In a word - lots.
While CPC apologists go off praising how "quickly and professionally" Harper was able to wrest an agreement on this topic from the United States government, they miss several factors that are seriously problematic.
First, is a matter of principle. Three nations signed theNAFTA agreement in the early 1990s. The United States breached that agreement in the Softwood Lumber dispute, and even through both WTO and NAFTA dispute resolution mechanisms lost.
So why is Canada allowing them to keep over a billion dollars of money that belongs to Canadians and Canadian companies? Why are we, in effect, paying a penalty of any kind to the United States?
Additionally, the signal that this sends is that International Agreements are meaningless to the CPC government now sitting in Ottawa.
Second, are the artificial "floor price" clauses. This is a problem on a couple of levels. First, the Canadian industry has restructured itself enormously in order to survive the punititive tariffs levied by the Americans. At this point in time, if Canadian mills were to crank up to full capacity, they not only would be able to out produce their American counterparts. In essence, this is a penalty for being more efficient.
Third is an arbitrary ceiling placed upon how much of the US market that the Canadian lumber industry can occupy. Considering that the governing parties in both countries claim to "support the free market economy", I find this to be a serious non-sequitur. While the terms of NAFTA have allowed all sorts of American businesses to come into Canada and wipe out local Canadian enterprises, we are being told that it doesn't apply the other way?
[update]: I did miss a point in the second announcements made on this topic - the market ceiling has been removed.
The "sudden agreement" reached is consistent not with "Harper professionalism", but rather the partisan bias that that the BushCo administration has shown since the beginning. It has been very clear since the first days of BushCo that they weren't interested in talking to anyone who wasn't "their brand of conservative" (and anything calling itself "liberal" can't possibly be that). Notable, is that this deal had been "in the works" for a long time - going back to well before the election triggered last November.
What's next - Ottawa signing on to BushCo's farcicle little "Missile Defense" program, or are they just going to go whole hog and commit Canada to BushCo's next war?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alberta's Anti-Trans Legislation
So, now that the UCP has rolled out their anti-trans legislation, we can take a long look at it. Yesterday, they tabled 3 related bills and...
-
On March 19, 2024 the United Conservative Party of Alberta held an event that they called " Let Kids Be Kids " (spoiler alert: i...
-
There is an entire class of argument that we see in discourse that basically relies on the idea that “physical attribute X means that Y can ... -
So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of ...
8 comments:
Do I smell a tinge of jealousy? It wasn't good because there were limits and not all the money was returned. When that turned out to be false you turn around and state that it isn't good because he is Bush lite. Please you partison voters kill me with your hypocrisy.
Eieio:
I would suggest that you read the update a bit more closely. Grog did not state that it isn't good because Harper is a _Bush lite_ rather he said that the _sudden agreement_ was reached because of a partisan bias on the part of the Bush Administration.
Second point on your comment, you linked two seperate issues together, market ceiling and the 1 billion dollars. The market ceiling issue has been resolved but the missing 1 billion dollars has NOT been addressed, nowhere in Grogs posting does it mention that the missing 1 billion dollars has, or will be, returned.
Grog has not demonstrated hypocrisy, rather you have demonstrated the usual game of _statement twisting_.
SB
Eiei0:
You clearly didn't follow the linkage to the Globe and Mail story which makes it quite clear that the deal is not entirely the work of the Harper Conservatives. (something which has not been well reported).
Second, I take considerable umbrage at the notion of paying the United States what amounts to a punitive assessment of over a billion dollars (20% of the total amount levied) when the entire thing is based on the United States failing to abide by the agreements it is signatory to. It's rather like agreeing to pay 20% of a speeding ticket that has been levied after I've demonstrated repeatedly that I wasn't speeding.
If you wish to accuse me of "hypocrisy", you're going to have to a lot better than to simply assert that I'm being a hypocrite, you might actually have to show it.
By the way - criticizing Harper doesn't make me "partisan" - I'll slime other politicians for being disingenuous idiots as well.
Who got the talks on track? Not the Harper conservatives, but who?
"I take considerable umbrage at the notion of paying the United States "
You didn't pay a plug nickel!
If it had been the Liberal's in power you would all be singing and dancing in the streets, but no it was Harper so it can't be right.
Eiei0:
1) Got the talks on track:
- please read the Globe & Mail article, and reference back additionally to my assertion that a significant degree of it comes back to partisan bias on the part of BushCo
2) "You didn't pay a plug nickel"
Bullshit. That $1 Billion came off the bottom line of companies that I own shares in. Those companies laid people off as a direct result of the $5 billion levied illegally by the United States, so I paid out monies via my taxes directly as a result.
3) "If it had been liberals ..."
No - I would not have been. In fact, I would still be every bit as critical of the terms of the agreement were they similar. Don't suppose what I might or might not do - you'll probably be very wrong.
You own shares in companies and they run them as they see fit. You do not have a say other then the power to sell said shrares.
I am not digging through the article again, if you cannot find the few references to those that got the deal on track then you are not looking at the article close enough and should read it again. Notice the names Mulroney, Bush Sr., and the fact that the deal fell apart until these individuals had discussions. Also note that it was Harper that finalized the deal.
As for your last comment, you and your ilk will never admit that Harper can do anything right even if he passed something that you have been screaming for ages about. Stop whining and get on board the Harper express that is picking up steam across the country and leaving all you socialists behind in the smoke.
Eiei0:
1) The list of parties involved - including Mulroney, Bush Sr., Ambassador Wilkins and others tells me in screaming loud letters that Harper has a relatively small amount of credit coming his way.
2) I'll admit Harper can do something "right" when he does. So far, all I've seen have been lies, contradictions and secrecy - hardly what I can call encouraging.
3) What the fuck is with CPC supporters who claim that anyone who dares have the audacity to call Harper out on outright lies and contradictions is automatically a "whiner"? (Don't bother answering that - it's a rhetorical question)
4) I'll "get on board" the Harper Express the day that he (and his party) actually say what they represent honestly, and it reflects something that I believe in.
Since you seem bound and determined to make everything some kind of attack upon me, rather than my opinions, don't bother replying to future posts on this blog.
Eiei0:
Comments are welcome - as long as they are on topic. Saying I'm wrong because you disagree with me isn't going to persuade me of much.
Taunting, ad-hominem attacks and sweeping generalizations are annoying.
Take your schoolyard taunting somewhere else.
Post a Comment