Softwood Agreement?

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
PM announces softwood deal has been struck

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced on Thursday the government has come to an agreement with Washington to settle the long-simmering softwood lumber dispute.

"I am pleased to announce today that the United States has accepted Canada's key conditions for the resolution of the softwood lumber dispute. Canada's bargaining position was strong, our position was clear, and this agreement delivers," said Harper in a speech in the House of Commons.

"This is a deal that resolves a long-standing dispute and allows us to move on."

As part of the deal, Harper said the U.S. has agreed to give Canada "unrestricted access" to the American lumber market, under the current market conditions.

"This means no quota, no tariffs," said Harper to the applause of his MPs.

Harper said the U.S. has also agreed to return at least $4 billion in duties it has collected since 2002 to Canadian producers.

He said the government, tired of the "legal wrangling" in the ongoing dispute, asked the Americans for a long-term solution.

They responded, he said, with "a seven-year deal -- with a possibility of renewal."

Harper said the U.S. has also agreed to:

A return to an exemption in duties for Atlantic lumber producers.
An exemption for Canadian sawmills on the border between Quebec and the U.S.
"Third country provisions" aimed at easing Canadian concerns about other countries gaining U.S. market share at Canada's expense.
Earlier, the prime minister was absent from Commons for the initial part of Thursday's question period; he was reportedly on the phone, furiously lobbying the provinces to accept the proposal.

Harper later announced that he received the support of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec -- the top lumber producing provinces in the nation.

B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell told reporters in Victoria Thursday afternoon that although the deal isn't perfect, it's a "reasonable" one for Canada, and a "good" one for B.C.

"We think we've crafted a trade agreement that allows for different responses from different parts of the country. This is a fair trade agreement which will provide the stability we want," said Campbell, whose province accounts for more than half of Canada's $10-billion annual lumber exports to the U.S.

Ontario's Natural Resources Minister David Ramsay, who voiced his fierce opposition to an earlier, leaked version of the deal, expressed optimism Thursday.

The deal, as it was proposed on Wednesday, would have resulted in Ontario's share of the country's softwood lumber exports to the U.S. totalling about nine per cent -- below the province's historical share of roughly 10.5 per cent.

This would result in massive layoffs at northern Ontario mills, according to Ramsay.

But he said that after speaking with political colleagues across the country, he became confident a solution can be found that would satisfy Ontario mills.

"There's goodwill in the country to work together," Ramsay said outside the Ontario legislature in Toronto.

"While this arrangement would require each jurisdiction to make some concessions, Ontario got a critical element -- a more reasonable share of softwood exports."

In Quebec, Premier Jean Charest welcomed the agreement, saying it will benefit the Quebec economy which is heavily dependent on the forest sector.

"Throughout these negotiations, the Quebec government defended the province's interests and those of workers in the forestry sector and in outlying regions," Charest said in a statement.

The U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, which has waged an aggressive battle against Canadian softwood, has also apparently embraced the agreement.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
From what I have seen on Primetime Politics coverage of the House of Commons, on CPAC, the Honourable Bill Graham, P.C., M.P., the Member for Toronto Centre and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Gilles Duceppe, M.P., the Member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and the Leader of the Bloc Québécois, and the Honourable Jack Layton, P.C., M.P., the Member for Toronto—Danforth and the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, are not impressed, and in fact think that Canada has been "cheated" by this agreement.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Unlike the NDP, Bloq and Liberals I am happy we can put this behind us now. I don't think the deal was all that bad but considering the USA ignores and would keep ignoring our free trade agreement if we had not agreed with this one or or another I think our cut is the best one we were going to get from them. To be realistic.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I'm leaning to accepting the terms. The US will drag this on another 5 years if they don't get something on their side. We can hold out 5 years to get 5 billion or take 4 billion now and use it to make well over 1 billion in the next 5 years.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
I agree the deal is NOT what we had in mind when we signed on to NAFTA, BUT NAFTA has made us rich......

I agree with Kreskin, this is as good as it gets, grab it and run.

And, sorry Five, but the opposition parties are blowing smoke. They have not the slightest intention of doing ANYTHING to jeopardize a deal that both industry and the provinces have signed on to. They are just yapping.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Oh, I know that, Colpy. I don't think this is up for a vote, lol.

I just thought it'd be worth noting the positions of the other parties. :) I don't think they were publicized at the same time that this article was made. I wasn't advocating any position in particular with that post.
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
FiveParadox said:
From what I have seen on Primetime Politics coverage of the House of Commons, on CPAC, the Honourable Bill Graham, P.C., M.P., the Member for Toronto Centre and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Gilles Duceppe, M.P., the Member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and the Leader of the Bloc Québécois, and the Honourable Jack Layton, P.C., M.P., the Member for Toronto—Danforth and the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, are not impressed, and in fact think that Canada has been "cheated" by this agreement.

Of course they are because they cannot let the Tories be seen as getting us a deal, however if any one of them were in power then we would still be in the same old deadlock.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Perhaps, Hank C.

However, we should keep in mind that the credit for this accomplishment is to be shared between both the current Government of Canada, and the previous Government of Canada during the Thirty-eighth Parliament. I don't think that the agreement with the United States of America would have been reached today without the progress made by the Liberal Party of Canada in previous months and years.

I would have hoped that the agreement reached with our neighbour to the South would have been more "complete". I think that some may take issue with the fact that this agreement moves away from the notion of "free trade" between our countries: This agreement does, in fact, return us to the idea of "managed trade". This agreement expires in seven years, and can be extended by two — I would wonder what is going to happen when the agreement has expired in its entirety after nine.

I commend this Government for having reached a conclusion to this issue (I hope that this agreement can ease some of the tension in the relationship between Canada and the United States); however, I would have preferred that the agreement had restored the entire amount of funds to Canada, and that the agreement would have done something more substantive in terms of ensuring that such an issue does not arise again in a decade's time.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Softwood Agreement?

Kreskin said:
I'm leaning to accepting the terms. The US will drag this on another 5 years if they don't get something on their side. We can hold out 5 years to get 5 billion or take 4 billion now and use it to make well over 1 billion in the next 5 years.


Thats why I support the deal. lol
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
I was glad the market cap was withdrawn. The part about the deal that really gets me is that its calibrated to "current market conditions". I don't have access to the numbers, but I'm under the impression that the post-Katrina market is booming which essentially translates to a guaranteed export tax long term. That may turn out to be fair but I seriously doubt anyone has had a chance to test the terms of the deal against a proper model.

The faux deadline brings back memories.

80% return is a good deal as is the application of an export tax. I was expecting both. But in my estimation the baseline is rather odd. It probably has to do with industry's prediliction to accept good news in the market as the new norm. Its their deal. I won't feel sorry for them if it turns sour.

This raises the question of whether NAFTA is going to stand the test of time now it has been superceded in one area I would argue is truly exceptional. This is bound to cause trouble in other areas. Pork trade comes to mind.

Congratulations to the current government for doing their job and closing the file and thanks to all the public servants who quietly did all the heavy lifting in the background.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
One more demonstration,

where might beats right. The imposed duties were illegal in the first place but the U.S. used the old method of two steps forward, and one step back. They eventually wore us down and we gave them twenty five percent of the illegal duties. Who won? They did of course. There was never any doubt on their part.
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
When the only ones opposed are the Libs and NDP, then you have to know this is a pretty good deal. In any case, all it took was one trip by Harper to Mexico, a little politeness, coupled with a firm resolve to get this done, and in three months Harper has done what Chretien and Martin could not do in 12 years.

Just goes to prove that sugar works better than vinegar. Way to go, Steve.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
It's a good deal but not for us, we signed Nafta and followed the rules, we won every trial and we still had to accept less than what was due, there are elements in all three countries that would drop Nafta today given a choice, for all but a few Nafta has been the shits, those who think we'll ever get a square deal from Uncle Sam are sadly mistaken, but maybe this was better than getting bombed and invaded.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
[i said:
bluealberta[/i]]When the only ones opposed are the Libs and NDP, then you have to know this is a pretty good deal. In any case, all it took was one trip by Harper to Mexico, a little politeness, coupled with a firm resolve to get this done, and in three months Harper has done what Chretien and Martin could not do in 12 years.
To suggest that this agreement was reached exclusively as the result of the negotiations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America since the 6th of February of this year is, in my opinion, absurd. This agreement would not have been reached today without the negotations that had been underway for years.

On a related note, the Bloc Québécois opposes the agreement, too.

[i said:
bluealberta[/i]]Just goes to prove that sugar works better than vinegar. Way to go, Steve.
This agreement can last, at the very most, for no more than nine years; twenty percent of the money lost by the economy in Canada is not going to be returned, and is rather going to be provided to competitors who, as the Honourable John McCallum, P.C., M.P., the Member for Markham—Unionville and the Finance Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, are going to use those funds to the deteriment of the economy in Canada.
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
FiveParadox said:
[i said:
bluealberta[/i]]When the only ones opposed are the Libs and NDP, then you have to know this is a pretty good deal. In any case, all it took was one trip by Harper to Mexico, a little politeness, coupled with a firm resolve to get this done, and in three months Harper has done what Chretien and Martin could not do in 12 years.
To suggest that this agreement was reached exclusively as the result of the negotiations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America since the 6th of February of this year is, in my opinion, absurd. This agreement would not have been reached today without the negotations that had been underway for years.

On a related note, the Bloc Québécois opposes the agreement, too.

[i said:
bluealberta[/i]]Just goes to prove that sugar works better than vinegar. Way to go, Steve.
This agreement can last, at the very most, for no more than nine years; twenty percent of the money lost by the economy in Canada is not going to be returned, and is rather going to be provided to competitors who, as the Honourable John McCallum, P.C., M.P., the Member for Markham—Unionville and the Finance Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, are going to use those funds to the deteriment of the economy in Canada.

Five, you really don't honestly believe that if Martin had of won the last election this agreement would have been signed by now, do you? I hope not.

The option of continuing the fight to basically get what we got now was not an option, in my opinion, and perhaps a little cooperation between the two countries will open up other areas of cooperation and resolve other areas of conern, such as the ID card issue. Unlike you, I do not have such a jaundiced view of our American neighbors, nor do I think they do everything wrong, or just to piss us off. They do what they think is best for them, we do what we think is best for us, and hopefully by compromise in some areals, both of us are equally as happy and unhappy as the other.

But I refuse to give credit to the Liberals, they did everything in their power to throw sand in the eyes of the US, which would have made this deal this quick quite out of the question. IMNTBHO. (In My Never To Be Humble Opinion).
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
I'm sure this agreement cost us more than just a billion dollars or so of illegal duties. I think we'll see Canadian troops in Iraq soon. We had better get used to body bags because we'll see a lot more of them.(or rather we won't see them, because Haper wants to keep them secret.)
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
[i said:
bluealberta[/i]]Five, you really don't honestly believe that if Martin had of won the last election this agreement would have been signed by now, do you? I hope not.
I have found it to be somewhat entertaining when members of this forum assume that due to some matter of procedure, I am somehow required to agree with everything ever done by the previous Government of Canada or its members. I think that our relationship with the United States of America was a point of contention under the previous Government — however, the fact is that years of negotiation took place under that Government, and that this agreement would not have been reached today without their work in that area. However, it should be noted that the Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., M.P., the Member for LaSalle—Émard had endeavoured to recover the entire amount of funds.

It should be noted that I commended, above, the current Government of Canada for having brought this matter to a conclusion (even if that conclusion is somewhat, in my opinion, inconclusive); I simply would have preferred if this agreement had encompassed something more "complete". I don't think that it would be wise to start moving away from the notion of free trade, in favour of managed trade.

[i said:
bluealberta[/i]]The option of continuing the fight to basically get what we got now was not an option, in my opinion, and perhaps a little cooperation between the two countries will open up other areas of cooperation and resolve other areas of conern, such as the ID card issue. Unlike you, I do not have such a jaundiced view of our American neighbors, nor do I think they do everything wrong, or just to piss us off. They do what they think is best for them, we do what we think is best for us, and hopefully by compromise in some areals, both of us are equally as happy and unhappy as the other.
I do not have a "jaundiced" view toward the United States; I acknowledged, and agreed with, the assessment of an opposition critic that the softwood industry in the United States has been, and is likely going to continue to be, extremely aggressive toward their Northern counterpart — and the twenty percent of the funds from our economy going toward their own causes is not going to assist our economy in any way, shape or form. It was an assessment, not a bash.

[i said:
bluealberta[/i]]But I refuse to give credit to the Liberals, they did everything in their power to throw sand in the eyes of the US, which would have made this deal this quick quite out of the question. IMNTBHO. (In My Never To Be Humble Opinion).
I give credit to both of the parties; the Liberal Party of Canada conducted negotiations for years in an effort to completely restore funds to the economy in Canada, and as noted by the Honourable Frank McKenna, P.C., O.N.B., Canada had been near an agreement for some time. I commend the Conservative Party of Canada for having been the party to reach the conclusion, but the negotiations leading to that agreement were in the works before they had been invited to form a government.