After much prodding by other bloggers, I set this up for my own writings. The name is in honour of the two women that mentored me throughout my life on politics and intelligence issues, as well as being wonderful family members, now alas deceased. I hope to live up to their standards at this site.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Canada wins yet again, but will Harper even care? I really doubt it.

Well well well, what do we have here? Why it looks like yet another legal victory for Canada in the American courts on the softwood lumber dispute. Yet what has been our government's response to this latest proof of our being in the right? Why to dismiss this as nothing of concern, at least according to Emerson's spokesperson. It would seem that the rule of law is of no interest to this government when it does not work to the game plan of this government, which in this deal is to gut the dispute resolution mechanism which all of NAFTA is governed by. It is because of that gutting and not the money being held back that this deal is a sell out of Canada's interests. I know this is hard for some Conservatives to understand but legal precedents actually do carry weight to them, and this one is one that will work against Canada's interests by showing all American sectors how to get their government to get around the minimal protection Canada has against the far more powerful trading partner America. This mechanism was the thing that finally convinced Canadians that Free Trade was a good deal for Canada.

Why is it on every significant foreign policy issue since Harper became PM he has chosen to side with the foreign government over his nation? It is his job to protect Canada's interests before all else, not America's not Israel's, Canada's. It was this sort of selling this country out that was a part of why I so strongly opposed his election, it is one of the reasons why I when I find what I believe to be a legitimate example of why this is such a bad government I blog about it. My interests are to protect and serve Canada's, something Harper, the CPC, and unfortunately far too many of the online CPC supporters don't seem willing to do. Stand up for Canada has yet again been shown to be an empty slogan, if anything this is more Canada being stood up by those charged with protecting her and worse, being bent over for others to take Canada from behind. I am reminded of something Mulroney said once he came to power, that being Canada was open for business, and we all saw where that left the country by the time he was driven from office, and yes he was driven, he knew he would be defeated if he fought a third election.

I want a PM that considers Canada's interests first, and to date this government has clearly shown itself incapable and for that matter unwilling to do exactly that.

Thanks to Accidental Deliberations for the Globe link on this story.


Blogger Steve V said...


This is a very important ruling, especially since this is an American court. Obviously the Conservatives want to ignore this ruling, but it should provide real ammunition for the opposition, if they choose to forcefully fight the government in the fall. The ruling supports the notion that the Americans shouldn't be rewarded for illegal duties and by extension reveals the Conservative sellout.

Sun Jul 23, 11:36:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...


Agreed. If the rule of law is not considered important enough to fight for then how can one reasonably expect that it will have any ability to be enforced in the first place? This is one of the things that most irritates me in this deal, the rule of law is being deliberately undercut, the main protection all Canadian sectors have in NAFTA is being gutted, and this is somehow good for Canada and it's interests?!?!

I think this is understood by some in the Conservative camp because they keep focusing attention on the money, the money issue while important is not the true betrayal, the gutting of the dispute resolution mechanism which governs all of NAFTA is. This ruling helps support this mechanism and that Canada is following the rule of law and the terms of NAFTA. I know that this is a slow process, then working through the courts tends to be, but civilization is fundamentally defined by the notion of the rule of law and not the rule of man/gun, and so must be supported at all times.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Conservative government says about this latest win for Canada. There does come a point where one cannot appeal any further and we are just about there, and with a win we take away one of the main arguments used against our lumber sector in future attempts to eat their cakes and have it.

Mon Jul 24, 02:34:00 PM 2006  
Anonymous john said...

While I don't disagree with you here at some point, you must be pragmatic about the situation. Which is more, half a pie or no pie at all? It's no different then when the insurance company knows that they are getting screwed by a bogus injury claim but the cost to prove it is more than the cost to pay the claim. Drives me nuts, sets a terrible precedent but alas, it is the world we live in so you can keep pissing into the wind but at some point you have to accept that you are going to get wet and turn around. It's the cost of business. We may not like it but it is what it is.

Mon Jul 24, 04:50:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...


To quote Steven Colbert you are dead to me. This is the only response I have for you anymore.


Mon Jul 24, 10:00:00 PM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home