By lowering his demands for industry backing, Emerson is increasing his chances of getting the deal implemented. The proposed agreement, reached July 1, would allow Canadian firms such as Canfor Corp. to recover about $4 billion in duties and end a dispute between the world's two largest trade partners.
The government has given companies until Aug. 21 to back the accord. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who was elected in January, made relations with the U.S. a campaign priority and argued the lumber disagreement hurt Canada's influence in Washington.
The accord stipulates Canadian companies that have paid 95 percent of the duties to the U.S. must back the plan. Without this support, Emerson has said he won't present the accord to Parliament for approval. Canadian producers must also agree to drop all litigation.
Canadian companies have criticized the agreement because it allows the U.S. government to quit it after two years. Canadian producers also want a less restrictive quota system so they can respond to changes in export demand.
The B.C. Lumber Trade Council, the Ontario Forest Industries Association and the Quebec Forest Industry Council have asked for changes to the accord. Trevor Wakelin, chair of the Alberta Softwood Lumber Trade Council, told a Parliamentary committee on July 31 the government won't get the 95 percent support without changes.
British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell, leader of Canada's biggest lumber-producing province, yesterday endorsed the deal after the U.S. agreed to new concessions this week.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=adaCTHdhRHQ0&refer=canada
Note: http://www.bloomberg.co...

2. What is "substantial": Is it 60%, 50% or even less? Why only support from "industry? And what is this "industry"? Is this based on membership of an organization, company turover in dollars or board-feet, company ownership (Canadian or US) staff levels or what?
Maybe Canada needs a national referendum to determine if this "deal" is acceptable. If this were brought to the electorate, I think it would sink even faster than the Charlottetown Accord.
My own take is that they should be rounded up, and permanently locked away in some obscure psychiatric hospital somewhere for grossly anti-social behavior.
Seems to me that deliberately harming someones livelyhood counts as attempting to hurt the people involved.
Last time I checked, being a danger to someone else was grounds for commital to the psych ward.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
It's not the first or only time Canada won the dispute. Why would this time be any different? We Canadians are self centered. We think the Americans "need" our lumber. I hear people saying Canada should refuse to sell the wood to the USA. They suggest further that there are other markets. The Americans are saying they don't want our wood, so where are those other markets? There is no win or loose because we have already lost! In BC there is a government that will not hesitate to sell the logs rather then have the locals process it. The Americans are smileing and we have Canadians winking and nodding. Nothing will ever change. Emerson will be able to have his lunch with the corporate heads just as usual.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
They would just rename the hospital "the Parliment" and give themselves isolation pay.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
Campbell probably has been told that the "raw logs" won't be bought either unless the deal is signed. Regardless of the dispute, logging and logging trucks are very active on Vancouver Island. The mills are gone or shut down but the logs are moving. Apparantly it's the same activity in the northern interior. The dispute is about cheap logs and expensive lumber. There is no doubt that that's exactly what the Americans want.
---
Expect little from life and get more from it.
---
We have met the enemy and he is us
Pogo
A mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.
Plutarch
---
"We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis