Lumber Rumble Deal Not Done Yet

<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/01/softwood-done.html">http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/07/01/softwood-done.html</a><br />
<br />
"More than $4 billion of the import duties the U.S. charged Canadian companies since 2002 will be returned to the companies about six weeks after Parliament approves the deal, he (David Emmerson) said"<br />
--------------------------------------------<br />
And of course, these monies will be used to resurrect the thousands of jobs that were lost in Canada, when timber no longer had to be processed in this country, and not uncoincidentally, at a time when the forestry companies would have had to take the money for the border tax out of their profits and shareholder dividends, reducing the "bottom line" by these billions.<p>---<br>"It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes." <br />
- Joseph Stalin

At issue in the softwood lumber dispute with the United States is the rule of law.


The American Way has been to press for advantage rather than honouring the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).


A dispute settlement mechanism was agreed to by both Canada and the U.S.. The Americans have not accepted the findings of NAFTA panels that there are no subsidies on Canadian softwood lumber exports into the United States.


Canada is one panel finding short of having all the litigation possible under the dispute mechanism ended with the Americans being found to have breached their undertaking.


The Harper Government’s deciding to "cut and run" rather than following through with this last challenge is precedent setting for all future NAFTA disputes: press hard and Canada caves in.


Under the Agreement initialed on Canada Day $500 million of illegally collected monies will go to the American lumber lobby. When lumber prices fall below $355 there will be an export tax on Canadian lumber ( it is now at $327 and falling). After a two year period, not the originally agreed upon seven, the proposed Agreement can be terminated


"This is a nation-to-nation agreement, it's a treaty," Emerson said in a teleconference call from Geneva.


"The likelihood of this kind of agreement being terminated by a country is extremely remote... for countries to terminate an agreement entered into in good faith is a very, very unusual step."


With all due respect to Emerson’s “In America We Trust” position, NAFTA was a "nation-to-nation agreement", a treaty “entered into in good faith”, was it not? Why would he have us believe this new Agreement will fare any better?


Following through with the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism, establishing the rule of law, is the honourable path, the path of standing up for Canada.

Why don't politicians so much as blink when their much-vaunted free trade becomes regulated trade? Of course, with the on-again-off-again, black-again-white-again, turncoat David Emmerson at the helm, we would expect nothing different. In fact, a great analogy can be drawn between Mr. Emmerson at the helm of the Softwood Lumber "dispute", and the sinking of the Bc Ferries Queen of the North<br />
<a href="http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/BC_Queen_of_the_North_ferry_sinks">http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/BC_Queen_of_the_North_ferry_sinks</a><br />
Once he steers the Softwood "ship" onto the rocks, it won't take much longer than the proverbial hour to sink either. Thing is, we don't know if the "passengers" can get off this boat............<p>---<br>"It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes." <br />
- Joseph Stalin

The best way to understand the American version of "fairness" is to take two boxers, tie one of them up, and put them both into a boxing ring with a paid off referee.

Then ring the bell and watch American "fairness" in action as the poor slob who is tied up gets beaten half to death.

That's the American Way in all it's glory.



---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

<blockquote>The Harper Government’s deciding to "cut and run" rather than following through with this last challenge is precedent setting for all future NAFTA disputes: press hard and Canada caves in.</blockquote>Actually, I believe the Americans got the measure of Canada during the original FTA negotiations, when Simon Reisman caved........... <p>---<br>"It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes." <br />
- Joseph Stalin

The differance between this and the NAFTA deal is that the Americans or Canadians can end it once and for all. No dispute, just an end to the market. Twenty seven months down the road, Canada had better have a new buyer of their products. If Not, the Americans will be buying worthless lumber companies at very cheap rates. The deal won't envolve companies selling to themselves across the border.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.