|
Winnipeg Free Press, Friday, June 2nd, 2006
Orchard dares to challenge conventional wisdom
by William Neville
What makes David run? The David in question is David
Orchard, twice a candidate to lead the Progressive
Conservative Party, a long-standing and informed critic
of the North American free trade agreements,
environmental advocate (he's engaged in organic farming
in Saskatchewan) and a man given to unconventional
thinking. To say who he is is also to say what makes him
run, for he is animated by a kind of old-fashioned
patriotism and concern for the future of Canada, which
seems to discomfit the comfortable and others who seem
to be sleep-walking their way through some of the real
challenges facing the country.
As a Progressive Conservative, Orchard sought to
remind the Tories that, out of their own history and
traditions, it was possible to frame sensible approaches
to urgent issues facing contemporary Canada. He reminded
Canadians, whose knowledge of their history can only be
described as History Lite, that from John A. Macdonald
onwards through Borden, Bennett, Diefenbaker and Clark,
the party had an honourable tradition of understanding
Canadian interests, particularly in its dealing with
Britain and later, with the U.S. That tradition was
jettisoned by Brian Mulroney but, in the party's long
history, Mulroney's continentalism was the aberration.
Orchard's campaign probably seemed Quixotic to some, but
he made an impact by tapping into a genuine unease
within the party and the country about Canada's future.
At the 1998 convention that restored Joe Clark as
Tory leader, Orchard won 25 per cent of the vote. In
2003 he came second to Peter MacKay on the first ballot.
He agreed to support MacKay on the next ballot in return
for MacKay's signed agreement that he would not lead the
Progressive Conservatives into a union with the Canadian
Alliance. Once elected, in one of the fastest and
greatest betrayals in our political history, MacKay,
without any apparent moral qualms, broke his word. As
his reward he became Stephen Harper's chief lieutenant
and got to preach in the Commons about the immorality of
the Liberals.
Orchard's reward, ultimately, was to be banned
outright from membership in the new Conservative party.
This extraordinary move on the part of the Conservative
leadership strongly suggests that they were afraid to
have their doctrinal rigidity challenged by people who
might think heretical thoughts. He was lucky to avoid
being burned at the stake. Whether Orchard would have
found the Harper party at all congenial is surely moot,
but being banned certainly clarified his options: In
January, shortly before this year's election, he joined
the Liberal party.
Among the things Orchard took with him was a database
of 30,000 names, of people all across the country who,
sharing many of his ideas, had rallied to support him.
Were they, in any significant numbers, to follow him
into the Liberal party, they could, obviously, be a
political force to reckon with. Orchard was in Winnipeg
this week, consulting informally with some of those
supporters as to the role he and they may play
hereafter.
His visit provided an opportunity for a conversation,
in which we discussed his current thoughts on the
unfolding implications of the so-called free trade
agreements. He drew my attention to an article he
co-authored with Mel Clark that appeared in the Toronto
Star last August. Clark, now retired, was the deputy
chief negotiator for Canada at the Tokyo Round of GATT
(the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, now the
World Trade Organization) and chief negotiator for the
International Grains Agreement: Clark, obviously, is a
man who knows his onions when it comes to trade and
trade agreements.
They point out that under GATT/WTO, trade disputes
between Canada and the U.S. were mostly won by Canada
and that the U.S. abided by the results.
They also observed: "When Washington not long ago
threatened hefty steel duties against Europe, Japan and
a number of other steel exporters, Europe triggered the
WTO retaliatory process and the Bush administration
backed down." Similarly, they note that in all the years
that GATT governed Canada-U.S. trade relations, the U.S.
never launched a single formal action against the
Canadian Wheat Board, "because they knew they could not
win."
However, since Canada entered a bilateral, one-on-one
trading relationship with the U.S., the U.S. has taken
10 trade actions against the board and, as a result, the
U.S. now imposes tariffs on Canadian wheat exports.
Their point is that the defences available to Europe
over steel and, previously, to Canada over wheat, are
still available to Canada were it to exercise its
option, with six months notice, to withdraw from the
free trade agreements.
More recently, of course, the softwood lumber dispute
was "resolved" not through the dispute resolution
mechanisms in the free trade agreements, but by
"negotiation." This "victory," cost Canada $1 billion,
unlawfully taken by U.S. authorities in the first place,
and other caps and restrictions being imposed on "free
trade" in softwood. Orchard, not unreasonably, concludes
that this is not a free trade agreement.
One might, indeed, go further: It is neither free
trade nor, self-evidently, an agreement. One consolation
is that with a major breach of the agreement having now
been legitimized, Canada should feel freed from the
outrageous provision, agreed to by Mulroney, to continue
exporting to the U.S. the same proportion of our energy
production irrespective of how much our own energy
resources decline. Thinking such unthinkables is not, of
course, something to which our major parties are
accustomed. For that reason, we should be thankful that
Canada has a David Orchard challenging received opinion
and conventional wisdom. We could use a few more.
wnwfp@mts.net
Back
Top |