Liberal Party Minister Defects to Tories

[TCBF]

We have to have an effective way of dealing with this.  The problem will not go away as long as we put humans in politics.

We could call this the "Duke Cunningham Syndrome."

Duke - the Republican Representative for San Diego -  just got eight years and four months of prison time for accepting $2,400,000 in bribes, of which he has to repay $1,800,000.  All that and prostate cancer , too.

Duke flew an F4 Phantom during the Vietnam war, and once shot down three enemy planes in one day.

So, someone who is a role model for bravery and self-sacrifice becomes the most corrupt (by dollar value) in the House of Representatives.

If it can happen to him...

Just because we have a few 'noble' (more or less) people in politics, we should not assume they are  immune to greed. 

Yes, we need a true ethics commissioner.  Not to mention an increased RCMP efort in Ottawa.

 

[Bart Nikodem]

Well don't I have egg on my face. David Emerson went and solved the Softwood dispute after all my criticism. Let's look at a few key points taken from the PMs website: (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=1136)
$4 BILLION IN DUTIES TO BE RE-PAID TO CANADA (The US only keeping 1 billion, 500 million of which is to be give out to U.S. lumber producers, whose initial complaints triggered the duties in 2002.)
NO QUOTAS AND TARIFFS AT CURRENT PRICES (If prices go down, tariffs go up, making it even harder to sell wood during tough economic times. And no quotas, unless you count that Canada is limited to a 34% share of the US market.)
PROVINCIAL AND REGIONAL FLEXIBILITY ( Flexibility is good.)
7-YEAR ARRANGEMENT (Sounds good.)
BZ David!
All the best,
Bart

 

[geo]

Well don't I have egg on my face. David Emerson went and solved the Softwood dispute after all my criticism. Let's look at a few key points taken from the PMs website: (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=1136)
$4 BILLION IN DUTIES TO BE RE-PAID TO CANADA (The US only keeping 1 billion, 500 million of which is to be give out to U.S. lumber producers, whose initial complaints triggered the duties in 2002.)
NO QUOTAS AND TARIFFS AT CURRENT PRICES (If prices go down, tariffs go up, making it even harder to sell wood during tough economic times. And no quotas, unless you count that Canada is limited to a 34% share of the US market.)
PROVINCIAL AND REGIONAL FLEXIBILITY ( Flexibility is good.)
7-YEAR ARRANGEMENT (Sounds good.)
BZ David!
All the best,
Bart

Uhhhh.... Bart,

isn't there a Canadian export duty to be levied against the Softwood exports?
which just adds $$$ to the federal coffers but it'll have to be added into the price of the lumber that, with the increased value of the Loonie = Cdn lumber that's less competitive in the USA.

Way to go David Emerson.

 

[Bart Nikodem]

Geo,
That's true, it's still early days so I didn't know who would be collecting the tariff. It is a positive that at least the Canadian gov't will be collecting the money and not the US gov't.
All the best,
Bart

 

[geo]

this looks to me like what the Last Gov't rejected last year.

 

[Bart Nikodem]

this looks to me like what the Last Gov't rejected last year.

I have heard that as well, but I will reserve further speculation for a few days, when more details and analysis comes out.
All the best,
Bart

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I have heard that as well, but I will reserve further speculation for a few days, when more details and analysis comes out.
All the best,
Bart

Maybe it just never made the press here in Ontario, but it seems like the Conservatives have come up with a plan in pretty short order for a problem the Lieberals dicked around with endlessly.  Someone once said that a good compromise is one where both sides aren't totally happy with the outcome.  Perhaps this will be the case.  However, I do not purport to have any knowledge or experience with the lumber industry or it's economics.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Other/2005/12/20/1361522-cp.html

Harper rescued lumber deal
By STEVE MERTL
2006-04-27 22:59:00
 
(CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper notched his first cross-border triumph Thursday, announcing a tentative agreement to end the long-standing lumber trade war with the United States.

[more]

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So for all the derision heaped on Harper for appointing him, it looks like he was just being savvy and picked the best man for the job, politics aside.

 

[geo]

Claiming victory by settling on what had been on the table (and rejected l/year) is an interesting perspective.

The point is rather moot anyway.

US Builders have indicated that due to the high exchange rate of the loonie and the export tarifs that Ottawa has agreed to collect (and keep) they intend to look at Finland Ukraine & Russia as new lumber source..

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Claiming victory by settling on what had been on the table (and rejected l/year) is an interesting perspective.

Then why didn't the Libs bring it home and have a big feather in their caps going into an election?

US Builders have indicated that due to the high exchange rate of the loonie and the export tarifs that Ottawa has agreed to collect (and keep) they intend to look at Finland Ukraine & Russia as new lumber source..

And I call bullshit on the US builders.  There is no way that trying to get a bunch of wood in on a boat is better than direct on rails and tires direct from our forests and mills.  That just suggests to me that we got a decent deal, if the US is shanked about it. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

Half the Canadian voting public (maybe more) seems to be so caught up in searching out lines of operation to undermine Bush that they have forgotten it's the US Congress that is mostly responsible for this ongoing festival.  The housing lobby down there clearly isn't as strong as the softwood producers' lobby.  Add to that the fact that any "agreement" is just words on paper if it conflicts sufficiently with US interests (something that can be said for any nation), and the recipe for ongoing protectionist policy is complete.  The only questions are:

1) Who pays?
2) Who collects?

The first answer is simple: US consumers pay.  I'm certain that Canadian lumber producers haven't been dipping into their profits from other sales to pay the US-imposed penalties.  All that's happened is that Canadian producers have had to give up some profit margin on sales to the US.

The second answer has variations.  Right now, the US is collecting and has always intended to use the money to prop up US producers.  It seems to me that as long as the US government is willing to punish its consumers, we should try and tap some of that by imposing export penalties and letting Canadian producers pass those along to US consumers.  We should have started doing so long ago.

Throwing NAFTA down the toilet or escalating trade wars are not productive courses of action.

 

[geo]

Then why didn't the Libs bring it home and have a big feather in their caps going into an election?

And I call bullshit on the US builders.  There is no way that trying to get a bunch of wood in on a boat is better than direct on rails and tires direct from our forests and mills.  That just suggests to me that we got a decent deal, if the US is shanked about it.   

Ans 1.... because some people consider it a bad deal

Ans 2.... the US builders would be happy to get our lumber - the cheaper the better and they are as upset as we/you should be. It's the US Lumber companies who are the winners here - they get to share some of that 20% of tarifs we just signed away AND, with the additional export tax AND the higher value of the Cdn $ - THEY have a competitive edge on us.... and they think they have the US builders over a barrel.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I guess that will have to be the price Canadians will have to pay for voting in the Liberals for so many years in a row.  I'm no economist, so I really can't keep up.  Bottom line for me is I trust Harper and the gang, and there is a workable solution now.  People are all caught up with the 1 Billion that they didn't get back.  Won't the other 4 billion to the Canadian companies be a perk of some sort?  And don't say that it was theirs in the first place, because I'm sure it was budgeted for while it was happening.  Have any lumber companies gone bankrupt?  If not, then it is a bunch of rich guys in a pissing match with a bunch of rich guys.  This doesn't strike me as being a big national interest. 
We have stuff they want.  If we don't sell it to them, we are in trouble.  We are the little brother.  That may piss many off, but it is reality.  Pick your battles.  The US needs friendly faces these days, and getting on their good side can't be a bad thing.  Being Island Canada and other such tripe as groups like the Counsel of Canadians trot out is just pipe dream foolishness.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/025_2006-05-17/han025_2220-E.htm#Div-9

vonGarvin posted the voting record of the MPs on the "Extension" debate.  The list is from Hansard, otherwise known as the official record of parliament.

What I wanted to highlight here is that Hansard, again - the official record, records votes alphabetically.  Not by party.  Not even by Government and Opposition.  Just an alphabetical list of all members equally.

It reinforces that Parliament is a body of equals, all equally empowered to vote and to speak and thus all equally available to the Governor-Gerneral as cabinet material.  This of course sets aside the fact that appointed elected members to cabinet is only tradition and not law.  The only requirement, AFAIK, for a cabinet position is that the minister be a Privy Counsellor.  That title is also in the gift of the Governor General.