Stop the 'emotional tirades' on softwood, U.S. envoy says
The only way to settle is though negotiation, he says, warning against trade war
Andrew Duffy
Ottawa Citizen
Friday, August 26, 2005
OTTAWA -- U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins says Canadian politicians should stop their "emotional tirades"and order the country's trade representatives back to the bargaining table to reach a final settlement on softwood lumber.
In a meeting with the Ottawa Citizen editorial board, Wilkins said Canadian officials should embrace negotiations, rather than trade litigation to settle the dispute. Otherwise, he suggested, they risk a trade war with multiple fronts.
"I don't think we need to go down another avenue but we could," Wilkins warned. "We could start talking about import barriers by Canada on certain goods, like dairy and egg products and things of that nature, and broadcast regulations that are exempt from NAFTA."
While Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Liberal government pondered retaliatory action against the U.S., Wilkins said he was disappointed Canadian trade officials refused to meet this week to discuss softwood.
That meeting, scheduled for Monday in Ottawa, was cancelled after International Trade Minister Jim Peterson said he needed time to consider all his options, including trade sanctions, in the wake of Washington's refusal to accept the decision of a key trade panel ruling.
"Emotional press conferences are not going to settle the issue," Wilkins said. "Canada needs to come back to the table. We need to close the door, roll up our sleeves and negotiate as need be, with good faith, and bring finality to it."
Simmering for decades, the softwood lumber dispute is now in full boil after Washington announced it would ignore another trade ruling in Canada's favour -- this time from the final court of appeal established by the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Wilkins characterized that decision as a ruling that doesn't bring finality to the dispute: "It wasn't a settlement, it was a ruling. You have a difference in legal opinion."
It's the position of the U.S. government, he said, that the 2004 ruling of the U.S. International Trade Commission, an independent federal agency, remains the binding decision in the case. That ruling, based on a U.S. investigation of the softwood market, concluded provincial subsidies give Canadian producers an unfair advantage over their U.S. counterparts.
Martin has called the U.S. position on softwood "untenable" and Industry Minister David Emerson has started to draw up a list of U.S. goods on which to impose tariffs in retaliation for the American action.
Wilkins said Thursday that a trade war is not in the best interests of either country given the U.S. buys 86 per cent of Canada's exports.
"Your softwood lumber exports are at a 10-year high because of our booming housing market," he said. "I'm aware of the criticism that many folks have been levelling against the U.S. in the last few days, but I think it's important to keep it in perspective. We have a great bilateral trade market and agreement.
"And I don't think this one issue should tarnish that or adversely affect that. I think it would be a mistake for both sides."
The only way to settle is though negotiation, he says, warning against trade war
Andrew Duffy
Ottawa Citizen
Friday, August 26, 2005
OTTAWA -- U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins says Canadian politicians should stop their "emotional tirades"and order the country's trade representatives back to the bargaining table to reach a final settlement on softwood lumber.
In a meeting with the Ottawa Citizen editorial board, Wilkins said Canadian officials should embrace negotiations, rather than trade litigation to settle the dispute. Otherwise, he suggested, they risk a trade war with multiple fronts.
"I don't think we need to go down another avenue but we could," Wilkins warned. "We could start talking about import barriers by Canada on certain goods, like dairy and egg products and things of that nature, and broadcast regulations that are exempt from NAFTA."
While Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Liberal government pondered retaliatory action against the U.S., Wilkins said he was disappointed Canadian trade officials refused to meet this week to discuss softwood.
That meeting, scheduled for Monday in Ottawa, was cancelled after International Trade Minister Jim Peterson said he needed time to consider all his options, including trade sanctions, in the wake of Washington's refusal to accept the decision of a key trade panel ruling.
"Emotional press conferences are not going to settle the issue," Wilkins said. "Canada needs to come back to the table. We need to close the door, roll up our sleeves and negotiate as need be, with good faith, and bring finality to it."
Simmering for decades, the softwood lumber dispute is now in full boil after Washington announced it would ignore another trade ruling in Canada's favour -- this time from the final court of appeal established by the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Wilkins characterized that decision as a ruling that doesn't bring finality to the dispute: "It wasn't a settlement, it was a ruling. You have a difference in legal opinion."
It's the position of the U.S. government, he said, that the 2004 ruling of the U.S. International Trade Commission, an independent federal agency, remains the binding decision in the case. That ruling, based on a U.S. investigation of the softwood market, concluded provincial subsidies give Canadian producers an unfair advantage over their U.S. counterparts.
Martin has called the U.S. position on softwood "untenable" and Industry Minister David Emerson has started to draw up a list of U.S. goods on which to impose tariffs in retaliation for the American action.
Wilkins said Thursday that a trade war is not in the best interests of either country given the U.S. buys 86 per cent of Canada's exports.
"Your softwood lumber exports are at a 10-year high because of our booming housing market," he said. "I'm aware of the criticism that many folks have been levelling against the U.S. in the last few days, but I think it's important to keep it in perspective. We have a great bilateral trade market and agreement.
"And I don't think this one issue should tarnish that or adversely affect that. I think it would be a mistake for both sides."
