Ottawa: We won't bow to U.S. bully
Ministers talk tough after envoy's jab
WINNIPEG - Paul Martin and senior Liberal Cabinet ministers have spurned an American call to stop "emotional tirades" over the softwood lumber dispute, with one of them yesterday urging Canadians not to allow "the bully to basically mop the floor with us."
David Emerson, Industry Minister, also labeled as "hypocritical" a fresh appeal from U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins for the two countries to declare a verbal truce and return to the negotiating table before the dispute mushrooms into a multi-product trade war.
--*snip*--
Mr. Wilkins told the Ottawa Citizen on Thursday that Canadian officials should embrace negotiations to settle the softwood dispute rather than risk a trade war involving other sectors. "Emotional press conferences are not going to settle the issue," he said.
He argued that the latest NAFTA panel ruling in Canada's favor was not final. "It wasn't a settlement, it was a ruling," he said. "You have a difference in legal opinions."
(Read entire article here)
I don’t see a lot of the Blogging Tories dealing with this issue, and I can guess why. It mostly concerns western Canada – primarily British Columbia – and the Blogging Tories are mostly from Alberta and points east. This issue does not directly affect the economies of their provinces, so why should they give a damn what happens to the softwood lumber issue?
And that’s a good part of what the American government is hoping for – a split within Canada over what’s important and what’s not. After all, we have a track record of infighting. And we’re good at it.
If, as has been suggested, Canada imposed tariffs on incoming American products, there are going to be factions within Canada who will scream, “Oh, no! I need that! Don’t put a tariff on that!”
You need that? Life will stop without it?
I’ve also hear it suggested that we impose export tariffs on all our other goods that Americans buy. Now listen to the screaming. I heard one of the Blogging Tories who called into a radio talk show (Corus network, if you want to identify yourself) recently and said in no uncertain terms that if we do impose Export tariffs, it can’t be on anything that comes from Saskatchewan – why not target Quebec and Ontario?
Another caller to that same show pointed out that fully one-third of the United States depends on Canada for its electrical power. Now, isn’t that interesting...
Of course, we wouldn’t think of pulling the power plug. Would we?
Well, let’s look at it this way: The power comes from the same place the softwood lumber comes from. No other part of Canada needs to be involved. Anybody know where the “off” switch is?
WINNIPEG - Paul Martin and senior Liberal Cabinet ministers have spurned an American call to stop "emotional tirades" over the softwood lumber dispute, with one of them yesterday urging Canadians not to allow "the bully to basically mop the floor with us."
David Emerson, Industry Minister, also labeled as "hypocritical" a fresh appeal from U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins for the two countries to declare a verbal truce and return to the negotiating table before the dispute mushrooms into a multi-product trade war.
--*snip*--
Mr. Wilkins told the Ottawa Citizen on Thursday that Canadian officials should embrace negotiations to settle the softwood dispute rather than risk a trade war involving other sectors. "Emotional press conferences are not going to settle the issue," he said.
He argued that the latest NAFTA panel ruling in Canada's favor was not final. "It wasn't a settlement, it was a ruling," he said. "You have a difference in legal opinions."
(Read entire article here)
I don’t see a lot of the Blogging Tories dealing with this issue, and I can guess why. It mostly concerns western Canada – primarily British Columbia – and the Blogging Tories are mostly from Alberta and points east. This issue does not directly affect the economies of their provinces, so why should they give a damn what happens to the softwood lumber issue?
And that’s a good part of what the American government is hoping for – a split within Canada over what’s important and what’s not. After all, we have a track record of infighting. And we’re good at it.
If, as has been suggested, Canada imposed tariffs on incoming American products, there are going to be factions within Canada who will scream, “Oh, no! I need that! Don’t put a tariff on that!”
You need that? Life will stop without it?
I’ve also hear it suggested that we impose export tariffs on all our other goods that Americans buy. Now listen to the screaming. I heard one of the Blogging Tories who called into a radio talk show (Corus network, if you want to identify yourself) recently and said in no uncertain terms that if we do impose Export tariffs, it can’t be on anything that comes from Saskatchewan – why not target Quebec and Ontario?
Another caller to that same show pointed out that fully one-third of the United States depends on Canada for its electrical power. Now, isn’t that interesting...
Of course, we wouldn’t think of pulling the power plug. Would we?
Well, let’s look at it this way: The power comes from the same place the softwood lumber comes from. No other part of Canada needs to be involved. Anybody know where the “off” switch is?
posted by Chimera at 1:52 AM
5 Comments:
This is the exact reason why the right is dominating the blogs. This whole 'rant' is based on a total lack of knowledge.
Some interesting 'tidbits' of information that you seem to have LEFT out:
- ALL the provinces economies are affected. Especially Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba where there is huge forestry industry, but then you already knew that right? just didn't have enough room to fit that in.
- Here's a news flash. Americans already know there is a split in Canada. Why is there a split? The Fed Libs use western Canadian concerns as toilet paper and then tell them that they are uncanadian. 'Scared' of western reforms because it might expose them as the crooks they are. Explain something to me, during the BSE crisis and Alberta ranchers lost 6 billion $ because of the border closure, why did we not 'shut the taps off' on the oil supply to America? Because that would damage the other 96% of trade that goes well between our two countries!! The fed Libs are trying to use this as an issue to start there anti-american election platform.
Pull the plug?? PULL THE PLUG? You are a terrorist! Starting some electrical Jihad on the USA. How many hospitals, schools, grocery stores etc. rely on our power that we sell?? how many? you are the type that think strapping a bomb to your chest and giving americans a group hug is cool. You sicken me.
Wouldn't you know it. I just heard on the radio that the Feds are giving indirect subsidies to the forestry industry. hmmmmmmm.
No one is going to take you seriously if you haven't got the balls to sign your name.
No one is going to take you seriously when you spew bogus information and threaten people's lives by "turning off the switch". If you don't want anonymous comments then why have it as an option? This is your site. You are afraid because I am the nameless canadian citizen, one of millions, who is bringing about change. You are afraid of us!!
I don't have balls, I am a Woman you sexist pig. Women aren't allowed to have opinions in the cavern???
The option for anonymous posting is there only because there is no way to set up the comments for non-registered posters without it. I wanted to leave the option of registry open as long as possible. If I get too many anonymous posters, I will set it for registered users only, as others have done.
Women can have opinions, and frequently do. Women can also have balls, eupemistically speaking, which I was. I have more respect for them when they do.
So, sign your name, Meaghean. And go back and read very carefully -- quote the threat if you can find one.
So, you need to have the eupHemistic(did you know that you're spelling sucks when you're angry) MALE anatomy for you to have repect for another? What is wrong with women having a VOICE or OPINION? balls...grow up.
"find the off switch"
"pull the plug"
That is not threatening? How would you feel if GW said... "where did I put those Nuclear launch codes?"
Think about what you say. If what you imply can be received as a threat, then it IS a threat!
Post a Comment
<< Home