Canadians do not share their PM stance, yet still divide (polls)

polaris wrote:

not to the majority of canadians ...

as for softwood lumber - he threatened the industry saying it was this deal or nothing ... why do you think all the provinces are griping? ... industry hates the deal ...

Harper, like any good leader, has reviewed the issue again this is where we stand. I understand that Canada has not had good leadership in a long time so maybe it's hard for some to recognize it when it happens.

Taken from the Canada.com website, http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ea475565-95a6-4c47-8938-b23720c39c30&k=34418

OTTAWA -- Trade Minister David Emerson says the beleaguered Canada-U.S. softwood deal might never make it to the House of Commons, a departure from earlier warnings that the government was prepared to fight an election on the issue.

“It is fair to say that if we do not have sufficient buy-in from industry there really isn’t an agreement to bring before Parliament,” Emerson said Monday.

“So the first bridge we have to cross is to get the agreement supported by the appropriate number of players in the industry, otherwise you’re dead before arrival.”

A few weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared the treaty the best deal Canada was going to get, and said the legislation to implement it would constitute a confidence motion for the minority Conservative government.

But persistent criticism from provincial governments and the lumber industry have raised the possibility the deal with wither away before the scheduled fall vote. The document signed by the Canadian and U.S. governments requires that 95 per cent of the Canadian industry support the agreement, a threshold that at the moment seems unlikely to be met.

Even Canfor, a major lumber firm that is backing the deal, said Monday the pact is unlikely to survive without changes.

“Unfortunately you know everyone is going to held to the wishes of a few or many depending on just how real these needs are ...,” said Canfor CEO Jim Shepherd.

“If there are no changes to the deal, it is highly problematic that this deal will go ahead and we will just continue with the litigation to its final conclusion.”

Saskatchewan’s Forestry Minister Eldon Lautermilch is one of the voices clamouring for changes. He said the treaty is unfair and unworkable for his province.

“Canada should now be working to address the inequities in the deal,” he told a special meeting of the Commons Trade committee.

Emerson told the MPs the “negotiations are over,” and there would be no new-and-improved deal.

He acknowledged that there’s a clause in the treaty that allows the countries to make amendments — but that’s only possible once the deal is in force.

“It is technically possible for both parties to agree to changes to the agreement — that is written into the agreement,” he said.

Rather than entertain any notions of further negotiations, Emerson has been aggressively trying to persuade provincial governments and industry players that the agreement signed July 1 is the best overall solution to the decades-old dispute.

Emerson’s message is that there are only two options: sign-on to the new treaty, or continue with drawn out, costly litigation and escalating tariffs from south of the border.

“There is no doubt that if we walked away from the agreement, the industry in the U.S. would start another (trade) action against Canada,” Emerson said.

“Think about a world where (housing) markets are going into the ditch ... consumer confidence is plummeting, and if you think the U.S. industry isn’t going to take the opportunity to go after Canada again, think again.”

While Emerson went into detailed predictions about what would happen if the deal isn’t supported, he would not address the “hypothetical” scenario of the deal collapsing because a single Canadian company refused to drop its lawsuit against the United States.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” he said of the possibility.

Abandoning litigation is a central requirement of the treaty, and one that rubs many industry players the wrong way since Canada has been successful in nearly all its cases against the United States.

Ten days ago, Canada won a key case at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Washington has not said if it will appeal the ruling.

The agreement would return roughly 80 per cent or $4.3 billion in penalties to the Canadian softwood industry. Businesses would be bound by rules and quotas designed to prevent too much less expensive Canadian lumber from going into the United States in any given month.

The deal would last for seven years, but the U.S. could declare it’s withdrawing within two years. Emerson noted that most major trade agreements, including NAFTA, have six-month termination clauses.

Ahnimus wrote:

I really don't care who runs the country as long as they don't make any decisions.

I mean, people like people that are unbias, that don't have opinions. We don't need military protection if we don't piss anyone off. I mean when was the last time Switzerland did anything? Nobody cares what they think, but who dislikes them?

It has more to do with fucking with peoples money than their politicians.

I'd hate to live in a country that coulnd't speak out against the holocaust.

thankyougrandma wrote:

i like Harper silence on the Qana events... maybe he also believe it was a conspiracy organized by the Lebanese govt... hehe...

What is he supposed to say, exactly? Should be pull a Gibson and go off on an anti-Semitic rant to appease you guys?

Man, not everything is about Harper. In fact, he's a non-factor in this situation.

reborncareerist wrote:

What is he supposed to say, exactly? Should be pull a Gibson and go off on an anti-Semitic rant to appease you guys?

Man, not everything is about Harper. In fact, he's a non-factor in this situation.

As the head of a state with 50000 Lebonese-Canadians who were/are in Lebanon, I think he ought to make a statement.

reborncareerist wrote:

And then everyone would be able to bash his errors of omission, commission, etc. etc.
Is it any wonder the man doesn't talk much? He's under the electron fucking microscope that is the Canadian political scene.

He's a polititian. He is going to get bashed on any subject he addresses, whether it be fighting in the middle east or on the price of milk. It comes with the territory, but it doesn't mean that he should remain silent. Canadians would like to know where he stands on important issues.

thankyougrandma wrote:

Comon, no bullshit please, nobody said that Harper should start to kiss Hezbollah ass, what i'd like is a neutral stand and pressure for the resolution of the problem. At least show some leadership, he's just the Prime Minister after all.

I don't get your thoughts about this, he's the PM, he's responsible for Canada, why should he stay quiet? You hear Chirac talk all day about the situation and sending officials in Lebanon to show support, you have Bush taking his side (at least he's talking) and show Israel his support, why do you pledge for Canada to stay quiet? Harper took a side, now he must defend it, that's democracy, not hiding in your bureau waiting for everyone to shut up, comon...

Is Harper saying anything going to help the situation in any way? You have no idea as to what role Canada is trying to take behind the scenes but you want Harper to be spouting off.
Just look at this board, this situation is inflamed enough without the need for a leader to say anything. He's evacuated so called Canadians from Lebanon, letting actions speak for themselves.

We should be promoting an agenda of peace; an agenda that can't be achieved unless the rockets and bombs stop falling ... when you give one side an open endorsement to kill another - you lose that credibility to champion the notion of peace ...

polaris wrote:

We should be promoting an agenda of peace; an agenda that can't be achieved unless the rockets and bombs stop falling ... when you give one side an open endorsement to kill another - you lose that credibility to champion the notion of peace ...

Its hard to disagree with this, actually. A call for a ceasefire without any hints of "favoratism" towards Israel would be a good thing. I still maintain that a so-called unconditional ceasefire won't happen, though, because neither side (Israel or Hizbollah) will agree to such terms. Both will have to make some concessions.

polaris wrote:

honestly, i know we appear to be against israel more than we are hezbollah ... we all have our reasons for believing what we do but at the end of the day ... i don't wanna see another kid pulled from some rubble whether he be jewish, lebanese or whatever ...

in 2 weeks of "fighting" nothing has been accomplished except suffering ... absolutely nothing ...

I know, the whole thing is just sickening. When I read yesterday that the UN had scrapped plans for a meeting, I saw red.