Softwood deal: why now, what traded?

Softwood Deal:Follow the Money by Kim Pollock, published today in The Tyee suggests that on-going litigation was almost done and Canada would certainly have prevailed had we pushed the softwood case to its natural conclusion. Pollock asks the question “why retreat now?”

One BC forest company rep was more honest. He said the Harper government would probably have been uninterested in pursuing the legal fight any longer in the face of pressure from the White House. In the end though, we should remember the words of former BC chief bureaucrat Doug McArthur. After about a year, he said, especially if the price of lumber falls, Canadian firms will be screaming to get out of it. Then what?

A weakened president cornered by the very powerful U.S. lumber lobby means that any deal arrived at during the remainer of G.W. Bush’s term is naturally going to favour U.S. producers. Did Harper and Emerson allow Canada to take one on the chin? The question leads to another.

If Canada has been seen by the White House to cave on this issue, then what do we get in return? Or, if Canada has been seen to be granted a gift by the White House, what do we still owe?