Moving the goal posts to suit

Tracy Parsons

Dear Editor,
A proposal giving the U.S. Department of Commerce everything it has been seeking but has been unable to win before WTO and NAFTA panels “could figure in discussions with the Americans as early as next week.” All tribunals have found claims that Canadian forest management practices perceived by the Americans as providing lumber exporters with advantages to be unfounded. Yet what will be brought to the table according to the Canadian Press is a plan whereby Canada would levy an export tax. A levy that would be lifted when “the U.S. Commerce Department is satisfied the provinces have implemented changes to their forestry policies to eliminate perceived subsidies that support lumber exporters.”
Should this proposal proceed and succeed in being the basis for an agreement the Americans will have obtained everything they aimed for. Or at least what they said they wanted for, as we know from the beef export ban, they move the goal posts whenever it suits their purposes.
Canada would get no more than what has already been won through a dozen successful appeals before WTO and NAFTA panels. Why, then, would this proposal that amounts to capitulation to American demands, be put forward? A question worth pursuing.
Yours truly,
Tracy Parsons
Dartmouth, N.S.