Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:07:34 -0700
From: Scott Frederick <scott451@gmx.net>
Subject: [KCUTS] The 'Softwood Sellout Agreement' is not the final word
Hello Kootenaycuts,
Globe and Mail, Page A21, 17-Oct-2006
The 'Softwood Sellout Agreement' is not the final word
By Gordon Gibson
Eat a lot of crow, convince us we should walk away from a billion
dollars, or face a dangerous election issue? These are the
unattractive choices facing the Harper government after a huge lumber
industry victory in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) last
Friday.
That court ruled we are entitled to the return of every penny of the
$5.3-billion of illegally imposed duties on our softwood exports over
the years, as well as free entry of our products. But in the recent
"Softwood Sellout Agreement," Ottawa said it would forgo $1-billion of
the total duties owed it and agreed to a new border charge as high as
22.5 per cent.
The vague public impression is that we had to do what amounts to a
bad deal because the Yankee bully had us on the ropes and would
simply keep changing the rules until we capitulated. That is what our
government would like us to believe - but it is not true.
The true story is one of duplicity on both sides of the border. The
Americans, naturally, were conspiring against our industry. But in a
weird twist, our government has been helping them. To understand this
requires looking at two tracks.
There is the legal track, which our industry has been following for
five years. As of this spring, we had won near-final victories under
NAFTA and in the CIT. By last summer, the duties would have been gone
with the money-return order soon to be achieved.
Alas, there is also the political track. Just after the Tories won
the election, they had a chance to recruit Liberal David Emerson. How
to justify this? He was the softwood expert; we need him.
U.S. President George Bush soon picked up the phone and asked Prime
Minister Stephen Harper if he wouldn't like to settle softwood, fast.
He called us. After five years as president, he suddenly wants to
settle?
Mr. Bush had good reasons, of course. Our legal fight was going
against him. We finally had the U.S. in one of their own courts - and
they were losing. In addition, a Montana senator's seat was hanging
on softwood. So, let's see if we can't hornswoggle the Canucks.
No problem. The inexperienced Harper administration seized the chance
to brag that in only a couple of months it had been able to fix an
issue the Libs couldn't solve for five years. And it would validate
Emerson's sleazy jump to the Tories. As a result, they bought a deal
so loaded in favour of the Americans it was arguably worse than the
one the Martin government had turned down earlier.
Export taxes were to be imposed even higher than the old tariffs, and
this has now been done. We were to be capped at 30 per cent of the
U.S. market when the Liberals had negotiated 34 per cent. Sawmills
are now closing in Eastern Canada, jobs lost in the thousands. There
will be lots more.
The U.S. protectionist lobby is to be handed $500-million of our money
to pay their lawyers and refill their coffers to attack us again. We
will pay for our own thrashing, in a fight we would have won had our
government had the guts to stand up to the Americans.
Bad deal? Never mind. On April 27, Mr. Harper told an astonished
House of Commons the issue had been settled. At that very hour,
American lawyers were filing papers to restart the legal process. The
U.S. lied, and we said nothing. Without that betrayal, the very next
day the final NAFTA decision would have kicked in and countervail
duties would have ended at once.
Continuing the political track, industry holdouts remained - so many
that in desperation last week the two governments jointly appealed to
the U.S. court to dissolve everything on the basis it had never
happened. We stipulated the U.S. had never done anything illegal,
destroying five years' worth of legal victories and our shield
against future harassment. And yet, immediately thereafter came the
"return the money" order from the CIT.
So now we have those ongoing duties and a gutted NAFTA, plus
supervision of much of our forest law by Washington. Kind of makes you
proud to be an allegedly sovereign Canadian, doesn't it?
But there are still potholes on this road of shame. The legal
situation remains murky and our industry may yet manage to exploit it.
And a guaranteed way out lies in the Canadian Senate.
The tax legislation required to implement the Sellout Agreement
requires consent of the Liberal-dominated Senate. That body should
hold the necessary hearings to reveal the whole rotten story. A
Senate defeat of the agreement would force an election on the issue.
Good idea. Forestry and sovereign self-respect are so basic it would
be a fitting topic.
ggibson@bc-home.com
--
Only 942 organising days until the next BC provincial election.
Best regards,
Scott mailto:scott451@gmx.net
--