Honorable members, responsibility for this deal ultimately resides with the government and with you, not the industry. It has been forced on the industry for political reasons. No one in the industry likes it, but many believe they have no choice and, therefore, many have already accepted it.
I want to talk for a few minutes about the genesis of this agreement and one of its most important and least discussed elements. There is a bit of Watergate in this story and, as in Watergate, it is essential to follow the money. Back before Christmas, David Emerson, then minister in a Liberal government, and his ambassador in Washington, Frank McKenna, were asking what it would cost to buy peace in softwood lumber. They were adhering to all of the usual Canadian negotiating positions on this subject: protecting Chapter 19 in NAFTA, fending off onerous anti-circumvention clauses, protecting Canadian prerogatives. But, unlike any previous dispute, this one involved the accumulation of over 4 billion, now 5 billion, dollars. And there was the Byrd Amendment, which led the U.S. industry to believe that if it could just stall long enough to wear down the Canadians, while claiming title to all of the money, they could settle for a lot of it. They knew the Canadians had brought a case in U.S. courts that could prohibit them from claiming any of the money pursuant to the Byrd Amendment. They demanded a 60/40 split back at Christmas.
Messieurs Emerson and McKenna negotiated to 50/50 and then asked industry. Industry calculated net present value against litigation prospects, and said "no." But, in the process, Messieurs McKenna and Emerson asked what would be enough. At that time, under those circumstances, they were told 70 per cent. Think, then of how impressed Mr. Emerson was with himself when in April, he could tell industry that he got 80 per cent. But, there were at least four huge problems, and he had neglected all of them.
First, on April 7, the United States Court of International Trade ruled that the U.S. industry was entitled legally to no money. None of it. It was not surprising then, that 20 days later, the U.S. coalition said that it would take $500 million. It was hardly a negotiating triumph to persuade them to take $500 million, when they had become legally entitled to not a penny.
View full article and comments here http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/08/29/SlushFund/
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on August 30, 2006]
Note: http://thetyee.ca/Views...

As a Canadian, I resent funding any US election campaign.
I saw it over there and some of the comments too
---
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
The softwood agreement is a stunning example of just how dysfunctional NAFTA is, and it is a very large component part of the WTT.<<
Canada Too Willing to Pay the Washington Tribute Tax
---
Perception is two thirds of what we perceive reality to be.
Difficult decisions are a privilege of rank.
<br />
"Based on U.S. Census Bureau data, the duties collected on Canadian lumber price as many as 300,000 American families out of the housing market since the small increase prices them out of a mortgage, she said."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/060828/b082834.html">http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/060828/b082834.html</a><p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />
Frank
Why is this important to Canadians ?
and
what is your reason for bringing it to the fore?
---
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
Just another avenue of attack. And election fodder for when Harper is defeated over this. The whole fiasco was good for no one, except the lawyers and the Whiteouse.
---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden
I have been very critical of Mr. Emerson but it seems not critical enough.
---
Robert Billyard
---
My freedom is more important than your great idea.
– Anonymous
Much clearer and pretty much par for the courseas far as politicians go too.
Would it be safe to say that the view you expressed applies in many cases?
I am thinking about cheap goods from China as an example. in some cases end consumers benefit from cheaper prices while Chinese workers work as endentured slaves or certainly close to it.
It also seemsto me that the sitution that you voiced is the way of (capitalistic) commerce: there are always winners and loosers.
---
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
No. While I avoid cheaply made items in favour of quality, I wouldn't say my statement should be taken as a broad stroke against imported goods.
"in some cases end consumers benefit from cheaper prices while Chinese workers work as endentured slaves or certainly close to it."
Here, I disagree. Take a look at Bangledesh. In the 80's it was a very impoverished third world country. Then, textile companies took advantage of the poverty and moved factories there. Women who would otherwise be arranged to be married and make babies the rest of their lives now can work in the city, send some money back to the farm, make a few buks to put themselves through university and date/marry whom they want. It has meant a hard life in the fields has morphed into a better life in the city for them. Now Bangledeshi textile mills, instead of churning out the latest Tommy Hillfiger style, are designing and producing their own fasions.
I don't see it as being any different with China, except that there are worse working conditions in China. Improve those, and I think the average Chinese labourer would have a pretty decent life, compared to the alternative of abject poverty and starvation on the former farm collective.
Given that, I'd still rather buy a Canadian made quality item over a Wally-World Chinese made trinket.
---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden