LIBERALS, US AND SOFTWOOD LUMBER DEAL
Had Emerson not crossed the floor, would we be now talking
about a Liberal minister blocking the deal?
by Angelo Persichilli
THE HILL TIMES
What happens when you look
at the tree instead of the forest? You blame David Emerson for everything
that went wrong in the softwood lumber dispute with the U.S., that’s what.
In fact, the
stories I’ve read in the newspapers over the last few days have nothing to
do with the softwood lumber issue or with the interests of the Canadian
companies and workers employed in the sector. The news stories only try to
embarrass a former Liberal minister who turned his coat from red to blue. It
is a serious issue, yes of course, but it still has nothing to do with the
jobs lost by thousands of Canadians because of the dispute between Ottawa
and Washington on the export of Canadian softwood lumber south of the
border.
The former
Liberal government always told us that the problems were to be found in the
arrogant behaviour of the United States.
True, but ask
yourself seven questions.
First: Had
Emerson not crossed the floor, would we be now talking about a Liberal
minister blocking the deal?
Second: Why did the Liberal
government never approved the loan guarantee program for the softwood lumber
industry, despite the fact that the program was supported by then-prime
minister Paul Martin and all the leaders of the opposition parties?
Third: Was Emerson the only
federal minister against the deal and the loan program guarantee or were
there others, like the former minister of international trade Jim Peterson?
Four: If they were against
it, why?
Five: Is it true that even
before Paul Martin’s government took power there were suggestions to
the-then minister of International Trade, Pierre Pettigrew, from the
American industry, to reach an agreement and the mediation offered by some
Liberal MPs was turned flatly and unceremoniously down?
Six: Is it true that while
the Americans were always dealing with one voice, the Canadians were trying
to negotiate an agreement for British Columbia, one for Ontario and Quebec
and one for the Atlantic Provinces, specifically, New Brunswick?
Seven: Is it possible that
the arrogance of the Americans was used as an excuse to justify the
inability to reach an agreement that would satisfy all Provinces and all the
powerful lobbies defending the industry and not the thousands of people
working in the industry?
I believe that the former
Liberal government should answer these questions and, if it won’t, it is up
to the media to find out the truth.
