Embassy (Canada's Foreign Policy Newsweekly Magazine)
March 29th, 2006

Why Negotiate?
How come we're considering "a return to the negotiating table?" (Re: "Emerson's Priority" Talking Points, March 22)

Trade Minister David Emerson is quoted as saying that "if all goes well, the two leaders are expected to announce a return to the negotiating table to try and resolve the long-running dispute" over Canada's subsidizing softwood lumber. He said further "But both sides will need to see some sign from the other that the work won't be in vain."

Now just what will the "some sign" from Canada be? "We don't want the $5,000,000,000 back?", "We'll auction timber rights rather than Crown control?", "How about free export of raw logs?", "Export controls, maybe or an export tax?"

According to the NAFTA agreement, the "dispute" should have been settled long ago. "Canada has won numerous trade tribunal cases against claims by the U.S. lumber industry that Canadian governments subsidize the softwood industry through provincial forestry practices." So, why negotiate?

As of now, the reality going into the Canadian and American leaders' meeting is: "the court battles are cold victories because they can run on indefinitely," said Emerson. "The reality is, you win some; you lose some; but even when you win, there's nothing to stop another lumber action as soon as this one has been dispensed with."

Remember what was supposed to be the scenario? Forget softwood negotiations, says Harper. Appoint a special envoy.

Oh well, over time every thing changes -- as someone drew to my attention by sending a link to Royal Canadian Air Farce.

I don't watch TV and pretty well all I know is from the internet. From now on, however, I'll be able to catch up on what was the latest parody routine by going to www.airfarce.com.

JOE HUEGLIN
Niagara Falls, ON
(The letter writer is a former Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament )