Harper won Canada zero

Emerson blocked deal on softwood: Liberals
Feb. 9, 2006. 04:52 AM
JAMES TRAVERS
NATIONAL AFFAIRS COLUMNIST



OTTAWA—Here's the plot of a real-life political thriller: David Emerson defected to the Conservatives this week carrying a multi-billion dollar softwood lumber deal that Liberals, for political reasons, didn't finalize before the federal election.

Former colleagues as well as officials and diplomats privy to the secret, backchannel talks insist Emerson was instrumental in delaying a breakthrough in the decades-old dispute that cost thousands of Canadian jobs. They say the former Liberal industry minister worried that a pre-election announcement would damage Liberal prospects in key British Columbia ridings.

In a telephone interview last night, Emerson confirmed he raised concerns about the proposal after discussions with the B.C. government and softwood industry. But he said it's a "false story" to suggest his resistance was politically motivated and insisted the deal on the table before the election wasn't good enough for Canada then and isn't now.

Liberals and non-partisan sources tell a different story. They say the B.C. government and its powerful forestry industry only lost interest in the plan after meetings with Emerson. His objections, along with concerns in Paul Martin's office that a pre-election deal would stop the then-prime minister from using George W. Bush as a campaign punching bag, convinced Liberals to delay formal negotiations at least until after the January election.

Informally discussed on parallel tracks here and in the U.S., the plan calls for Washington to reimburse about 75 per of the disputed $5 billion in tariffs imposed on Canadian lumber in return for Ontario and Quebec export quotas. In B.C., there would be higher stumpage fees to keep mills in the province's interior from flooding the U.S. market with cheap wood culled from forests hard-hit by mountain pine beetle infestations.

Those behind-the-scenes talks, led in Washington by Ambassador Frank McKenna and nursed in Ottawa by then-international trade minister Jim Peterson, were rapidly moving the two countries toward brief formal negotiations and a quick deal until they tripped over political realties. At the time, Martin's government was publicly resisting Bush administration pressure to return to the negotiating table, arguing that Canada had won serial tribunal decisions and would settle for nothing less than complete victory and full compensation.

Emerson was among the most outspoken Liberal ministers. In August, he called on Canadians to unite around fair trade. "Are we going to be stronger than the sum of our parts, or are we going to be endlessly bickering amongst ourselves and allow the bully to basically mop the floor with us."

But while making noisy demands that the U.S. abide by the letter and spirit of cross-border treaties and by threatening a trade war if it did not, Martin's government was quietly building a Canadian consensus. First, the three biggest softwood provinces tentatively agreed to the hybrid formula, and then key parts of the industry were brought into the talks on condition of strict confidentiality.

In Washington, McKenna discreetly tested how the U.S. would respond to the hybrid Canadian proposal and Washington's willingness to reimburse tariffs. Conscious of the powerful lumber lobby, U.S. officials were encouraging as well as equally discreet.

By early November, the critical components were in place. "A deal was there to be had," a well-informed source says. "It was easily within reach."

Other sources, including diplomats, confirm the template was complete before Martin's minority government fell. But for reasons Liberals now blame on Emerson, it stepped back from a deal that now falls into Stephen Harper's lap.

That would be a dramatic early success for a new government and for a new trade minister. And that has some of Emerson's former colleagues steaming.

They and others who spoke on condition of anonymity say they accept that Tories will claim a softwood victory as the spoils of war. But they can't stomach that Emerson is now positioned to take credit for an agreement Liberals say he blocked.

They say Emerson didn't want a less-than-perfect agreement to become a Conservative and NDP target. According to the sources, Emerson, a former top lumber executive, also warned that some companies could object to the higher stumpage fees.

Rather than take an unnecessary political risk, Liberals parked the deal, assuming it could be restarted when they were, as they wrongly expected, returned to office.

It's not clear if or when Conservatives learned about the advanced softwood talks. What is known is that the small circle of those aware of the backroom discussions expanded during the final campaign weeks.

In any case, Conservatives had many reasons to encourage Emerson's defection. Highly respected at home as well as by mandarins here, Emerson, who jokingly calls himself a small-c Liberal, gives the party downtown Vancouver representation and an experienced minister to handle the financially troubled Olympics and Pacific rim issues.

So less than 24 hours after the election, Emerson and Conservative campaign co-chairman John Reynolds were discussing the defection that on Monday caught the national capital by surprise. In retrospect, it wasn't so surprising.

Independently wealthy and more interested in policy than politics, Emerson would find little in opposition to justify the grinding travel between the capital and West Coast. Equally important, Harper was willing to give Emerson the international trade job former Liberal cabinet colleagues say he coveted.

Now that he has it, Emerson gets a second chance to complete the deal that diplomats say requires little more than signatures.

That would be an unpleasant surprise ending Liberals didn't anticipate when they put the softwood talks on hold.






Additional articles by James Travers




Get great home delivery subscription deals here!

 

America wasn't very opposed to Indonesian massacres against the East Timorese for 25 years? When it began immediately after Kissenger left? When America continued supporting their regime despite widespread documentation?

What about the continual and massive support of Israeli terror against the Palestinians.

Or maybe Guatamala in the '50s? After they nationalized United Fruit Land? Thousands of innocents butchered? Weren't very fucking opposed then, were you?

Pinochet? Attempts on Hugo Chavez? Escorting Aristide from Haiti at gunpoint?

The only Terror America opposes is against it - and it funds/supports/causes a hundred times more itself.

 

And I'm proud I don't have the same shitty values as you.

 

Harrisites=Parasites

 

Wow. I'm officially telling IronGoth to go fuck himself with a rusty pop can. After what he just said about Canada - you are one disrespectful son of a bitch calling people parasites you fuckwit.

If you did some research, you'd know that it was the conservatives that brought in the welfare state - and I actually take personal offense to your accusations that welfare recipients are parasites.

Tell that to my grandmother who lost her husband to a brain tumour new year's day at the age of 29, when he died without a life insurance policy because during those days it wasn't covered under the provincial life insurance plans for policemen. My grandmother went on welfare with 4 kids under the age of 7 to look after. She became a social worker (without a university degree) and worked her ass off investigating fraud, child abuse cases, and physically delivering welfare cheques to recipients.

Labelling my grandmother, or any other welfare recipient for that matter, as a 'parasite' - automatically makes you a gutless fucktard incapable of considering for a brief moment, how much the world isn't meant to revolve around you and your personal world.

 

Yeah, well, for each person like your grandmother, and people like you always pull her up when you mention the welfare state, there sure are a hell of a lot of people who consider pogey paid vacation during the winter (if a landscaper) or summer (if a snow plow driver), or merely are content to sit and collect a cheque while sitting out on Bank St. with a sign saying "welfare not enough to cover beer".

Where the hell was your grandmother's family and/or his inlaws? What kind of people leave a woman to raise four kids by herself? Oh right, the nanny state will take care of all.

Listen, I worked in welfare central for a while and let me tell you, the vast majority of the unwashed were second generation workshy tossers, so don't give me any grief about it. In this country you can collect welfare but not forever. Whereas in Canada you can sit around til the day you die having your toilet paper and groceries brought to you, with disposable income to spend on cigarettes and drugs.

 

And by the way when I didn't find work I didn't sit there with my hand out begging the state to pay my way. I went back to school, took on loads of debt, paid rent and food with credit cards and eventually moved to where there was work (1500 miles away).

And while I was doing this I got to hear someone whine that thanks to Mike Harris she didn't get her new washer and dryer she used to get free every three years.

 

RE: If you did some research, you'd know that it was the conservatives that brought in the welfare state

Let me tell you little lady (oh yeah, f*ck you too) when the Conservatives brought in welfare it wasn't designed to be a cradle to grave free ride on the people who do actually work. Turdeau made sure that one turned into a free for all.

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Hey, the Lieberals attended fundraising dinners for the Tamil Tigers and refused to call these mad mullah groups terrorist groups, so get off your high horse.

 

She got a brand new house made for her and given to her by the community. The community all helped and pitched in to buy her a house.

 

Aristartle - well there's a difference between a Habitat for Humanity effort (which I support) and let's house, clothe and feed those who refuse to work, a la Canada.

 

calling refugees and welfare recipients "parasites" is a dickless thing to say.

 

Welfare recipients and refugees are parasites.

 

Die in a ditch.

 

Grow up and get a life.

 

*yawns*

 

When you get out of college and into the real world, cut your dreadlocks off and see things for what they are, you can apologize and I promise I will accept it.

 

You're the one who should apologise, and you know it.

 

And I don't blame you for telling me that I'm young. I am young, but don't dismiss the fact that labelling people as parasites makes you a fucktard.

 

If you don't work, don't learn the language, don't contribute and just take, take, take, then you are a PARASITE.

When you cease to be a refugee and shoulder your own burden then you cease to be a parasite and become a productive member of society.

I think Vlad Drakul had the right idea with the Feast of Folly, dig?