confident Ottawa will come through with extra funding for the 2010 games.
Jack Poole was commenting on Olympic costs that have jumped by $110 million. The B.C. government agreed to contribute half, but is holding back its share until the feds ante up.
There was no mention of the federal government’s $55-million share in this week’s federal budget. Poole blames the funding crunch on timing. “We got caught, unfortunately, in the fall of the previous government.”
Poole is convinced David Emerson – the federal minister in charge of the games – can be persuaded there is a need for more money.
And why shouldn’t Poole be convinced? When Emerson crossed the floor in February and finally snuck back to Vancouver, who was the first person Emerson met? Jack Poole, on a sunny Sunday morning at Emerson’s home. Poole – who openly laughed at pro-democracy protesters at one event – never has trouble gaining Minister’s ear. Too bad the same can’t be said for constituents and community groups in Vancouver-Kingsway.
May 5 (CanWest News) Emerson briefing cost $27,000
Taxpayers paid $27,000 so Trade Minister David Emerson, at the centre of a media storm over his defection from the Liberals to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative cabinet, could be briefed in Vancouver in mid-February by eight Ottawa-based senior bureaucrats, according to newly released documents obtained yesterday.
Just another example of the high price Canadians pay when democracy is denied.
May 4 (Letters, Common Ground) The David Emerson Affair
May 4 (Lachlan Labere, Salmon Arm Observer) New lumber deal panned
Softwood: “Like salt in the wounds.” – A Salmon Arm lumber producer says the new agreement on softwood lumber with the US is a bad deal for B.C. lumber producers, and it defeats the purpose of free trade.
But the devil is in the details according to Salmon Arm’s Federated Co-Op sales and marketing manager Paul Skinner. If left to NAFTA‘s dispute- resolution process, said Skinner, in 12 months time the US likely would have exhausted all of its appeals and all duties would have been returned.
May 3 (Comox Valley Record) Softwood deal a ‘betrayal,’ reacts MP Bell accusingly
MP Catherine Bell says the proposed Canadian/American softwood deal is a betrayal of forestry communities. “I’m shocked that the Stephen Harper government is so willing to capitulate. They promised to stand up for rural resource communities,” said Bell. “This framework gives more than a billion dollars to the Americans, and a protectionist quota that limits the amount of future Canadian exports.
“This is almost the same deal that International Trade Minister David Emerson rejected last year when he was Liberal,” she said. “What’s changed, other than his political stripe?”
Answering the question… Emerson’s new boss is a hard-ass?
Fellow pro-democracy activist Manuel Pereda, who was one of four arrested during a sit-in at Emerson’s constituency office on February 24th, had a meeting with David Emerson today. (Emerson’s defection an opportunity for democratic reform)
Manuel today said that he’s no longer interested in calling for David Emerson’s resignation and a by-election for Vancouver-Kingsway. That’s not news – he moved to that position in the days immediately following the sit-in two months ago. While he is certainly entitled to his opinion, neither I nor the Campaign to De-Elect David Emerson share Pereda’s views.
Less than 24 hours after the last ballot was counted on January 23rd, David Emerson and Stephen Harper through his emissary started negotiating away the votes of 46,168 voters in this riding. That’s not real democracy.
Political change does not happen unless the kettle remains on the boil. Both Emerson and the Conservative Party leader, Stephen Harper, desperately want this issue to be put on the back burner to quietly run dry.
That’s not going to happen.
What Harper and Emerson did was wrong the day after the election, was wrong when they were sworn in on February 6th, and remains wrong now. More than 100 days later pro-democracy Canadians of all political stripes continue to this fight for democracy, and we’ll continue to do so for as long as it takes.
When Canadians next go to the polls, be they for federal, provincial or municipal elections, voters will again be reminded just how little some politicians regard our votes and voices. Imagine how people will view their ballots next time they walk into a polling station. Tens of thousands of Vancouver area voters will not forget what was done here in Vancouver-Kingsway.
Softwood Deal:Follow the Money by Kim Pollock, published today in The Tyee suggests that on-going litigation was almost done and Canada would certainly have prevailed had we pushed the softwood case to its natural conclusion. Pollock asks the question “why retreat now?”
One BC forest company rep was more honest. He said the Harper government would probably have been uninterested in pursuing the legal fight any longer in the face of pressure from the White House. In the end though, we should remember the words of former BC chief bureaucrat Doug McArthur. After about a year, he said, especially if the price of lumber falls, Canadian firms will be screaming to get out of it. Then what?
A weakened president cornered by the very powerful U.S. lumber lobby means that any deal arrived at during the remainer of G.W. Bush’s term is naturally going to favour U.S. producers. Did Harper and Emerson allow Canada to take one on the chin? The question leads to another.
If Canada has been seen by the White House to cave on this issue, then what do we get in return? Or, if Canada has been seen to be granted a gift by the White House, what do we still owe?