Hello Harper, Goodbye Canada
The recently concluded softwood lumber pact may indicate Harper’s route to deeper integration. Harper and George W. Bush were feted by trade officials for pushing through the agreement to end American duties on Canadian lumber and return to Canadian producers 80 percent of the $5.3 billion already collected.
Little mentioned is a key clause that requires U.S. government approval of any provincial forest-policy changes. This may be the most significant retreat from sovereignty in recent years, one authored by Harper. The Americans want this provision to ensure that all Canadian forest- policy changes point in one direction only: toward industry-controlled timber pricing.
Article
posted by Mike at 8:55 AM
2 Comments:
The alternative to the craven New Tory party's capitulation to Bush on the softwood issue is very simple.
The NDP, Bloc and Liberals have the majority votes in Parliament. They could agree to pass legislation which would direct the government to table the following revised proposal with the Bush government:
1. Term - The term should be ten years, with no early termination possible unless both sides agree, and the Canadian government is to agree only if a majority of MPs through a free vote (on a non-party basis) in Parliament for an earlier renewal.
2. Automatic renewals - Renewal period should be for automatic five year periods, unless notice of termination is given by either side 12 months before the end of a term (and the Government of Canada would need a majority vote of MPs to give such notice, through a free non-party vote).
3. Payment - Full payment of the $5 billion (yes, that is right, the amount owed under the applicable laws), plus interest on overdue amounts at 5% p.a..
4. No litigation - American lumber companies to agree not to litigate the settlement.
5. Reaffirmation of NAFTA - American government to reaffirm its commitment to the NAFTA treaty.
6. Failure of US to agree -
a. Should the US government not agree to this proposal, then Canada to continue with litigation.
b. Canadian government to fund such litigation by Canadian companies.
c. If the USA takes steps to penalize lumber imports from Canada due to failure to reach agreement as above, the Canadian government is to appoint a Royal Commission with a mandate to review what steps should be taken by the Canadian government to uphold the NAFTA, including whether to terminate the NAFTA (what is the point of an agreement with a government which does not honour its commitments?).
d. Royal Commission to report by February 28 2007.
e. Canadian government to review the findings of the Royal Commission and take such steps as the majority of MPs agree to through a free non-party vote.
f. Canadian government would use taxpayers money to assist Canadian companies who needed assistance due to the non-payment by the Americans of the debt they are refusing to pay.
So, you see: the answer is really simple. All you need is a bit of backbone as the Prime Minister of a country which entered into a treaty with another government in full expectation that the other government would honour its obligations, and not welsh when it suited it.
Our MPs would be in a position where they could reflect the views of their various constituents, as the later votes would be a non-party vote on the issues set out above.
Who will take the lead to stand up for Canada?
America will not stand up to its obligations simply on the concept of what's "fair". As far as I know, this concept is very rare back to the formation of the country. Without a major overhaul of the political system or a revolution of some sort, I fear it is just how quickly we lose out, not if we lose out.
Post a Comment
<< Home