FOREST PRODUCTS

Canada wins second NAFTA decision on softwood tariffs
Ruling could slash rate to 2.1%, but U.S. could take
legal action to delay move
STEVEN CHASE AND PETER KENNEDY

OTTAWA, VANCOUVER -- Canada has won its second major
NAFTA victory in five years of legal battles over U.S.
tariffs on softwood, a ruling that undercuts the
rationale for the bulk of levies being charged by
Washington today.

The decision yesterday leaves Canada and the United
States at a fork in the road of softwood relations. It
could be a catalyst for fresh talks to settle the
dispute or spark a new round of bitter litigation.

The ruling should chop the tariff rate slapped on
Canadian softwood to 2.1 per cent from 10.8 per cent,
but the Americans could take legal action to delay
this for 12 months.

The future of the dispute is now in the hands of U.S.
President George W. Bush and his government, which
must decide whether to launch a rarely used,
last-ditch appeal of the NAFTA decision.

Under yesterday's ruling, a dispute settlement panel
struck under the North American free-trade agreement
confirmed that any Canadian subsidy of softwood that
can be calculated is negligible -- and so does not
merit being punished with countervailing duties.

Mr. Bush's government must decide by April 27 whether
to appeal.

Canadian Industry officials said they're holding out
hope that Mr. Bush might let the NAFTA ruling stand as
a gesture that Washington is serious about resuming
negotiations to settle the dispute.

"It's his call, no question," John Allan, president of
the British Columbia Lumber Trade Council. He thinks
whether Mr. Bush appeals the decision could depend on
NAFTA talks the President is holding shortly with
Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Cancun.

The late March Cancun meeting is taking on growing
importance for the softwood dispute. International
Trade Minister David Emerson has already predicted
that Ottawa and Washington will return to the
bargaining table some time after Cancun.

The U.S. timber lobby, which is responsible for
triggering the softwood dispute, conceded yesterday
that the NAFTA decision threatens the future of
anti-subsidy duties on Canadian wood. It is pressing
Mr. Bush to appeal. "The NAFTA panel decision issued .
. . is gravely flawed, and signifies a potential end
to an important antidote in the U.S. lumber industry's
efforts to counter the poison that is Canadian lumber
industry practices," said Steve Swanson, chairman of
the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports.

The latest Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute has
dragged on for nearly five years and has seen
Washington extract $5.2-billion in levies from
Canadian producers.

One of the thorniest questions in any negotiations
will be how much of that cash is returned to Canada.

The Bush administration balked at the ruling and
called for Canada to return to the bargaining table.
"We continue to not agree with the panel's rationale,"
David Spooner, U.S. Department of Commerce's assistant
secretary for import administration, said in a
statement. "We will continue to enforce our trade laws
to ensure that U.S. industry receives relief from
unfair imports and we believe that a durable,
negotiated resolution is the best way to resolve this
dispute with Canada."

Canada quit talks last summer after Washington
repudiated Ottawa's first major NAFTA victory, when a
panel ruled that the United States had failed to prove
Canadian softwood posed a threat of injury.

Lumber future prices tumbled yesterday as traders
reacted to fears expressed by the U.S. timber lobby.
Analysts said prices will continue to drop next week
after the May futures contract fell by the daily $10
(U.S.) limit to $326.30 per thousand board feet on the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Canfor Corp. chief executive officer Jim Shepherd said
the ruling only reinforces his view that efforts to
litigate an end to the dispute aren't working. "We
have ended up with a political nightmare here in terms
of the biggest trade dispute that I'm aware of in the
world today with two countries not knowing how to come
to a conclusion."

Reply via email to