Compromising positions

The CP reports on yet another broken softwood lumber deadline...and the possibility that the Cons' latest workaround to avoid industry dissent may involve a forcible end to the efforts of Canadian producers to challenge the U.S.' initial illegal duties:

Late Friday, International Trade Minister David Emerson said the two countries "have found a satisfactory resolution to the outstanding legal and administrative issues."

Emerson was unavailable for comment but his communications director, Bob Klager, said the two governments found a similar method for terminating the litigation.

"Under this new process only a limited number of cases will need to be terminated in order for the revocation of the duty orders," he said. "I think by virtue of the fact we've developed with them this simpler process, it satisfies the interests of both countries."

But an opponent of the deal said the "simpler process" involves unilaterally quashing the cases.

NDP trade critic Peter Julian said lawyers for the Canadian and U.S. governments filed a status report in the U.S. Court of International Trade on Friday that tramples on the legal rights of Canadian opponents of the lumber duties.

The brief says that on Friday the Canadian and U.S. governments tentatively agreed to amendments in the July 1 softwood deal that, if implemented, would affect one of the cases the New York-based court was hearing.

"The litigation aspects of the agreement are currently under review by officials of the United States with the authority to approve the compromise of the claims in litigation," the document says.

"On the day that the agreement enters into force, the governments of Canada and the United States will stipulate to a dismissal of all claims raised by the Government of Canada (in one softwood case)...and the United States Department of Commerce will revoke in their entirety the underlying anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders on softwood lumber from Canada."

The article notes that there's some controversy as to the precise effect of the deal. But the difference seems to be more in form than in substance: even if the deal doesn't lead to any outright legislative bars to continued litigation, forced implementation could well put a stop to the ongoing cases if they're found to be moot. Which means that at best the Cons' most recent move to reopen the supposedly-closed deal may have "won" some uncertainty as to whether or not the claims will be allowed to continue - and at worst they've won nothing whatsoever.

Moreover, it seems glaringly clear that the latter interpretation will be pushed by the Cons themselves: surely neither government would have gone to the trouble of submitting a joint brief to the effect that their actions would "compromise" the claims at stake in the litigation. Which means that while the Cons may be trying to have it both ways in their words, their actions once again reflect a clear stand against Canadian interests.

Meanwhile, if you're searching for coverage which completely ignores the issue of ongoing litigation in favour of undiluted right-wing spin, ConWest has what you're looking for.