• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

real-life political thriller...

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    real-life political thriller...

    Fuming Over Lumber

    Fred Chartrand, the Canadian Press
    Insiders say defected Liberal David Emerson delayed a softwood lumber deal that will score points for Stephen Harper.


    Liberals say Emerson blocked deal with U.S. that Conservatives can now take credit for
    By James Travers
    Toronto Star

    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.

    Furious 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 the announcement would damage Liberal prospects in key British Columbia ridings. They also claim the powerful Prime Minister's Office was concerned an agreement would stop Paul Martin from using George W. Bush as a campaign punching bag.

    Informally discussed on parallel tracks here and in the U.S., the plan calls for Washington to reimburse about 75 per cent 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 International Trade Minister Jim Peterson, were rapidly moving the two countries towards brief formal negotiations and a quick deal until they tripped over political realities. 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 discussions on the 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 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 the Conservatives will now 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.

    Emerson didn't respond yesterday to specific Star requests to explain his side of a complex story. But partisan and bureaucratic sources say he feared political and lumber industry fallout.

    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. Liberals did well in B.C, gaining one seat, but fared poorly enough in Ontario and Quebec to lose power.

    It's not clear if or when the 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, the 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 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 Ottawa and the 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. But between then and now, he will have to explain his role in a curious delay that handed a Liberal softwood lumber deal to Conservatives

    #2
    Stay tuned........more to follow........

    Comment


      #3
      For anyone affected by the soft wood lumber situation I am sure they don'g really care who gets the credit as long as the issue is resolived.

      Comment


        #4
        Just another way to "spin" what took place. Any amount of spin can be put on what Harper did. The bottom line is that he backtracked on what he and all the other conservative members have said all along - Only an elected senate and a member could cross the floor only if a by-election were held. That is of course unless we need to do those things.

        Either you believe in what you say and you walk the talk or you don't and things like this happen your first day on the job.

        Yes, the softwood lumber people have been getting the shaft for a very long time. I do hope it gets resolved for them and they can have their goods cross the border without such a dire penalty.

        Comment


          #5
          So what do you think the best way would be to get the opposition parties to vote for ideas such as say... senate reform? floor crossing? accountability?

          You don't suppose if you make them so mad that they start saying the same things you have for the last 12 years that you might find it easier to get things done?

          Comment


            #6
            Ethics and integrity are a tricky business and it is probably tougher in politics than any of us from the outside can even imagine.

            To my way of thinking if you aren't going to do it, then don't say it.

            This is one case of "if you can't beat them join them" that shouldn't have happened. Instead of making others mad enough to vote for it, what they have done is undermined their own credibility. Maybe it was just too much to hope for.

            Comment


              #7
              Linda, I think that all MP's have to look beyond the cabinet appointments and doing everything they can to discredit the new government and see what proposed changes they can support.

              If MP's are intent on bringing the government down because of cabinet appointments they will do so at the first possible opportunity. Harper has some excellent plans for change and I for one, hope that all parties will support them.
              I think he made a tactial error, but its nothing compared to the blatant corruption of the Liberals.
              Peter MacKay has stickhandled well through the cartoon issue, and that is a plus.
              I think if Jim Prentice is given an opportunity he will bring in some necessary changes to how we deal with first nations and he will do so with their support.
              Other ministers need to be given a chance to see what they are able to do.

              My MP supports Harper's decision to make the cabinet appointments, and he is of the view that those that are vocally in opposition are ones that were expecting cabinet appointments and weren't given them.

              I am sick of watching this country spend money on elections so hopefully this parliament will be allowed to make some positive changes.

              Comment


                #8
                cakado...seems to me that you are guilty of "spin"! Your word!!
                The artical came from the Toronto Star, not a party official or MP!!

                And I know you read the following from another thread but I will post it again so you do not fall into the trap of putting words in Harpers mouth again.

                ---------------------------------------
                From CBC Your Turn http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/yourview/your_turn_conservative.html

                Peter Mansbridge: Next question is coming from a city you're very familiar with, from Calgary.

                Colleen Belisle: Hello, my name is Colleen Belisle and I have a question for Stephen Harper regarding the accountability issue. In the past 18 months, I have noticed a number of MPs crossing the floor after the election. This makes me wonder why I should, as a voter, go and vote when my MP can change parties after the election. Mr. Harper, are there any policies that you plan to enforce after the election regarding this issue? Thank you.

                Stephen Harper: My short answer is no. And I understand the voters' frustration. You can imagine I feel that frustration as much as anyone. I was the victim of a number of the particular incidents that the voter is referring to, that Colleen's referring to, but the difficulty, Peter – I know that many members of Parliament have put forward various proposals that would restrict the right of MPs to cross the floor, force elections, or whatever. I haven't seen one yet that convinces me that it would create anything other than a situation where party leaders have even more power over the individual members of Parliament. And, as you know, I've said that, of course, I've said that for a long time that I think our members of Parliament need more authority, need to be able to represent their constituents' views, and they may make very bad decisions in crossing from a good party to a bad party or, more particularly, a winning party to a losing party. But that all said, I haven't seen one yet that I'm convinced creates a bigger problem than it's actually trying to fix.

                Peter Mansbridge: Do you think voters are as uncomfortable as Ms. Belisle points out when these kinds of things happen? Because if they are, one assumes that they are looking for direction from their political leaders to prevent this from happening. As you pointed out, some parties, the NDP has said it would force an immediate election. Do you think something has to be done?

                Stephen Harper: Let me give a concrete example of an alternative situation. The Conservative Party of Canada, the new Conservative Party was created because people left actually no less than three separate old caucuses, two old parties, and joined with a new party, and I think there is widespread consensus among not just members of the old parties, but members of the public as well that this was a good thing to create a stronger opposition, to end the fragmentation of the conservative movement in the country.

                Now, you know, this kind of law could have forced us into a situation where we were having 75 byelections. So, you know, that's a problem with any of these proposals. We understand, I understand why people want them, and, believe me, there's a couple of cases that have happened where I'd love to have a law like this, but there's also a lot of downsides when you think it through. As I say, in a practical matter, I could see how party leaders could really abuse that particular provision to make it even more difficult for members who may disagree legitimately with their party to operate within the party.

                Thats quite clear don't you think?

                Comment


                  #9
                  Linda I don't think Harper said that? When Peter Mansbridge interviewed him about four days before the election the exact question was brought up and Harper clearly said he would not stop MPs from crossing the floor? His reason was if that was mandatory it would give the PM too much power over the MPs? They would be obliged to toe the line even though they disagreed strongly on some idea. The democratic deficit thing?
                  The Emmerson deal smells bad...no way to sugar coat that? But in the big picture...maybe good for Canada?
                  Here is a typical little deal that happened in your own county: After the CAO got caught stealing $3.5 million from the county a whole bunch of new "accountability rules" were put in place? The Reeve got a call from a contractor who was strapped for money and needed to sell some stockpiled gravel...real quick! He offered her the gravel at a firesale price(I think about $4 yard)...which she quickly agreed to!
                  Off to council where she announced she had bought X number of yards at $4. The council said hey wait a minute you didn't follow the rules! They then went on to cancel the sale!
                  The contractor was forced into bankruptcy, a rival bought the gravel from the bank at $4 or less, the county put out a tender...at which time the rival sold them the gravel at $8 a yard!
                  On top of the stupidity of this whole fiasco, the council removed the Reeve and put in the biggest jerk we'll probably ever see as Reeve!
                  Sometimes you just have to use some common sense, instead of getting all tied up in a bunch of stupid rules?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Personally, I think it was more than just a tactical error. Remember, it was not the West that put Harper into power it was those from Central and Eastern Canada that wanted a change from the Liberals. They will be the ones to hold the new government's feet to the fire and they had better deliver or we will be seeing ourselves at the polls again within a couple of years or less.

                    Sometimes we are so tied up by our "blue" feelings that we can't see the forest for the trees. The Senate thing is more than just tactical and yes there are many ways to spin it. A true leader blazes the trail for others to follow. If the new government really wanted change, they wouldn't have done it the way they did right out of the gate. Exactly where we end up remains to be seen. I hope that people are correct in their beliefs about what this government will do.

                    How many strikes do these guys get before they are out?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Well Linda I would suggest they are about as good as it gets? We know our other two options are the Liberal Mafia or the totally out to lunch Commie NDP? Not much choice is there?
                      Perhaps they will totally fail and morph into another Liberal party? Then we will be able to choose between the Blue Mafia or the Red Mafia?
                      I don't know if they will fail or not? My own belief is when they abandoned the Reform Party to form an alliance with the easteners, they started the slide into scummy politics? I personally would have rather seen the old Reform party become like a BLOC type of party than hook up with the "liberals pretending they were conservatives" from the rest of Canada!
                      The one bright spot, hopefully, is Harpers committment to "de-federalize" the country? Hand more power back to the provinces? Scrap this idea that we need big brother in Ottawa watching over us?
                      Just imagine how Alberta could prosper then?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        "A true leader blazes a trail for others to follow"
                        That is a pipe dream in todays world. I think in reality a truer discription is that leaders generaly lead from the back.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          im not a harper supporter but i think he did the right thing here. If this guy has an inside track on a softwood deal. go for it
                          and if harper wants to change the rules on floor crossing he can do it later.
                          if he hopes to be relected , an effort such as this to bring in unrepresented areas is a good gesture and sign hes not western fringe reform. and plans to govern for the whole country. And possibly more than 1 term.

                          Im sure ill be mad about something before hes done but so far so good.
                          you guys on the right are your own worst enemy

                          Comment

                          • Reply to this Thread
                          • Return to Topic List
                          Working...