A few interesting tidbits emerge on a brief evaluation:
1. Coming from two parties that are both ostensibly "free market" proponents, it's possibly the first time since Pierre Elliot Trudeau imposed "wage and price controls" in the 1970s that I have seen this much government regulation of industry and markets:
The agreement would see Canada allowed access to roughly 34 per cent of the U.S. softwood lumber market.
...
In Ontario's best years, its forestry sector produces some 12 per cent of Canada's softwood lumber exports to the United States, Ramsay said. Under the proposed deal, Ontario's softwood lumber exports would be capped around nine per cent, a significant reduction for companies like Tembec and Domtar.
...
Under the terms of the deal announced Wednesday, Canada will also collect an export tax on softwood lumber shipped to the United States if the price drops below $355 per thousand board feet. The tax would be at least five per cent of the price per thousand board feet.
There's several things that just plain wrong here. First, this looks like Washington trying to divvy up how Canada will exploit its resources. This is an International Agreement for goodness' sake - what is it doing with production quotas in it that affect Canada's internal affairs?
Then, there is the floor price issue. Last I checked, if you make widgets and charge $10 for them, and I make "similar" widgets and I can sell them for $8 (and still make money), the market economy says I should be free to do so. But no, Canada is suddenly obliged to collect a counterveiling tariff/tax. Isn't the third word in NAFTA "FREE" as in "Free Market Economy"? Wherein American corporations seem to have had free license to come into Canada at will? Apparently, where Canada has a competitive advantage, we should pay for it? What the heck is that?
If this is Harper's idea of "smoothing things over" with BushCo, he's a bigger idiot than I thought. I have a little newsflash for Stephen - Canadians don't want you to sell the country off to the American Government! (especially not the current one)
I can hardly wait to see what HarperCrit puts into the Budget next week...
1 comment:
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.
Post a Comment