The lumber agreement would end years of legal and trade wrangling between Canada and the United States. But it appeared that any support for the deal would be half-hearted at best.And these aren't even apparently the most unenthusiastic voices available, given that the article doesn't even directly cite any of the actors who wouldn't be brow-beaten into agreeing with the deal - a group which includes the anti-capitulation side of the B.C. council cited in the article, as well as Saskatchewan's industry group which according to tonight's CBC local news is maintaining its stance against the deal.
A source said there is a split within the B.C. Lumber Trade Council that has made it impossible for council president John Allan to express a position on behalf of his members.
Allan had been expected to appear at a House of Commons committee hearing with other softwood industry representatives Monday but did not show up.
A senior Ontario industry official who did appear called the deal a "capitulation," one which eliminates Canada's numerous legal victories before international trade panels.
A Quebec counterpart said the agreement follows a "bastardized" process where the industry faced frequent take-it-or-leave-it threats from the federal government.
The head of Canada's Free Trade Lumber Council said the federal government's own political calculations were behind the deal.
"I think the government's political will to draw closer to the U.S. has played a major part," said Carl Grenier.
He said the industry will likely take the deal because struggling softwood producers are desperate to get their share of a $4.3-billion-US refund from the American government promised under the agreement.
"They want to have the money right away. They need that money," he said.
"They're in very serious trouble, just think it's been four years that they've had $5 billion taken from them."...
Grenier scoffed at Wilson's suggestion (that the U.S. had offered the best deal possible).
"Of course not," he said. "Just look at the previous (Canada-U.S.) deals - in 1986, 1996. They were demonstrably much better."
The Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association criticized the deal but suggested many of its members were prepared to "capitulate."
The group's president also mocked the suggestion that Canada achieved the best possible agreement. David Milton said previous Canada-U.S. agreements were better than the one currently in the works.
"Enough of the propaganda and the face-saving. It's a very bad deal," he told the Commons international trade committee.
"Yet the OLMA has members ready to accept it because the threats of the government are impressive: no future help, no co-operation, no negotiation."...
Guy Chevrette, head of the Quebec Forest Industry Council, bemoaned Ottawa's heavy-handedness, which included warnings to the industry that the deal was final.
He said industry officials were twice told they could "take it or leave it" - on April 27, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper first announced an agreement in principle, and again when a so-called final text was unveiled July 1.
Both times, Ottawa was able to extract improvements after having proclaimed the negotiations over, Chevrette noted.
"We will need a much more intelligent and sophisticated process (to negotiate next time)," Chevrette told the committee.
Emerson may yet try to claim enough support from the industry tomorrow to declare his intention to push the deal forward. But as I've discussed before, the Cons have really done nothing more than win a fight against the very group whose side they were supposed to represent. And that decision to side against Canada won't be soon forgotten - either by the lumber industry, or by every other Canadian who wants to see our government representing our interests abroad rather than undermining them at every turn.
No comments:
Post a Comment