Deal or no deal

The Financial Post points out just a couple more ways in which the supposed concessions which allegedly made the softwood lumber capitulation palatable enough to accept are ultimately meaningless:

The U.S. industry had initially bristled at reports this week out of British Columbia that it and the U.S. government had made major concessions to see the deal conclude.

As it turns out, some of the apparent concessions -- such as those dealing with when the U.S. could end the deal or the timing of when prices are calculated -- are essentially the same as allowed under U.S. trade law.

"Keep in mind, it would take the U.S. over a year to build a new case against Canada so now giving six months' notice instead of one month doesn't really mean all that much," said one industry observer.

So the Cons had managed to negotiate a deal which was initially worse than the law which applies to every other industry in a similar situation. And now, the key provinces involved have decided to back the deal based on its including the minimum treatment which would apply with or without any agreement, as well as the unenforceable "comfort letter" discussed as the lead in the FP article.

With tomorrow's deadline looming large, it's not too late for the industry to recognize a bad deal when it sees it. And if Harper faces the embarrassment of seeing one of his few supposed achievements die out because the industry doesn't agree with the Cons' claim that Canada can't do better, then it may not be long before we have a new federal government who's actually willing to defend Canada's interests.