When it comes to its softwood lumber dispute with the Americans, Canada may be able to claim the legal high road, but not the moral one.

The quarrel centres on whether or not low fees paid by forestry companies to the government for the right to harvest trees on crown land constitutes an unfair subsidy according to the North American Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA for short. The Americans say yes, while Canada says no.

The disagreement has been adjudicated by tribunals established according to the terms of the treaty itself, which ruled in Canada’s favour. The Americans, however, have chosen to ignore these decisions and instead have asked Canada to negotiate a settlement of the dispute, notwithstanding the rulings.

Canadians are justifiably frustrated with the path US government has chosen to follow. This frustration has been reflected in the bellicosity of recent statements by our government regarding the future of Canada’s trading relationship with the United States. As International Trade Minister Jim Peterson stated in a press release issued October 28, “It is up to the U.S. to show that the institution of NAFTA means something.”

“Rules are rules – you can’t just pick and choose.”

But some Canadians are questioning the credibility of our government in this matter, given its sorry record of ignoring its own treaty obligations and refusing to respect the rulings of international tribunals.

On May 19, 1976 after first consulting with, and obtaining the approval of all ten provinces, Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR). By signing this treaty, Canada guaranteed that no law would discriminate against any of its citizens on the basis of religion. Canada also agreed to the creation of a quasi-judicial Human Rights Committee that would examine and rule on complaints brought by citizens pursuant to the treaty, and to abide by these decisions.

Six years ago, on November 5, that Human Rights Committee, after hearing a complaint filed by Toronto’s Arieh Waldman and considering the responses of the Canadian government, ruled that Ontario’s practice of funding Catholic schools while excluding assistance to schools of other faiths put Canada in violation of the terms of the treaty.

For its part, the Canadian government argued then, and continues to argue today, that because education is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction according to our constitution it, that is to say the federal government, could not and cannot intervene to rectify the situation. Not surprisingly, this argument was dismissed by the panel having failed to impress its members.

It should fail to impress us as well.

To begin with, it matters little to middle-class families and their children, who are the victims of this calculated discrimination, which level of government is ultimately responsible for rectifying the situation. In the end, there may be several different levels of government, but there remains only one level of taxpayer.

And coldly calculated the discrimination is. One of Dalton McGuinty’s first acts upon taking office was to cancel the Equity in Education Tax Credit which had represented a good-faith attempt by the government of Mike Harris to abide by the UN Human Rights Committee order. And just to rub salt into the wounds, the EETC was cancelled retroactively, a gratuitous measure that greatly increased the harm already being inflicted to those middle-class families.

In any event, the jurisdictional argument was, and still is, specious. The federal government has long followed the practice of enhancing education by making federal funds available to both students and their schools either directly as grants or tax credits, or indirectly through provincially controlled programs jointly funded with the feds.

Nor does funding independent denominational schools undermine the so-called public system in any way, as other provinces that provide assistance to the children attending such educational institutions have discovered. The costs are negligible and in any case, are largely paid for by the education taxes collected from the parents of these children in the first place.

In other words, there is no impediment, constitutional or otherwise, to resolving this matter except for the obstinacy of the McGuinty government in Ontario and the self-flattering hypocrisy of the current Martin government in Ottawa as it carries on the legacy of its predecessor.

When Jim Peterson says that the United States cannot pick and chose which rules it will follow, particularly when it agreed to all of the rules as part of a negotiated package in the first place, he has a point. But before lecturing our neighbours south of the border about the virtues of keeping their international commitments he should first deliver the same lecture to his own cabinet colleagues who continue to ignore their own.

After all, as Mr. Peterson says – rules are rules. You really can’t just pick and choose.