Tuesday, July 04, 2006

We told you so ...

David Emerson signed the softwood lumber deal with the US. ONLY Emerson and Harper are supposedly happy with it. It could be because Harper wants it settled when he visits President Bush soon?
The BC Government sent Emerson it's concerns that the deal was NOT in British Columbia's interests. In plently of time for him to be aware. He should have been keyed on BC needs anyway. There were four major items we were unhappy with. Emerson went ahead and signed a bad deal. The American lumber lobby against Canada gets to keep one BILLION dollars of our money.
BC is the largest lumber producer in Canada. Emerson told us how effective he could be for British Columbians when he crossed over from the Liberals in his lust for power. Emerson is from BC. Everyone said how good he would be for BC.
Sure. Some believed it.
We didn't. Check out our previous comments.
David Emerson, like many BC MPs before him, became a traitor to his home province. Sucking up to Harper and the Americans for his illusions of grandeur. David will say, we had to get some kind of deal. No we didn't, we had one called NAFTA.
We told you so ...

UPDATE: Alberta has now joined with British Columbia and Quebec in showing its dissatisfaction with the lumber deal and threatening legal action against it. Makes one wonder just what Emerson was up to or whether he even communicated with anyone?


  1. Anonymous9:21 am

    Well cater, what did you expect from a man who screwed his party for his own glory.

  2. Anonymous11:18 am

    how are the conservatives going to dress this one up? We won every court battle in world trade and nafta. we needed to have the guts to just stop sending our raw logs to america. when are canadians going to smarten up and start rebelling? dump these guys! I'd sooner have the old liberals back whio the us didn't like. I'll go back to calling them morons any day instead of selling out to secret ego shit for emersan.

  3. Anonymous1:51 pm

    We knew it right? We all knew that David Emerson would screw up as soon as he had the first chance. He is only interested in himself. Anyone with integrity would have stood up for Canada.
    And if Harper told him to sign it because he was meeting Bush next week, he is just as bad! What's the matter? Is he afraid to face Bush and demand fair play?
    Yes he is.

  4. Anonymous9:40 am

    The deal Harper has cobbled together in his rush to curry favour with Bush is an appalling one, for the reasons mentioned, and others.

    When Harper takes this deal to Parliament, it deserves to be altered. The Bloc, NDP and Liberals have the majority of the seats in Parliament, and it is the duty of their MPs to act in the interests of Canada and their constituents.

    If the Liberals allow this deal to go through (either by ineptitude – such as the last budget debacle, or disorganization – due to the leadership campaign absorbing so much of their efforts), then they deserve to be punished by the voters come the next election.

    If course, if by their conduct Liberal MPs (especially the contenders for leadership of the party) show that their failure to stand up to Harper on yet another rushed exercise, springs from cowardice, then the voters should take note of this, and not grant them a government minority or majority until they acquire some intestinal fortitude.

    This softwood deal is more of a test of the calibre of the Liberal leadership contenders, than of Harper. We have measured Harper, and he is wanting.

    Now let us measure the Liberal Party, and see if they deserve the votes of Canadians.

  5. Anonymous11:16 am

    Didn't you know Emerson speaks only to himself, then answers.He is such a loser.

  6. Anonymous4:53 pm

    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?

  7. curiosity,
    Your points might be a little idealistic if not impossible. The deal was NAFTA, and the US has never honoured the intent of NAFTA, starting with the very first company to leave Canada and terminate all it's Canadian employees: Gillette. They simply didn't need to actually BE in Canada when they could ship their product from America, keeping Americans in jobs.
    Weyerheiser closed Canadian lumber mills in order to keep Americans working in Washington State with a steady supply of raw logs. Therefore getting their own 'value added' product to the US market and destroying ours.
    You are right about Canadian MPs with guts. They need to take a stand and be polite but firm with an intent to call an end to the Free Trade Agreement and start from scratch.
    Royal Commissions only amount to friends of friends dipping into taxpayers' money and accomplishing nothing.
    Backbone of a Prime Minister of Canada? I am waiting for that to happen. Sadly the only one close to that was Chretien but he couldn't resist the 'moron' talk.
    Of course the laxity on politicians' part to change anything regarding trade with America is a direct result of American companies doing business in Canada. It is all important, sadly more so than Canada first.
    I say we need to be patriotic even to the extent we are hurt a bit but let our trading partners know that we want a fair deal for Canadians.
    Who will take the lead? It seems none of the current players?

  8. Anonymous8:14 am

    What were you all expecting from a slimeball like Emerson?


Keep it real - spam or links will be eliminated