Negotiations with a two-by-four

Apparently Harper and company are still trying to keep relatively straight faces while claiming that the softwood lumber cave-in is really a great deal for Canada. But if it was, would the U.S. be making demands like the ones reported by the Globe and Mail?

First, there's the clause designed to ensure that future trade disputes are no more easily or successfully resolved than this one:

Ontario officials said Americans seek to set up a process for tackling future softwood battles that wouldn't return duties collected before those disputes are settled.

“That's a deal breaker as far as we are concerned,” Mr. Ramsay said.

And rightly so, given that the entire reason why Canada is now signing away its right to make forestry policy is the U.S.' insistence that it hold onto the proceeds of its theft. But apparently Harper has shown his cards around the table enough that the U.S. isn't the least bit embarrassed asking for Canada to consent to going through the same mess again in the future.

One would think it couldn't get worse. But then...

Ontario's second major concern is that the United States is pushing to divide Canada's export quota into monthly allotments, Mr. Ramsay said. If companies don't meet their monthly share of the cap, they would lose the unused quota room, unable to carry it forward.

So having successfully capped Canada's share of the U.S. market isn't enough: now the U.S. also wants to set caps within the cap, and ensure that Canadian producers can't make up for slow months or take advantage of positive market conditions. (Speaking of comical attempts at a straight face, keep an eye out for Bush's next admonition that the U.S. is trying to lead the way toward free markets.)

Mind you, the worst of the demands might well be only a way of making Canada's ultimate additional concessions look small by comparison. But the direction in which the final negotiations have gone should remove any remaining doubt about who's been pushing who around at the bargaining table.