Court orders U.S. to repay all softwood lumber duties

[normanchateau]

The following story appeared in the Business Section of the Vancouver Sun on October 14, 2006, two days after Harper signed and implemented the "deal" which betrayed the softwood lumber industry.

"Court orders U.S. to repay all $5.3 billion in softwood duties

A U.S, court on Friday ordered the Bush administration to pay back all of the $5.3 billion US in duties collected from Canadian lumber companies, one day after Ottawa voluntarily implemented a negotiated agreement that leaves $1 billion of that money in the hands of the Americans.

The belated legal victory in the softwood dispute provides "absolute vindication" that the U.S. duties were illegal and that Canadian lumber is not subsidized, opponents of the negotiated settlement said.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ordered the refund after having already found the duties were illegal."

Here's the link:

http://www.thenextagenda.ca/story/2006/10/19/133951/26

It makes one wonder why Harper was in such an extraordinary hurry to sign the deal given that the court was about to provide its ruling the next day.

Was it worth bringing David Emerson into the cabinet just so he could assist in Harper's betrayal of the softwood lumber industry?

[southerncomfort]

Harper doesn't have ESP, what he did was worth it, like you think we would get the money anyway, it wasn't happening before why would this get us the money.

Nope I recognize what had to be done and it was a helluva lot better than what the liberals did which was nada.

The deal was what was best for Canada and its worked. better that than letting the Liberals continual betray Canada. Nope, it doesn't fly, sour grapes from Liberals cos they lost and Harper brokered a good deal thats all.

[Argus]

The following story appeared in the Business Section of the Vancouver Sun on October 14, 2006, two days after Harper signed and implemented the "deal" which betrayed the softwood lumber industry.

"Court orders U.S. to repay all $5.3 billion in softwood duties

A U.S, court on Friday ordered the Bush administration to pay back all of the $5.3 billion US in duties collected from Canadian lumber companies, one day after Ottawa voluntarily implemented a negotiated agreement that leaves $1 billion of that money in the hands of the Americans.

The belated legal victory in the softwood dispute provides "absolute vindication" that the U.S. duties were illegal and that Canadian lumber is not subsidized, opponents of the negotiated settlement said.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ordered the refund after having already found the duties were illegal."

Here's the link:

http://www.thenextagenda.ca/story/2006/10/19/133951/26

It makes one wonder why Harper was in such an extraordinary hurry to sign the deal given that the court was about to provide its ruling the next day.

Was it worth bringing David Emerson into the cabinet just so he could assist in Harper's betrayal of the softwood lumber industry?

So this is the same court which declared the duties illegal, huh? And the duties stopped at that point? Well uh, ,er, uh, eh, NO! The US ignored its earlier ruling, appealing it, and it would appeal this as well. And in a year and a half, or two years, there'd be another ruling on the appeal, and then in two or three more years, there'd be a higher court ruling on that, and in the meantime they'd have found something else to invalidate it, and so there'd have to be another ruling.... etc. etc. etc. The legal back and forths would go on for years.

[MightyAC]

Here's a link to a source a little more reputable than a political blog. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/bu...85d&rfp=dta

[normanchateau]

Here's a link to a source a little more reputable than a political blog. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/bu...85d&rfp=dta

That political blog contains exactly the same link you've just provided.

[Ricki Bobbi]

So this is the same court which declared the duties illegal, huh? And the duties stopped at that point? Well uh, ,er, uh, eh, NO! The US ignored its earlier ruling, appealing it, and it would appeal this as well. And in a year and a half, or two years, there'd be another ruling on the appeal, and then in two or three more years, there'd be a higher court ruling on that, and in the meantime they'd have found something else to invalidate it, and so there'd have to be another ruling.... etc. etc. etc. The legal back and forths would go on for years.

That's the interesting point. Better to take a little less now than let the thing drag out on and on and on hoping you might get a better resolution in court.

Private individuals and decisions make that choice all the time. Why shouldn't the Government....

[MightyAC]

Here's a link to a source a little more reputable than a political blog. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/bu...85d&rfp=dta

That political blog contains exactly the same link you've just provided.

Some people may actually read the Vancouver Sun article almost nobody will read a quoted blog entry.

[normanchateau]

Better to take a little less now than let the thing drag out on and on and on hoping you might get a better resolution in court.

Private individuals and decisions make that choice all the time. Why shouldn't the Government....

The deal the Government agreed to now has lumber companies paying 15% export tax. Even the illegal US duties were only 10.8%.

[gerryhatrick]

The following story appeared in the Business Section of the Vancouver Sun on October 14, 2006, two days after Harper signed and implemented the "deal" which betrayed the softwood lumber industry.

"Court orders U.S. to repay all $5.3 billion in softwood duties

A U.S, court on Friday ordered the Bush administration to pay back all of the $5.3 billion US in duties collected from Canadian lumber companies, one day after Ottawa voluntarily implemented a negotiated agreement that leaves $1 billion of that money in the hands of the Americans.

The belated legal victory in the softwood dispute provides "absolute vindication" that the U.S. duties were illegal and that Canadian lumber is not subsidized, opponents of the negotiated settlement said.

The U.S. Court of International Trade ordered the refund after having already found the duties were illegal."

Here's the link:

http://www.thenextagenda.ca/story/2006/10/19/133951/26

It makes one wonder why Harper was in such an extraordinary hurry to sign the deal given that the court was about to provide its ruling the next day.

Was it worth bringing David Emerson into the cabinet just so he could assist in Harper's betrayal of the softwood lumber industry?

We got short-changed, without a doubt. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next election.

There is legitimate critisisms to be made of Harper over this, given the court decisions.

[Ricki Bobbi]

We got short-changed, without a doubt. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next election.

There is legitimate critisisms to be made of Harper over this, given the court decisions.

What if we lose the appeal? Or the one after that? Or the one after that?

Sometimes closure is a good thing.

[gerryhatrick]

Sometimes closure is a fancy work for rolling over.

[geoffrey]

Sometimes closure is a fancy work for rolling over.

Ok... so when do we address that we unfairly compensate our lumber industry with ridiculously low stumpage fees? We got a great deal. We were trading unfairly, the US had the right IMO to impose duties.

[gerryhatrick]

Sometimes closure is a fancy work for rolling over.

Ok... so when do we address that we unfairly compensate our lumber industry with ridiculously low stumpage fees? We got a great deal. We were trading unfairly, the US had the right IMO to impose duties.

We were trading unfairly? Quite frankly, that's bullsh#t. I hardly need to list all of the decisions that came down in our favor.

[geoffrey]

We were trading unfairly? Quite frankly, that's bullsh#t. I hardly need to list all of the decisions that came down in our favor.

List alongside them all the decisions that were against us and it's pretty even.

NAFTA doesn't apply to softwood, you know that. And you know the difference in stumpage fees in Canada compared to the US (different systems essientially). Canadian lumber producers are hugely advantaged... and it's the environment and Canadians that pay for Quebec and BC's lumber industries.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Sometimes closure is a fancy work for rolling over.

Not in this case.

Sometimes closure means making the best economic decision in the long-term. Which was the case in this situation.

[normanchateau]

Sometimes closure is a fancy work for rolling over.

The irony is that Emerson had no intention of rolling over when he was a Liberal Cabinet Minister but suddenly did when he became a Conservative Cabinet Minister. This suggests that it was Harper, not Emerson, who decided that Canada should roll over and grovel bloody-nosed to the US lumber lobby. And what has Harper got to show for this?

An angry Canadian softwood lumber industry who feel betrayed by the Canadian government. The Harper government now imposes an export tax even higher than the illegal US duties.

[Wilber]

The Harper government now imposes an export tax even higher than the illegal US duties.

Would you rather have that money staying in Canada or given to US lumber producers?

[normanchateau]

The Harper government now imposes an export tax even higher than the illegal US duties.

Would you rather have that money staying in Canada or given to US lumber producers?

Canadian money should be in the hands of those Canadians who earned it, not the Canadian government.

The Harper government thinks otherwise.

[scribblet]

The Harper government now imposes an export tax even higher than the illegal US duties.

Would you rather have that money staying in Canada or given to US lumber producers?

Definitely.

What is interesting is that the Canadian media and others continue to pretend that the American position on Softwood lumber is a 'violation' of NAFTA. If memory serves, softwood was specifically excluded from the original NAFTA Agreement precisely because we disagree with them as to whether our low stumpage fees amount to government subsidy. If so then their 'ignoring' the NAFTA rulings makes sense - in other words Canada's entire strategy on Softwood has been to persecute the Americans under trade rules that we specifically excluded softwood from, for fear that they would use those rules to prosecute us for our stumpage fees.

However,, we should welcome stability to the softwood industry, which has been in and out of courts, WTO and NAFTA panels for years, during which we lost millions. I suppose for those who wouldn't like the deal no matter what simply because it was a deal struck by Harper, they would prefer we continue to bleed millions and never settle anything.

[Ricki Bobbi]

However,, we should welcome stability to the softwood industry, which has been in and out of courts, WTO and NAFTA panels for years, during which we lost millions. I suppose for those who wouldn't like the deal no matter what simply because it was a deal struck by Harper, they would prefer we continue to bleed millions and never settle anything.

That is the key. Some people will simply oppose the deal because it was struck by Harper.

Yet another decision made in the interest of Canadians. Good work Prime Minister.

[normanchateau]

However,, we should welcome stability to the softwood industry, which has been in and out of courts, WTO and NAFTA panels for years, during which we lost millions. I suppose for those who wouldn't like the deal no matter what simply because it was a deal struck by Harper, they would prefer we continue to bleed millions and never settle anything.

That is the key. Some people will simply oppose the deal because it was struck by Harper.

And others will oppose the deal simply because they understand economics, work for Canadian softwood lumber companies or invest in Canadian softwood lumber companies.

To find out what some owners of softwood lumber companies think, see the following:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/10/13/Softwood/

[Figleaf]

Harper doesn't have ESP, ...

Come off it! The NAFTA tribunals said it was illegal, Canada's legal advisors said it was illegal. He didn't NEED ESP, he just needed some guts, or a concept of wanting to serve the interests of his country.

[Figleaf]

Sometimes closure is a fancy work for rolling over.

Ok... so when do we address that we unfairly compensate our lumber industry with ridiculously low stumpage fees?

The point is, we don't unfairly compensate our lumber industry with low stumpage fees. That's what this court and the NAFTA tribunals decided. If you hope to re-argue that issue, you should at least put some argument behind it.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Come off it! The NAFTA tribunals said it was illegal, Canada's legal advisors said it was illegal. He didn't NEED ESP, he just needed some guts, or a concept of wanting to serve the interests of his country.

Figs deal with the timing issue. There are some producers, my guess quite a few, who are able to survive taking 80 to 90 cents on the dollar now than risking a bigger potential payout in the future. That is probably the calculation the forestry industry made in accepting the deal.

It's done in business all the time.

[geoffrey]

Sometimes closure is a fancy work for rolling over.

Ok... so when do we address that we unfairly compensate our lumber industry with ridiculously low stumpage fees?

The point is, we don't unfairly compensate our lumber industry with low stumpage fees. That's what this court and the NAFTA tribunals decided. If you hope to re-argue that issue, you should at least put some argument behind it.

Wow Fig, you should know that NAFTA has nothing to do with the debate, softwood was a special exclusion from the treaty.

The reality, despite what you believe in that head of yours, is that it costs significantly less in Canada (due to government intervention) to cut down a tree than in the US. That's unfair competition and tariffs are acceptable.