The cost of being Emerson
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?