Liberal David Emerson rejects softwood deal

[normanchateau]

It's curious that when Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna presented the US plan for a negotiated

settlement on softwood lumber to the Liberal government late in 2005, the government rejected the plan on the advice of Liberal Cabinet Minister David Emerson. Yet when a similar US plan was delivered to the Harper government in April, 2005, that plan was accepted, apparently on the advice of Conservative Cabinet Minister David Emerson.

Here's what David Gray, BC spokesman for the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council, had to say about the plan that Emerson suddenly and inexplicably found was good enough to betray the softwood lumber industry:

"They've taken McKenna, they've put lipstick on it, they've put a girdle on it, high heels and a wig, but it's still a pig." He later modified his metaphor: "It's still a pig, but now we're trying to make it fly."

Here's the link:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...d3c&k=48564

It remains to be determined why Harper would bring into Cabinet a stooge like David Emerson who first rejected the deal then inexplicably reversed himself. Did he want Emerson to be the fall guy for the softwood lumber deal which betrayed not only the NAFTA concept of free trade but the entire softwood lumber industry?

[Argus]

It's curious that when Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna presented the US plan for a negotiated

settlement on softwood lumber to the Liberal government late in 2005, the government rejected the plan on the advice of Liberal Cabinet Minister David Emerson. Yet when a similar US plan was delivered to the Harper government in April, 2005, that plan was accepted, apparently on the advice of Conservative Cabinet Minister David Emerson.

Here's what David Gray, BC spokesman for the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council, had to say about the plan that Emerson suddenly and inexplicably found was good enough to betray the softwood lumber industry:

"They've taken McKenna, they've put lipstick on it, they've put a girdle on it, high heels and a wig, but it's still a pig." He later modified his metaphor: "It's still a pig, but now we're trying to make it fly."

Here's the link:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...d3c&k=48564

It remains to be determined why Harper would bring into Cabinet a stooge like David Emerson who first rejected the deal then inexplicably reversed himself. Did he want Emerson to be the fall guy for the softwood lumber deal which betrayed not only the NAFTA concept of free trade but the entire softwood lumber industry?

Uhm... welcome to November. That story is seven months old and we've already discussed it any number of times. The provinces accepted the agreement after a few more changes were made and the deal's done.

Move on already.

[normanchateau]

It's curious that when Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna presented the US plan for a negotiated

settlement on softwood lumber to the Liberal government late in 2005, the government rejected the plan on the advice of Liberal Cabinet Minister David Emerson. Yet when a similar US plan was delivered to the Harper government in April, 2005, that plan was accepted, apparently on the advice of Conservative Cabinet Minister David Emerson.

Here's what David Gray, BC spokesman for the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council, had to say about the plan that Emerson suddenly and inexplicably found was good enough to betray the softwood lumber industry:

"They've taken McKenna, they've put lipstick on it, they've put a girdle on it, high heels and a wig, but it's still a pig." He later modified his metaphor: "It's still a pig, but now we're trying to make it fly."

Here's the link:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...d3c&k=48564

It remains to be determined why Harper would bring into Cabinet a stooge like David Emerson who first rejected the deal then inexplicably reversed himself. Did he want Emerson to be the fall guy for the softwood lumber deal which betrayed not only the NAFTA concept of free trade but the entire softwood lumber industry?

Uhm... welcome to November. That story is seven months old and we've already discussed it any number of times. The provinces accepted the agreement after a few more changes were made and the deal's done.

Move on already.

What changes? The deal Emerson rejected as Liberal Cabinet Minister is more-or-less the same deal he touted as Conservative Cabinet Minister. Both deals had the US keeping more than $1 billion in illegal duties. And now Canadian lumber companies are paying more in export taxes than they did in illegal duties.

This financial mismanagement is even worse in some ways than the idiotic increase in the personal income tax rate that Harper introduced in July. Harper needs to consult with some competent economists.

[geoffrey]

What changes? The deal Emerson rejected as Liberal Cabinet Minister is more-or-less the same deal he touted as Conservative Cabinet Minister. Both deals had the US keeping more than $1 billion in illegal duties. And now Canadian lumber companies are paying more in export taxes than they did in illegal duties.

This financial mismanagement is even worse in some ways than the idiotic increase in the personal income tax rate that Harper introduced in July. Harper needs to consult with some competent economists.

How are they illegal duties? What law applies?

Canada is getting a great deal. We don't have to address how we are extremely unfair with our stumpage fees.

Why is the left not more enraged that we didn't give in to the Americans? Typically they are the ones bitching about not getting enough for our resources... now when the yanks tax it because we are being over exploitive, it's wrong?

Full of hyprocrits this country is.

[normanchateau]

Why is the left not more enraged that we didn't give in to the Americans? Typically they are the ones bitching about not getting enough for our resources... now when the yanks tax it because we are being over exploitive, it's wrong?

The Americans aren't taxing it. The export tax is Canadian. But it's certainly not the first tax imposed by the tax-hungry Harper government.

The increase in personal income taxes was on July 1st. And of course you've heard of the tax on income trusts imposed last week, i.e., the broken promise tax. Given his record in just a few months, I'm sure Harper will impose a lot more taxes before he's done. Preston Manning he is not. No wonder Manning dumped Harper from his position as Finance critic and replaced him with Herb Grubel, a financial conservative.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Just like that. An anti-Harper bash-a-thon.

[normanchateau]

Just like that. An anti-Harper bash-a-thon.

Are you saying that Harper did not impose a tax on Canadian lumber, an increase in personal income tax and the broken promise tax on income trusts? If he's going to tax, tax, tax, then he should expect criticism.

Come election time, he will of course promise tax cuts hoping that people will forget his imposition of a string of new taxes in 2006.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Are you saying that Harper did not impose a tax on Canadian lumber, an increase in personal income tax and the broken promise tax on income trusts? If he's going to tax, tax, tax, then he should expect criticism.

Come election time, he will of course promise tax cuts hoping that people will forget his imposition of a string of new taxes in 2006.

Hmmm, let's look at the tax cuts the Conservatives have delivered.

Lowering the GST from 7% to 6%.

Child Fitness Tax Credit.

Textbook Tax Credit.

Tax Credit for Employers who hire apprentices.

Canada Employment Credit.

$1 Billion in tax relief for seniors via income splitting and the aged tax credit.

The Conservatives will be more than willing to fight the next election on their record of cutting taxes...

[normanchateau]

Uhm... welcome to November. That story is seven months old and we've already discussed it any number of times.

Move on already.

I assume this same logic applies to the Liberals and discussion of any acts of the previous government. Right?

[Figleaf]

Just like that. An anti-Harper bash-a-thon.

You think that any criticism of Harper is 'bashing'. I'm sure you'd prefer critics to hold their tongues, but guess what! Canada is a liberal democracy -- dissent and criticism are allowed here.

It's getting really boring having you jump in with one-liner crap to disrupt every almost every thread on the Federal Politics forum. Give it a rest.

[scribblet]

Just like that. An anti-Harper bash-a-thon.

It seems that way lately, funny thing is if Harper hadn't acted on the trusts for instance, they would be bitching about corporations getting a tax vacation and Harper being a corporate whore, while establishing a cordial working relationship with our largest trading partner isn't acceptable to the U.S. haters. Too bad idealogy gets in the way of reason and clouds judgements .

As for the environment and Kytoto even Chretien verbalized to the press that Kyoto was unattainable and he had no intention of keeping the commitment.

The Liberals for 13 years antagonized the U.S. , Chretien practically ignored them and we now have a different direction in which we are more open to a working relationship while not cowtowing to them e.g. we are firmly establishing our Arctic sov. Obviously one catches more flies with honey than they do with vinegar

There is a difference between constructive critique and partisian attacks - the latter appears to be increasing, misplaced anger maybe because the Liberals are no longer the 'natural governing party' and all the scary doom and gloom prophecies have not materialized.

Oh well, this is getting to be a bit repetitious, same old same old...

[Figleaf]

Too bad idealogy gets in the way of reason and clouds judgements .

I've definitely noticed that -- for example, it's surprising how many CPC supporters came to the defence of Peter Mackay after he baldly lied in Parliament.

It's also surprising how CPC supporters came to the defence of Harper breaking his promise.

And what, other than misbegotten ideology, could explain the CPC position on SSM? Clouded judgement writ large.

The Liberals for 13 years antagonized the U.S. , Chretien practically ignored them...

Did he ignore them, or antagonize them? Or do you mean he didn't act like a lapdog for them?

[Ricki Bobbi]

You think that any criticism of Harper is 'bashing'. I'm sure you'd prefer critics to hold their tongues, but guess what! Canada is a liberal democracy -- dissent and criticism are allowed here.

It's getting really boring having you jump in with one-liner crap to disrupt every almost every thread on the Federal Politics forum. Give it a rest.

When a post in a thread on softwood lumber brings up income tax changes, income trust and Harper being replaced as Finance critic more than a decade ago that is bashing.

Take a look at what I post and what I am replying to here before telling me to give it a rest. Or better yet, monitor your behaviour and I'll monitor mine.

[scribblet]

Did he ignore them, or antagonize them? Or do you mean he didn't act like a lapdog for them?

Pretty much both which served neither country's best interests. There's a big difference between acting like a lapdog and having a working relationship to our benefit. You can continue with the hate U.S./bashing rhetoric but it serves no good purpose in the end and no one wins.

[normanchateau]

and all the scary doom and gloom prophecies have not materialized.

I'm not sure what the prophecies were or who made them but surely even an incompetent like Harper is smart enough not to do anything too outrageous or socon-like when he has only a tenuous, minority government and is now behind the Liberals in every province except Alberta. That would guarantee he'd never achieve a majority though his financial incompetence, increasing income taxes and betrayal of the lumber companies achieves the same outcome.

[Drea]

"Bashing"?

Criticism is now bashing? Offering dissenting views is now bashing?

If I criticize a person for a behaviour for example, am I "bashing" him? Is a teacher who criticizes a student "bashing" the student? An employer, is he "bashing" his employee when he offers criticism?

What I see is the hard Harper supporters see any criticism as dissent.

And in the rightwing sphere, dissent is not tolerated.

[Ricki Bobbi]

"Bashing"?

Criticism is now bashing? Offering dissenting views is now bashing?

If I criticize a person for a behaviour for example, am I "bashing" him? Is a teacher who criticizes a student "bashing" the student? An employer, is he "bashing" his employee when he offers criticism?

What I see is the hard Harper supporters see any criticism as dissent.

And in the rightwing sphere, dissent is not tolerated.

This is a thread on softwood lumber. You haven't mentioned the deal at all or tried to offer a 'dissenting' view on the deal.

Go ahead and offer a dissenting view on the deal. More than willing to consider your opinions on the actual deal.

[normanchateau]

What I see is the hard Harper supporters see any criticism as dissent.

And in the rightwing sphere, dissent is not tolerated.

What I see is a sense of frustration and impotence on the part of Harper supporters. Until the Liberals pick a new leader, the Harper folks have no one to attack. Once the Liberals have picked a leader, we will once again see the leader attacked in every thread just as Paul Martin was. How quickly they forget.

[Ricki Bobbi]

What I see is a sense of frustration and impotence on the part of Harper supporters. Until the Liberals pick a new leader, the Harper folks have no one to attack. Once the Liberals have picked a leader, we will once again see the leader attacked in every thread just as Paul Martin was. How quickly they forget.

If we Harper folks were truly going to be attacking the new Liberal leader at all times why wouldn't we attack *ALL* of the leadership canbdidates or at least the ones with a shot at winning.

Because we don't loathe any of them. Maybe some Ontarians loathe Bob Rae, but that is irrational.

Like John Ibbitson said today ... Harper-loathers or neo-cons there is not point in discussing with people on either side.

[normanchateau]

If we Harper folks were truly going to be attacking the new Liberal leader at all times why wouldn't we attack *ALL* of the leadership canbdidates or at least the ones with a shot at winning.

Most likely reason is sheer laziness. Certainly the predictable attacks continue on the former Liberal government. There are constant references to adscam, sponsorship, paul martin, corruption, who knew what or should have, etc., ad nauseam. But Dion, for example, is a far more difficult target to attack and would require research, reading, thinking, etc.

Once a new leader is chosen, that research, reading and thinking will happen and that leader will be attacked by Conservatives just as Paul Martin was.

[Drea]

This is a thread on softwood lumber. You haven't mentioned the deal at all or tried to offer a 'dissenting' view on the deal.

Go ahead and offer a dissenting view on the deal. More than willing to consider your opinions on the actual deal.

Personally I think Emerson was the only person who would've been able to broker a deal -- whether he be in the Liberal camp or the Conservative camp. Some kind of deal needed to be made regardless of the controlling party.

As someone has already pointed out the deal is exactly the same as the deal that was pending under the Liberals.

Yet the cons think it was their idea

Emerson crossed the floor, I might add, not because he was a Conservative but because he would be non-effectual in the opposition and his deal would've been shoved by the wayside.

He does not care what party he works for because it makes no difference whatsoever. He made his deal just as he would have if the Libs had won and he stayed a Lib.

If you've got a star quarterback do you keep him on the losing team? Hell no! He gets traded to the winning team

I wonder if he'll cross back over when the Libs win this time

[Ricki Bobbi]

Personally I think Emerson was the only person who would've been able to broker a deal -- whether he be in the Liberal camp or the Conservative camp. Some kind of deal needed to be made regardless of the controlling party.

As someone has already pointed out the deal is exactly the same as the deal that was pending under the Liberals.

Yet the cons think it was their idea

Emerson crossed the floor, I might add, not because he was a Conservative but because he would be non-effectual in the opposition and his deal would've been shoved by the wayside.

He does not care what party he works for because it makes no difference whatsoever. He made his deal just as he would have if the Libs had won and he stayed a Lib.

If you've got a star quarterback do you keep him on the losing team? Hell no! He gets traded to the winning team

I wonder if he'll cross back over when the Libs win this time

Fair enough.

I don't know if the Liberals would have accepted the deal. The basic parameters were on the table but had been held up by the Canadian end. If the Liberals were willing to accept the deal as drafted they surely would have signed it before the election to gain the political mileage from it.

You might be right for your reason why Emerson crossed to the Conservatives, but that could be used to equally support why he ran for the Liberals in 2004.

Can't see him crossing the floor after the spring election for one simple reason. If he runs he would have to run as a Conservative. He can't win that riding as a Conservative which is why he probably won't run there.

Maybe whoever wins that riding will cross-over to join Harper's cabinet as part of the majority Government.

[scribblet]

Personally I think Emerson was the only person who would've been able to broker a deal -- whether he be in the Liberal camp or the Conservative camp. Some kind of deal needed to be made regardless of the controlling party.

As someone has already pointed out the deal is exactly the same as the deal that was pending under the Liberals.

Yet the cons think it was their idea

Emerson crossed the floor, I might add, not because he was a Conservative but because he would be non-effectual in the opposition and his deal would've been shoved by the wayside.

He does not care what party he works for because it makes no difference whatsoever. He made his deal just as he would have if the Libs had won and he stayed a Lib.

If you've got a star quarterback do you keep him on the losing team? Hell no! He gets traded to the winning team

I wonder if he'll cross back over when the Libs win this time

I agree with that.

So, if the 'cons' think its their idea, is that the reason Liberals are rejecting it, and I guess it would be perfectly OK if the Liberals had acted on it, and not the CPC? Because if it is the Liberal plan than partisan politics and idealogy are the only reasons for objecting to it.

[Drea]

I agree with that.

So, if the 'cons' think its their idea, is that the reason Liberals are rejecting it, and I guess it would be perfectly OK if the Liberals had acted on it, and not the CPC? Because if it is the Liberal plan than partisan politics and idealogy are the only reasons for objecting to it.

Your more than likely right.

We needed a deal -- any deal and Emerson's was the best we could do. The USA acting like a big bully is not the fault of the cons nor the libs.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Your more than likely right.

We needed a deal -- any deal and Emerson's was the best we could do. The USA acting like a big bully is not the fault of the cons nor the libs.

I still wonder why the Liberals didn't go ahead with the deal they clearly could have gotten before the election.

Another example of Martin's dithering perhaps?