The geopolitical reality for Alberta in a political push for a continentalenergy supply policy was covered in an Op-Ed in the Edmonton Journal by Satya Das, my business partner. Nothing in the George Bush’s “Reign of Error” called the "State of the Union" speech last night suggested anything was going to happen to the contrary.
America is clearly going to be looking for a safe, secure, reliable and relatively friendly high volume energy supplier. The State of the Union speech talk about a reduction of gasoline usage by 20% in 10 years based on ethanol and alternatives is smog and mirrors from a dead duck President.
We Albertans need some serious thinking and planning about continental energy supply policy. If Harper’s giveaway on Softwood Lumber is any indication of how he will handle continental energy issues, we are going to be in trouble, as a province and as a country.
Ralph Klein is on the file, as is Brian Tobin fronting for the Fraser Institute. Even former Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan is now doing a mea culpa on Free Trade and talking about a North American Community – kind of like a "NAFTA +."
Managing Growth is a top prioirty for Premier Stelmach and major concern all over Alberta. The City of Edmonton is now making waves on that point too.
The policy aroudn continental energy supply should not only be made in Alberta it must be made for Alberta. Based on media reports on the U.S. Ambassador Wilkin's meeting with Premier Stelmach today the political process has begun.
If he's a dead duck President, how does meeting with the current ambassador help the political process? What do Senators Obama and Clinton think about the issue?
ReplyDeleteHI anonymous at 4:42 - It matters to meet the US Ambassador because Bush is President until November 2008 and technically until his successor is sworn in sometime in January 2009...that two years is a very long time and lots can happen...not all of it good... especially since he has no hope of being re-elected under US law. He can be as reckless as the system will allow.
ReplyDeleteWe need to know what Obama and Clinton think and it would help to know sooner than later.
I'm sure you've discussed the softwood lumber issue in previous posts, but many belive that the Cons handled the issue quite well (or at least substantially better than the libs). Did you post on this issue and, if so, could you display it?
ReplyDeleteEric - I have not posted on the issue of softwood but know it quite well - particularly from the industry perspective as we work in the area quite a bit.
ReplyDeleteI will post on it sometime soon...suffice to say the Cons took a deal that was not helpful to either the short or long term interests of the industry. What they agreed to was a deal that the Libs and the industry had both rejected earlier.
The Cons coerced the industry into agreeing to it and we Canadians are paying out the multi-billion cash part to the Canadian industry while we wait for the Americans to pony up what they said they would.
It is a short term deal that leaves a billion bucks behind in the hands of the protectionist US forest industry and does not give us any great access terms either.
The Cons did it "fast" - and they didn't need to except to show they could have a stronger Harper - Bush relationship than the previosu Libs had. Precious little good that has done Harper these days.
A settlement, by definition, does not make any side happy.
ReplyDeleteBy your commments, you are stating that the Liberals handled this file better than the Cons did. You and I both know that the cost to continue litigating this issue (with absolutely no guarantee that the other side would pay) and the corresponding uncertainty outweighs the possibility of a greater settlement.
The libs botched this issue from the beginning and didn't get the file moving due to the strains they created with the US administration.
The major lumber players (through coercion or not) eventually did in fact sign on. They were given the option of pursuing the litigation further if they wished and chose not to.
The liberals attacking the Bush administration did not further their goals on softwood lumber. You have to work with people you don't particularly like.
Were the Cons perfect on this issue? Absolutely not. Were they better than the Libs? Clearly yes.
Eric - you need some facts clarified.
ReplyDeleteThis matter was in the final stages of the final level of the last part of the litigation for which the Canadian forest industry had already paid over $100M in legal fees and it about to pay off. They were close to another victory...they had not lost their case at any stage of the litigation through all the appeals and manipulations by the US forest industry.
The coercion by the Harper Cons on the industry to stop the law suit was a condition of the intergovernmental (Can-US) political agreement. That agreement was done without meaningful consultation or concurrence of the Cdn forest industry. Only one forest company "signed on" to the deal "voluntarily" and that was Minister Emerson's old company. He was doing the political deal negotiations for Canada and it was so cosmetic a consent that it was laughable.
This was not botched by the Liberals and (perhaps/no doubt) it could have been done better but at least the Liberal government was working in consort with and supporting the industry not undermining them as the Harper Cons did.
It was not really an option to keep the litigation going because the withdraw of the legal action was coerced by the Cons and they intentionally hurt their own industry in the process.
The Cons cut a political deal to enable them to declare victory for Harper and make themselves look good in terms of US relations. Playground level politics at best.
In the process they bullied the Canadian industry into accepting the settlement by saying it was within the industry power to continue the law suit but if they did they were then threatened with additional costs and taxes if they did not comply.
Classy eh!
I don't see any profound new facts. And the statement that they were close to another victory is a red herring as discussed below:
ReplyDeleteThe legal phrase "you can't get blood from a rock" adequately expresses my view. We could have gone on to win for the next 15 years and it would not have mattered - the US ignored every single judgment in our favour. And like all litigation, they can just keep appealing on "new" grounds. In other words, there was no guarantee that the litigation was nearing the end.
No, what was classy is allowing this litigation to proceed for 15 years and, at the same time, not helping the companies with the cash-flow problems.