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?