---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier PREMIER@novascotia.ca
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:18:39 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Softwood Tariffs Methinks Peter Julian and the snobby Yankee lawyer Elliot J. Feldman should understand why I posted this old "news' article within my blog N'esy Pas Justin Trudeau and Raymond Chretien?
To: David Amos
Thank you for your email to Premier McNeil.
This is an automatic confirmation your email has been received.
Warmest Regards,
Premier's Correspondence Unit
---------- Original message ----------
From: peter.julian@parl.gc.ca
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 14:18:44 +0000
Subject: Thank you for contacting our office / Merci d'avoir communiqué avec le bureau de Peter Julian, Député de New Westminster-Burnaby
To: motorcyclemaniac333@gmail.com
On behalf of Peter Julian, Member of Parliament (New Westminster-Burnaby), we would like to thank you for contacting our office.
Peter always welcomes and appreciates receiving your comments and suggestions, which are helpful to his work in both Canada's Parliament and in the Riding.
We want to assure you that your email has been received, will be reviewed as soon as possible and acted upon should it be required. Due to the high volume of electronic mail received, those messages from our constituents will be given the highest priority.
Please be certain that you have included your first, last name and mailing address (including your postal code) as well as the particulars of the federal policy issue you are concerned about.
We have moved to a new community office ~ Our new address is #110-888 Carnarvon Street, New Westminster V3M 0C6- beneath the New Westminster SkyTrain Station
Phone # is 604.775.5707.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 11:53:38 -0400
Subject: Re Federal Court File No. T-1557- 15 and the RCMP etc For the PUBLIC RECORD I just called the snobby Google dudes in Ottawa and the CRTC boss again
To: colinmckay@google.com, jean-pierre.blais@crtc.gc.ca, oldmaison1@yahoo.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, COCMoncton@gmail.com, Premier@gnb.ca, postur@for.is, RICHARD.C.TRACY@doj.nh.gov, betty_rawnsley@aim.com, jeanelizallan@gmail.com, stateofcorruptionnh1@gmail.com, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, breakingnews@wmur.com, kevin.avard@leg.state.nh.us, attorneygeneral@doj.nh.gov, brian@brianruhe.ca, littlefarm1@windstream.net, info@globalenergycap.com, jturley@law.gwu.edu, press@usdoj.gov, katherine.underwood@nbcuni.com, askdoj@usdoj.gov, mdcohen212@gmail.com, bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, andre@jafaust.com, mckeen.randy@gmail.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca, ddrummond@google.com, jkee@google.com, lisa.Connell@doj.nh.gov, rtachuk@amchamcanada.ca, dgough@amchamcanada.ca, jrowling@kpmg.ca, dujczo@dickinsonwright.com, bkitay@pallettvalo.com, rball@esd.ny.gov, gilles.blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, David.Coon@gnb.ca, peter.julian@parl.gc.ca, stephenyardy@gmail.com, elect@patstogran.ca, rchretien@fasken.com, Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca, PREMIER@gov.ns.ca, jamiebaillie@gov.ns.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca, CRAIG.DALTON@gnb.ca, Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, dale.drummond@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, Michael.Kowalchuk@cas-satj.gc.ca, bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca,mcu@justice.gc.ca,
Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, James.Comey@ic.fbi.gov>, marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca, Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca, info@gg.ca, serge.rousselle@gnb.ca, david.eidt@gnb.ca
Cc: David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com, motomaniac333@gmail.com, hon.melanie.joly@canada.ca, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca, Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc@canada.ca
Nobody within Google picked up the phone as usual but a nice lady
working for Commissioner Blais told me she would call me back. Heres
hoping that she does before May 24th.
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 10:18:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Softwood Tariffs Methinks Peter Julian and the snobby Yankee lawyer Elliot J. Feldman should understand why I posted this old "news' article within my blog N'esy Pas Justin Trudeau and Raymond Chretien?
To: peter.julian@parl.gc.ca, stephenyardy@gmail.com, elect@patstogran.ca, rchretien@fasken.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, ebedard@fasken.com, swhitehead@fasken.com, publicaffairs@doc.gov, sgriffith@akingump.com, lawrence.schneider@apks.com, efeldman@bakerlaw.com, deen.kaplan@hoganlovells.com, msdavenport@djtradelaw.com, mmoran@steptoe.com, matthew.clark@arentfox.com, matthew.nicely@hugheshubbard.com, dyocis@pkrllp.com, dharrison@gibsondunn.com, tbeline@cassidylevy.com, khm@mowrygrimson.com, wspak@whitecase.com, dcameron@mmmlaw.com, rweiner@sidley.com, yohai.baisburd@dentons.com, Joel.Junker@tradelawcounsel.com, wbarringer@curtis.com, jcail@akingump.com
Cc: David.Raymond.Amos@gmail.com, ddrummond@google.com, jkee@google.com, andre@jafaust.com, Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, David.Coon@gnb.ca, mdcohen212@gmail.com, Premier@gnb.ca, blaine.Higgs@gnb.ca, PREMIER@gov.ns.ca, jamiebaillie@gov.ns.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/04/yo-raymond-chretien-fyi-yesterday.html
Saturday, 29 April 2017
YO Raymond Chrétien FYI Yesterday the Yankee lawyer Elliot J. Feldman
speaking for some Quebecers in Washington demanded to know who I
really was and I responded by saying my name again.
https://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/08/29/SlushFund/
--------- Original message ----------
From: Premier PREMIER@novascotia.ca
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:02:21 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: [PROBABLE-SPAM] Attn Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. I
just called about Softwood Tariffs
To: David Amos motorcyclemaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for your email to Premier McNeil.
This is an automatic confirmation your email has been received.
Warmest Regards,
Premier's Correspondence Unit
Everybody Knows May 24th is coming fast
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Cohen
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:15:14 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: RE FATCA ATTN Pierre-Luc.Dusseault I just
called and left a message for you
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Effective January 20, 2017, I have accepted the role as personal
counsel to President Donald J. Trump. All future emails should be
directed to mdcohen212@gmail.com and all future calls should be
directed to 646-853-0114.
________________________________
This communication is from The Trump Organization or an affiliate
thereof and is not sent on behalf of any other individual or entity.
This email may contain information that is confidential and/or
proprietary. Such information may not be read, disclosed, used,
copied, distributed or disseminated except (1) for use by the intended
recipient or (2) as expressly authorized by the sender. If you have
received this communication in error, please immediately delete it and
promptly notify the sender. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
to be received, secure or error-free as emails could be intercepted,
corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late, incomplete, contain viruses
or otherwise. The Trump Organization and its affiliates do not
guarantee that all emails will be read and do not accept liability for
any errors or omissions in emails. Any views or opinions presented in
any email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of The Trump Organization or any of its
affiliates.Nothing in this communication is intended to operate as an
electronic signature under applicable law.
Text of my lawsuit
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2015/09/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
This is the docket in Federal Court
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1557-15&select_court=T
These are digital recordings of the last two hearings
Dec 14th https://archive.org/details/BahHumbug
Jan 11th https://archive.org/details/Jan11th2015
and Federal Court of Appeal
http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=A-48-16&select_court=All
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 5:12 PM
To: bob.paulson ; cathyc@ccca-cba.org ; Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ;
dwayne.woodman@rcmp-grc.gc.ca ; jan.jensen
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, Jody.Wilson-Raybould ; hon.ralph.goodale
Subject: Attn Bob Paulson and Jan Jensen et al Re A call from Cst Woodman
(506 851 7878) today As I said to him I look forward to meeting you RCMP
dudes in Federal Court
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:17:31 -0400
Subject: Attn Assistant Commissioner Larry Tremblay, Commanding
Officer, New Brunswick I just called and left a message for you
To: Larry.Tremblay@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, dale.drummond@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, CRAIG.DALTON@gnb.ca
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/nb/commanding-officer
Assistant Commissioner Larry Tremblay, Commanding Officer, New Brunswick
Larry TremblayAssistant Commissioner Larry Tremblay joined the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police in 1985 from Montreal, Quebec. Prior to
joining the Force, he served nearly four years in the Royal Canadian
Navy.
A/Commr. Tremblay began his RCMP career in New Brunswick, where he
spent 11 years occupying positions in general duty, covert operations
and drug enforcement across the province. Prior to joining the
executive ranks in 2002 with A Division's (Ottawa Region) Combined
Forces Special Enforcement Unit/Drug Section, he completed a series of
assignments related to federal enforcement and specialized services in
Regina, Milton, Ontario and Ottawa.
Between 2004 and 2008, A/Commr. Tremblay had the unique opportunity to
be seconded to CSIS, where he developed expertise in counter
proliferation and terrorism. Upon his return to the RCMP, he was
assigned to Federal Policing Criminal Operations as the Director
General responsible for National Security, Financial Crimes and
Serious Organized Crime investigations until 2014. Following this
role, he became the Criminal Operations and Protective officer at
National Division (Ottawa Region), where he was responsible for
sensitive and international investigations as well as the security of
Canada's Prime Minister, Governor General and Parliament Hill.
In 2015, A/Commr. Tremblay returned to Headquarters as Assistant
Commissioner of Federal Policing Strategic Policy & External
Relations. In this strategic advisor role, he led initiatives aimed at
maximizing the impact of RCMP programs, enhancing relationships with
domestic and international partners, as well as prevention
initiatives.
In 2016, A/Commr. Tremblay was appointed the 30th Commanding Officer
of the RCMP in New Brunswick.
A/Commr. Tremblay has received several medals and commendations
throughout his career for his dedication to excellence in policing. He
was granted The Order of Merit of the Police Forces from the Governor
General, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, in 2014.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:27:19 -0400
Subject: I repeat Mr Jensen have you contacted the RCMP and the FBI YET?
To: jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca
Michael.Kowalchuk@cas-satj.gc.ca, bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca,
bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, James.Comey@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca, Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca, info@gg.ca, serge.rousselle@gnb.ca, david.eidt@gnb.ca, premier@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca,
Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, David.Coon@gnb.ca, david@lutz.nb.ca, mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca, Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc@canada.ca, hon.melanie.joly@canada.ca, speaker.president@parl.gc.ca, speaker@leg.bc.ca, geoff@geoffregan.ca, heather.bradley@parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, mcohen@trumporg.com,
president@whitehouse.gov, Bill.Casey@parl.gc.ca, Pam.Goldsmith-Jones@parl.gc.ca, william.amos@gmail.com, Catherine.Harrop@cbc.ca, Catherine.McKenna@parl.gc.ca, Frank.McKenna@td.com, premier@gov.bc.ca, Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca, Michael.Wernick@pco-bcp.gc.ca
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/04/attn-jan-jensen-i-obviously-acknowledge.html
---------- Original message ----------
From: Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:31:32 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Re the CROWN'S SECOND QUERY about a Joint
Book of Authorites for its Cross Appeal within the Federal Court of
Appeal File No. A-48-16
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for writing to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Member
of Parliament for Vancouver Granville and Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the significant increase in the volume of correspondence
addressed to the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, please note that there may
be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message
will be carefully reviewed.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir ?crit ? l'honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, d?put?e pour
Vancouver Granville et ministre de la justice et procureur g?n?ral du
Canada.
En raison d'une augmentation importante du volume de la correspondance
adress?e ? l'honorable Jody Wilson-Raybould, veuillez prendre note
qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel.
Nous tenons ? vous assurer que votre message sera lu avec soin.
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:31:26 -0400
Subject: Re the CROWN'S SECOND QUERY about a Joint Book of Authorites
for its Cross Appeal within the Federal Court of Appeal File No. A-48-16
To: jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca, bob.paulson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Gilles.Blinn@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, James.Comey@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, marc.giroux@fja-cmf.gc.ca,
Norman.Sabourin@cjc-ccm.gc.ca,
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, info@gg.ca, serge.rousselle@gnb.ca, david.eidt@gnb.ca, premier@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca,
Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, David.Coon@gnb.ca, david@lutz.nb.ca, mark.vespucci@ci.irs.gov
Mr Jensen.
I believe my filing was clear in stating my wishes. Obviously my list
far less numerous than that of the CROWN'S.
I see no need to explain myself to you at this time other than to
explain that if the CROWN is successfaul in its malicious attempt to
dismiss and very legitmate complaint I will attempt to bring the
matter before the Supreme Court of Cnanda and I will need to argue the
Consitution etc.
Pursuant to the hearing on April 3rd. I ask again have you been in
touch with the RCMP or the FBI about the true copy of a Yankee wiretap
tape that has been in the docket of Federal Court since 2015 and
discussed by me with three judges of that court thus far?
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
902 800 0369
If anyone cares they can listen to the hearing right here
https://archive.org/details/April32017JusticeLeblancHearing
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/softwood-subsidy-interpretations-analysis-1.4094133
Liberal stance on softwood subsidy ignores U.S. ruling's words
Low tariff rate for J.D. Irving doesn't mean U.S. sees no government subsidies for N.B. mills
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: May 02, 2017 7:00 AM AT" Washington-based international trade lawyer Yohai Baisburd said the U.S. Department of Commerce made a preliminary determination that there are softwood subsidies in Canada, including in New Brunswick."
Errol Willis
The biggest question I have from this article is "why is Irving being subsidized at all?"
Do we really need to continue to provide financial benefits to one of the richest families in the country? I can understand it as a start up company, but the Irvings probably have move money that NB! But we continue to see this trend - similar to the new arena in Moncton to house Irvings' Wildcats.
We really need to get out of the subsidy business in situations like this. And then we should look at the taxation structure
David Raymond Amos
@Errol Willis What the
17th-century British politician once said "an ambassador is an honest
gentleman sent abroad to lie for his country." Is an irrefutably true
statement.
However we did not elect the politicians to lie to us. Everybody and his dog knows the Billionaires within the Irving Clan own the most heavily subsidized private companies in Canadian history and that they have a lot of politicians in their back pocket. Furthermore the Irving Clan employ legions of lawyers and beancounters such as those within KPMG to make certain that they pay the least amount of taxes of any sort in any country not just Canada.
I response to CBC's quote of the long dead Brit Henry Wotton, perhaps I should remind them of what a long dead Irish political philosopher, Whig politician and statesman who is often regarded as the father of modern conservatism once said
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke.
Just so ya know there is another fella who is the leader of a political in New Brunswick with the same sounding last name.Even though he only speaks only English clearly he has French folks in in family tree. The spelling of his family name dictates that simple fact.
"New political party aims to keep it simple"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/kiss-nb-political-party-1.4051485
"The only conclusion that we come to is that both parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, are exactly the same and that something had to be done or this province was going to go bankrupt," said Bourque.
In my humble opinion softwood tariffs are not an English versus French issue. It is just a matter of one wealthy Scottish Clan getting away with whatever they can because their Golden Rule is "He With the Gold Makes the Rules"
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/04/attn-wilbur-l-ross-jr-i-just-called.html
Friday, 28 April 2017
Attn Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. I just called about Softwood Tariffs
---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier PREMIER@novascotia.ca
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 19:02:21 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: [PROBABLE-SPAM] Attn Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. I just called about Softwood Tariffs
To: David Amos
Thank you for your email to Premier McNeil.
This is an automatic confirmation your email has been received.
Warmest Regards,
Premier's Correspondence Unit
Your message wasn't delivered to yohai.baisburd@dentons.com because
the address couldn't be found. Check for typos or unnecessary spaces
and try again.
Learn more here: https://community.mimecast.com/docs/DOC-1369#554
(Warning: This link will take you to a third-party site)
The response was:
554 Email rejected due to security policies -
https://community.mimecast.com/docs/DOC-1369#554
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:02:12 -0400
Subject: Attn Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. I just called about Softwood Tariffs
To: publicaffairs@doc.gov, sgriffith@akingump.com, lawrence.schneider@apks.com, efeldman@bakerlaw.com, deen.kaplan@hoganlovells.com, msdavenport@djtradelaw.com, mmoran@steptoe.com, matthew.clark@arentfox.com, matthew.nicely@hugheshubbard.com, dyocis@pkrllp.com, dharrison@gibsondunn.com, tbeline@cassidylevy.com, khm@mowrygrimson.com, wspak@whitecase.com, dcameron@mmmlaw.com, rweiner@sidley.com, yohai.baisburd@dentons.com, Joel.Junker@tradelawcounsel.com, wbarringer@curtis.com, pm
Cc: "David.Raymond.Amos"
https://www.commerce.gov/news/press-releases/2017/02/wilbur-l-ross-jr-sworn-secretary-commerce-vice-president-mike-pence
Wilbur L. Ross, Jr.
Secretary of Commerce and "King of Bankruptcy"
C/o
Office of Public Affairs
202-482-4883
publicaffairs@doc.gov
The documents hereto attached to and from Arnold & Porter and others
should refresh the memories of your Canadian clients and my Yankee
opponents as well.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:18:29 -0400
Subject: I just called about Softwood Tariffs
To: dkoschik@whitecase.com, vdesantis@whitecase.com
Cc: "David.Raymond.Amos"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/j-d-irving-advantage-tariff-trade-softwood-lumber-1.4087231
J.D. Irving Ltd. had advantage in fighting for lower tariff, says Roger Melanson
Irving denies advantage over other companies because of operation in Maine
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Apr 26, 2017 6:03 PM A
"The company uses a top Washington law firm, White and Case, that
specializes in international trade."
etc etc etc
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse
Saturday April 29, 2017
Trump's first trade punch and what it could mean for NAFTA renegotiations
This week on The House, what will be the impact of Donald Trump's decision to impose new duties on softwood lumber from Canada? What does Canada plan to do in response? And what does it say about where trade talks between the U.S. and Canada are heading? Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr joins us. We also talk to the head of the Canada Institute at the Wilson Center, Laura Dawson, and former Canadian ambassador to Washington, Raymond Chrétien.http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/04/attn-wilbur-l-ross-jr-i-just-called.html
Friday, 28 April 2017
Attn Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. I just called about Softwood Tariffs
https://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/08/29/SlushFund/
Bush 'Slush Fund,' Courtesy of Canada
Softwood deal pours $450 million straight into White House, says U.S. lawyer.
By Elliot J. Feldman 29 Aug 2006 | TheTyee.ca
Turning trade deal into Republican ammo?
Editor's note: On August 21 in Ottawa, the Standing Committee on International Trade heard a U.S. trade lawyer damn the proposed softwood lumber agreement as a terrible deal for Canadians. Elliot J. Feldman of Baker & Hostetler LLP argued that Canada caved at a moment of strength, given that international rulings continued to land firmly on our side. Instead, Feldman argued, this deal will kill the NAFTA process which has favoured Canada's position, and forfeit at least a billion dollars plus hundreds of millions of dollars more in interest that would have come our way had our negotiators hung tough.
Honorable members, responsibility for this deal ultimately resides with the government and with you, not the industry. It has been forced on the industry for political reasons. No one in the industry likes it, but many believe they have no choice and, therefore, many have already accepted it.
I want to talk for a few minutes about the genesis of this agreement and one of its most important and least discussed elements. There is a bit of Watergate in this story and, as in Watergate, it is essential to follow the money. Back before Christmas, David Emerson, then minister in a Liberal government, and his ambassador in Washington, Frank McKenna, were asking what it would cost to buy peace in softwood lumber. They were adhering to all of the usual Canadian negotiating positions on this subject: protecting Chapter 19 in NAFTA, fending off onerous anti-circumvention clauses, protecting Canadian prerogatives. But, unlike any previous dispute, this one involved the accumulation of over 4 billion, now 5 billion, dollars. And there was the Byrd Amendment, which led the U.S. industry to believe that if it could just stall long enough to wear down the Canadians, while claiming title to all of the money, they could settle for a lot of it. They knew the Canadians had brought a case in U.S. courts that could prohibit them from claiming any of the money pursuant to the Byrd Amendment. They demanded a 60/40 split back at Christmas.
Messieurs Emerson and McKenna negotiated to 50/50 and then asked industry. Industry calculated net present value against litigation prospects, and said "no." But, in the process, Messieurs McKenna and Emerson asked what would be enough. At that time, under those circumstances, they were told 70 per cent. Think, then of how impressed Mr. Emerson was with himself when in April, he could tell industry that he got 80 per cent. But, there were at least four huge problems, and he had neglected all of them.
'Legally entitled to not a penny'
First, on April 7, the United States Court of International Trade ruled that the U.S. industry was entitled legally to no money. None of it. It was not surprising then, that 20 days later, the U.S. coalition said that it would take $500 million. It was hardly a negotiating triumph to persuade them to take $500 million, when they had become legally entitled to not a penny.
Second, net present value at the end of April was not the same as it was at Christmas, especially as the pot kept growing. Canadian industry had in mind a fixed sum for the coalition, maybe as much as $150 million, not half a billion. Third, it was not quite as obvious in the two and a half page term sheet of April 27, that Canada would give away everything that the previous government had been defending in order to complete a deal, because political priorities had changed so radically. And fourth, the term sheet promised a major joint initiative to improve North American competitiveness. The "remainder" -- that was the word the terms said -- would go to so-called "meritorious initiatives" in the United States.
Industry was troubled by this last development. It wondered why it was providing foreign aid to the United States, but it was also reassured that the sum would be small. More impressively, Minister Emerson told CEOs that, as long as they were getting back 80 per cent of their money, it was none of their business what would happen to the rest. He was, by all accounts, very blunt on this subject. And, meanwhile, we were advised by negotiators that the White House had taken a direct and active interest in this money, but that Canadian industry ought to focus on other things. As the minister had said, it was not really their concern.
The "remainder," then, became $450 out of $500 million dollars.
'Gift of $450 million to the president'
That, honorable members, is a colossal sum of money. It certainly got the U.S. government, as well as the coalition getting the other $500 million, committed to the deal. It is astonishing how little, nothing really, the Canadian Government got in exchange for it. And let's understand this money -- the $500 million -- not the coalition's money, about which you heard some on July 31, but the rest.
Some perspective. At the height of the Watergate scandal, focus was on an illegal slush fund available to the Committee to Re-Elect the President, that was thought to be tipping the balance of American politics. The fund never exceeded $20 million. One of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was that he received foreign campaign donations, perhaps as much as $50,000. Both by statute and by the United States Constitution, gifts of money to the United States must go to the treasury and be appropriated by Congress. The lone, aberrant and still controversial exception has been money donated in the immediate aftermath of the emergency created by Hurricane Katrina, and the sums involved were very small.
So, here we have the government of Canada requiring that Canadian private parties sign over $450 million to an escrow fund slated to be conveyed to the White House. The agreement does not mention Congress, and the Bush administration says that Congress will not be involved in any way with this agreement. The government of Canada thus is making a gift of $450 million to be spent by the president. That was more than a belt buckle, even more than a stetson, on July 6th. There is only one date certain in the deal: that the planned expenditure of the $450 million must be determined by September 1.
Political blowback?
Curious, that date, which traditionally is the kick-off for campaigns in the United States in election years. Yes, it's an election year, and the Republican control of Congress is considered in trouble. The entire Republican campaign war chest is less than $300 million. Canada will add to it by 150 per cent in funds to be expended for "meritorious initiatives." It does not require much imagination to foresee the strategic places where this money will be spent.
This peace on softwood lumber will probably not improve Canada's relations with the United States, because this colossal sum of money is going to the White House, not the U.S. Treasury. When the Democratic party learns of it and understands it, it's not likely to be pleased, and it's possible that, despite the infusion of such money, the Democrats nevertheless will win in November. Canada may then have much improved relations with the Republican party but not with the United States.
During questions following Feldman's presentation, NDP MP Peter Julian (New Westminster/Burnaby) noted the "quite a staggering revelation that the funding of $450 million would be, if I understand it, under the control of the White House; Congress would have no say and Canada would have no say as to the use of that money. And, hence, in a mid-term election year we would be giving $450 million to a massive political fund." Feldman responded:
Turning trade deal into Republican ammo?
Editor's note: On August 21 in Ottawa, the Standing Committee on International Trade heard a U.S. trade lawyer damn the proposed softwood lumber agreement as a terrible deal for Canadians. Elliot J. Feldman of Baker & Hostetler LLP argued that Canada caved at a moment of strength, given that international rulings continued to land firmly on our side. Instead, Feldman argued, this deal will kill the NAFTA process which has favoured Canada's position, and forfeit at least a billion dollars plus hundreds of millions of dollars more in interest that would have come our way had our negotiators hung tough.
Feldman, who is based in Washington, D.C.,
offered one more bit of startling analysis, excerpted below. The deal,
he said, will funnel nearly half a billion dollars directly to George
Bush's White House, creating a political "slush fund" available to the
Republicans and the U.S. timber industry for waging future campaigns.]
Honorable members, responsibility for this deal ultimately resides with the government and with you, not the industry. It has been forced on the industry for political reasons. No one in the industry likes it, but many believe they have no choice and, therefore, many have already accepted it.
I want to talk for a few minutes about the genesis of this agreement and one of its most important and least discussed elements. There is a bit of Watergate in this story and, as in Watergate, it is essential to follow the money. Back before Christmas, David Emerson, then minister in a Liberal government, and his ambassador in Washington, Frank McKenna, were asking what it would cost to buy peace in softwood lumber. They were adhering to all of the usual Canadian negotiating positions on this subject: protecting Chapter 19 in NAFTA, fending off onerous anti-circumvention clauses, protecting Canadian prerogatives. But, unlike any previous dispute, this one involved the accumulation of over 4 billion, now 5 billion, dollars. And there was the Byrd Amendment, which led the U.S. industry to believe that if it could just stall long enough to wear down the Canadians, while claiming title to all of the money, they could settle for a lot of it. They knew the Canadians had brought a case in U.S. courts that could prohibit them from claiming any of the money pursuant to the Byrd Amendment. They demanded a 60/40 split back at Christmas.
Messieurs Emerson and McKenna negotiated to 50/50 and then asked industry. Industry calculated net present value against litigation prospects, and said "no." But, in the process, Messieurs McKenna and Emerson asked what would be enough. At that time, under those circumstances, they were told 70 per cent. Think, then of how impressed Mr. Emerson was with himself when in April, he could tell industry that he got 80 per cent. But, there were at least four huge problems, and he had neglected all of them.
'Legally entitled to not a penny'
First, on April 7, the United States Court of International Trade ruled that the U.S. industry was entitled legally to no money. None of it. It was not surprising then, that 20 days later, the U.S. coalition said that it would take $500 million. It was hardly a negotiating triumph to persuade them to take $500 million, when they had become legally entitled to not a penny.
Second, net present value at the end of April was not the same as it was at Christmas, especially as the pot kept growing. Canadian industry had in mind a fixed sum for the coalition, maybe as much as $150 million, not half a billion. Third, it was not quite as obvious in the two and a half page term sheet of April 27, that Canada would give away everything that the previous government had been defending in order to complete a deal, because political priorities had changed so radically. And fourth, the term sheet promised a major joint initiative to improve North American competitiveness. The "remainder" -- that was the word the terms said -- would go to so-called "meritorious initiatives" in the United States.
Industry was troubled by this last development. It wondered why it was providing foreign aid to the United States, but it was also reassured that the sum would be small. More impressively, Minister Emerson told CEOs that, as long as they were getting back 80 per cent of their money, it was none of their business what would happen to the rest. He was, by all accounts, very blunt on this subject. And, meanwhile, we were advised by negotiators that the White House had taken a direct and active interest in this money, but that Canadian industry ought to focus on other things. As the minister had said, it was not really their concern.
The "remainder," then, became $450 out of $500 million dollars.
'Gift of $450 million to the president'
That, honorable members, is a colossal sum of money. It certainly got the U.S. government, as well as the coalition getting the other $500 million, committed to the deal. It is astonishing how little, nothing really, the Canadian Government got in exchange for it. And let's understand this money -- the $500 million -- not the coalition's money, about which you heard some on July 31, but the rest.
Some perspective. At the height of the Watergate scandal, focus was on an illegal slush fund available to the Committee to Re-Elect the President, that was thought to be tipping the balance of American politics. The fund never exceeded $20 million. One of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was that he received foreign campaign donations, perhaps as much as $50,000. Both by statute and by the United States Constitution, gifts of money to the United States must go to the treasury and be appropriated by Congress. The lone, aberrant and still controversial exception has been money donated in the immediate aftermath of the emergency created by Hurricane Katrina, and the sums involved were very small.
So, here we have the government of Canada requiring that Canadian private parties sign over $450 million to an escrow fund slated to be conveyed to the White House. The agreement does not mention Congress, and the Bush administration says that Congress will not be involved in any way with this agreement. The government of Canada thus is making a gift of $450 million to be spent by the president. That was more than a belt buckle, even more than a stetson, on July 6th. There is only one date certain in the deal: that the planned expenditure of the $450 million must be determined by September 1.
Political blowback?
Curious, that date, which traditionally is the kick-off for campaigns in the United States in election years. Yes, it's an election year, and the Republican control of Congress is considered in trouble. The entire Republican campaign war chest is less than $300 million. Canada will add to it by 150 per cent in funds to be expended for "meritorious initiatives." It does not require much imagination to foresee the strategic places where this money will be spent.
This peace on softwood lumber will probably not improve Canada's relations with the United States, because this colossal sum of money is going to the White House, not the U.S. Treasury. When the Democratic party learns of it and understands it, it's not likely to be pleased, and it's possible that, despite the infusion of such money, the Democrats nevertheless will win in November. Canada may then have much improved relations with the Republican party but not with the United States.
During questions following Feldman's presentation, NDP MP Peter Julian (New Westminster/Burnaby) noted the "quite a staggering revelation that the funding of $450 million would be, if I understand it, under the control of the White House; Congress would have no say and Canada would have no say as to the use of that money. And, hence, in a mid-term election year we would be giving $450 million to a massive political fund." Feldman responded:
Mr. Julian: So what you're saying is that we are not only providing money to the coalition to fight further legal victories, for further legal battles -- giving half a billion dollars to them -- but we're also providing money that may go to political purposes for the re-election of Republicans, many of whom have been the most adamant against allowing free trade in lumber. It is ridiculous.
Mr. Feldman: The provision in Article 13.A.2 of the agreement, which recites the meritorious initiatives, is language which could be defined only as a slush fund for the president.
Elliot J. Feldman is a partner of the law firm Baker Hostetler and represents clients in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Australia. He is the former director of the University Consortium for Research on North America at Harvard University and is a director of the Canadian-American Business Council.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-reaction-softwood-countervailing-tuesday-1.4084390
Wilbur Ross says Canada is 'dumping lumber,' as Ottawa vows to push back
'I'm confident that this is a good case,' U.S. commerce secretary says as Canadians call duties a 'shakedown'
By Janyce McGregor, CBC News Posted: Apr 25, 2017 11:58 AM ET
U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told reporters in
Washington Tuesday that the current disputes with Canada over softwood
lumber and dairy products are proof that NAFTA needs to be renegotiated
sooner rather than later. (Andrew Harnik/Associated Press)
But Canada's forest industry says there was no evidence of an American desire to get a deal prior to the U.S. Commerce Department's decision to levy countervailing duties of between three and 24 per cent on Canadian imports.
"Everything relates to everything else when you are trying to negotiate," Ross told reporters at a White House briefing in Washington. "What we had tried to do was to clear the air and get this dispute out of the way before the big NAFTA talks went on. That was not possible to achieve and that's why we went ahead and released the findings."
- 'Softwood or software:' Canadian interests come first, Trudeau says
- U.S. imposes preliminary duties of up to 24% on softwood lumber
- Canadian dollar falls in face of U.S. softwood lumber duties
"People don't realize Canada's been very rough on the United States," President Donald Trump said at an agriculture roundtable shortly after.
"But they've outsmarted our politicians for many years," he said, "so we did institute a very big tariff."
Ross told reporters Canada is "generally a good neighbour," but "that doesn't mean they don't have to play by the rules."
"Things like this I don't regard as being a good neighbour, dumping lumber."
"It's not a question of President Trump 'messing' with the Canadians. We believe the Canadians violated legitimate practice," Ross said, explaining his department's decision.
"The challenge for us is we haven't really had a willing dance partner on the other side," said Susan Yurkovich, the industry association's president. "There was no desire to get a deal on the other side."
"The Canadian industry is not subsidized. Log costs in the United States are less than they are in Canada," said Duncan Davies, the CEO of Interfor Corporation. "We should all understand the work of politics in this whole situation."
Davies said he agreed with former cabinet minister David Emerson, now B.C.'s lumber envoy, who called these moves a shakedown. "This shouldn't be described as anything other than that."
Ready to fight back
Yurkovich said the decision to make duties retroactive was a particularly "egregious outcome" and "completely unprecedented," accusing the U.S. of pitting Canadian companies against each other in the way it made duties retroactive for some, but not all.
"It doesn't make any sense," she said, adding that until they've had a chance to actually read the U.S. rationale — it hasn't been made available to either companies or Canadian governments yet — they can't say further what their counter-arguments will be.
"These guys are deal makers," she said, suggesting the tough duties may be an American attempt to "rattle the cage" before talks begin.
"We're not going to be rattled," she said.
B.C. Liberal Leader Christy Clark, currently campaigning for re-election, told reporters she had spoken to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today. The conference call with the rest of the premiers focused on Canada's next moves.
"We're only going to accept an agreement with the United States … that is good and fair for B.C. workers. We will fight and we will win," Clark said.
According to the PMO, Trudeau and the premiers agreed to work together to "strongly defend Canadian interests."
At a news conference in Ottawa, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr told reporters the U.S. move was not a surprise, and that although he wasn't announcing anything immediately, Canada is exploring its legal options.
"Independent trade panels have repeatedly found these claims to be baseless. We have prevailed in the past and we will do so again," he said.
"Our government disagrees strongly with this decision," the minister said. "It is unfounded and we will vigorously fight for the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry, its workers, and their communities."
But the short-term effects will harm the industry and workers, he said.
"If we look at the history of these trade actions, there inevitably will be job losses, and we will focus our efforts on doing whatever we can to ease the impact of those job losses," Carr said.
Workers sort and move lumber at the Delta
Cedar Sawmill in Delta, B.C., earlier this year. The United States fired
the opening shot in a fifth softwood-lumber war with Canada on Tuesday,
and policy-makers north of the border are calculating the potential
damage of American duties. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)
Negotiated settlement still preferable
Because the Canadian government was unable to negotiate a new softwood lumber agreement with former president Barack Obama's administration, Canada and the U.S. were on a collision course before Trump was elected last fall.
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said the government had not done enough to prepare for a day it knew was coming, saying Trudeau had 18 months since the expiry of the previous deal to work on a plan to support the Canadian industry and yet had nothing new to announce today.
"What has this government been doing for 18 months, that's the real question," Mulcair said. "Apparently the answer is nothing."
"We remember Obama and Mr. Trudeau talking about 100 days and we'd have this solved. Well they didn't solve it," said the Conservative critic for Canada-U.S. relations, Randy Hoback. "Now we have a lot of families sitting there without a certain future."
Liberal ministers have been making frequent trips to the United States in recent months to discuss trade issues with their U.S. and state counterparts.
Carr noted that softwood lumber has been a major trade irritant between the two countries for nearly two centuries and that Canada has won the dispute every time.
"We remain confident that a negotiated settlement is not only possible but in the best interests of both countries," the minister said.
The full extent of the potential damage to Canada's industry won't be known until a parallel anti-dumping duties investigation is complete. More duties are expected when that reports back in June, and then a combined duty rate will be determined in the fall.
The range of these preliminary countervailing duties — three to 24 per cent for five major importers, with all other companies facing duties of 19.88 per cent — is not wildly off the 19.31 countervailing duties imposed in the last round of this dispute in 2001. The eventual combined duty rate in that round was about 27 per cent.
It's too early to conclude that it will be higher this time, although some fear it will be.
There have been signs from the U.S. Commerce Department that it might be willing to exempt some Atlantic Canadian provinces from the new duties. But officials told reporters in Ottawa Thursday they've had no confirmation yet that such an exemption is coming.
- Softwood lumber decision Tuesday is Trump's next chance to hammer Canada
- Canada pursues possible trade deal with China as softwood lumber dispute with U.S. heats up
Trudeau also spoke with Trump by phone Tuesday. Both the White House and the Prime Minister's Office released statements after the call.
The U.S. statement simply said, "The two leaders discussed the dairy trade in Wisconsin, New York state and various other places. They also discussed lumber coming into the United States. It was a very amicable call."
The statement issued by the PMO was far longer and included details of the arguments Trudeau made in defence of the softwood lumber and dairy industries in Canada.
The release says Trudeau dismissed the U.S. Department of Commerce's "baseless accusations," on softwood and he also noted that U.S. has a dairy trade surplus with Canada. The pair also "agreed on the importance of reaching a negotiated settlement" on lumber.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/raymond-chretien-nafta-softwood-trump-1.4090376
Trudeau has 'window' to settle softwood dispute before NAFTA talks: Raymond Chrétien
Canada can make the case that settling softwood dispute will help U.S. middle class
By Catharine Tunney, CBC News Posted: Apr 28, 2017 5:28 PM ET
Raymond Chrétien speaks at a news conference on softwood
lumber in April at the legislature in Quebec City. (Jacques
Boissinot/Canadian Press)
According to former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Raymond Chrétien, the Trudeau government has a small window to settle the softwood lumber dispute out of court before U.S. President Donald Trump kicks off his renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement.
The two countries' dispute over softwood lumber goes back years, and in the most recent flare-up the U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed countervailing duties of between three and 24 per cent on Canadian imports.
Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr responded to the tariffs by saying Canada is exploring its legal options.
- Wilbur Ross: Canada is 'dumping lumber'
- Canada bet on Trump for better softwood deal
- Listen to CBC Radio's The House
But Chrétien, who is also Quebec's lead negotiator on the softwood lumber file, told CBC Radio's The House host Chris Hall that the dispute doesn't have to get that far.
"I'm confident that there's a window, perhaps for a negotiated settlement for the following reason: Mr. Trump has indicated that he wanted a quick ... renegotiation of NAFTA, but this is not possible in my view," he said.
"So why not solve the lumber dispute before you tackle the more comprehensive, complicated NAFTA negotiations?" Chrétien said in an interview airing Saturday.
"So hopefully there's a small window there and I'm sure that in Ottawa they would welcome a softwood lumber deal."
Chrétien, who served as ambassador from 1994 to 2000 and watched NAFTA come into effect, said that between Trump's health-care stumble earlier this year and the potential difficulties involved in implementing his tax reforms, Trump will be looking for a victory on lumber quickly.
Quick NAFTA negotiations unlikely
Chrétien said Trudeau's government can make a consumer case to both U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Trump, because the pair are both businessmen.
"I mean the fact that Mr. Trump wants to help the middle class, and of course our lumber is necessary to keep the housing costs low, so [we must] very much try to make our case in line with his overall desire to help the middle class there," Chrétien said.
On NAFTA, Chrétien said it will take time to work with Congress before revising the agreement.
"In my view NAFTA cannot be renegotiated in a matter of weeks or months," he said.
"I remember the hugely important role of Congress. This is not up to the administration to decide; Congress has the final word on this. What will be the scenario next week, I cannot tell you."
Listen to more trade coverage on CBC Radio's The House
Saturday April 29, 2017
Trump's first trade punch and what it could mean for NAFTA renegotiations
This week on The House, what will be the impact of Donald Trump's decision to impose new duties on softwood lumber from Canada? What does Canada plan to do in response? And what does it say about where trade talks between the U.S. and Canada are heading? Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr joins us. We also talk to the head of the Canada Institute at the Wilson Center, Laura Dawson, and former Canadian ambassador to Washington, Raymond Chrétien.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/softwood-lumber-new-brunswick-negotiation-1.4091100
Ottawa called on to push for renewed softwood exclusion in U.S.
Gallant government says it will soon appoint 'senior negotiator' in effort to see sawmills avoid 20% tariff
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: Apr 28, 2017 7:00 PM AT
Trade Minister Roger Melanson says the Gallant government
will soon appoint a senior negotiator in an effort to persuade the
United States to restore the tariff exclusion for lumber exported to the
U.S. (CBC)
New Brunswick sawmills could be facing an all-or-nothing gamble in the softwood lumber case with the United States.
The Gallant government repeated its call Friday for Ottawa to negotiate the restoration of an exclusion for Maritime mills from American tariffs.
"That's where we want to put all of our effort and our energy," Trade Minister Roger Melanson said of the call for an absolute exclusion of all mills from the U.S. tariffs.
Other than J.D. Irving Ltd., all sawmills in the province are subject to a 20 per cent tariff, which is based on a formula and applies across Canada.
The only other route the mills have to escape that tariff would be to file for an expedited review later this year.
It's a costly regulatory process that would likely require hiring high-priced Washington trade lawyers, and Melanson quickly ruled out the province helping mills do that.
"That's not something we can do," he said. "We will not put ourselves in a position where we are perceived to be subsidizing the industry."
Melanson said the province will soon appoint its own "senior negotiator" to represent New Brunswick's interests in Washington and Ottawa.
An expedited review could only take place after the U.S. releases its final decision on the tariffs later this year. There's no way for mills to avoid paying it or to get the rate changed between now and then, according to Washington trade lawyer Yohai Baisburd.
Irving is the only New Brunswick company to avoid the higher tariff
because it applied in January for a voluntary investigation by U.S.
officials of its operations, including any subsidies it receives from
governments.
Irving ended up with a far lower tariff of 3.02 per cent.
A determination memorandum from the U.S. Commerce Department lays out the rationale for that figure, listing various government programs that Irving used and assigning each of them a percentage value.
Stumpage fees on Crown land, which the U.S. considers a subsidy, are worth 1.62 per cent, for example. A program that lets Irving sell electricity from biomass to NB Power and buy it back at a lower price is worth 0.09 per cent.
But there's no similar breakdown for the 19.88 per cent tariff applied to all other sawmills in the province and in Canada because it's what's called an "all-others rate."
U.S. law says the "all-other" rate must be calculated by averaging the tariffs applied to mills that were investigated individually. In the softwood case, it was based on rates ranging from Irving's three per cent to a 24 per cent tariff on a British Columbia company.
Irving said this week it agrees with the Gallant government's position that the U.S. decision shows the industry is not subsidized in the province and the exclusion from tariffs should be restored.
But that's subject to Canada-U.S. negotiations and there's no guarantee the Trump administration will say yes to the exclusion.
If New Brunswick mills decide to seek an expedited review, it can only happen at the end of the investigation later this year.
The federal government's website says any company seeking an expedited review should consider hiring U.S. law firms that specialize in international trade, an expensive proposition.
"Depending on the complexity of the case, they can be expensive," said Baisburd, a trade lawyer in Washington.
"I wouldn't have the resources" to fight a case in Washington,
sawmill owner Danny Stillwell told CBC News earlier this week. "Even
some of the mid-sized mills wouldn't have the resources to take this to
Commerce."
Harry Gill, the owner of Devon Lumber, which hosted Melanson's news conference Friday, said he wasn't sure if he and other mill owners could afford it either.
"I don't know if we'll have to cross that road or not," he said. "We'll see."
Devon Lumber employs 40 people and ships 90 per cent of its wood to the U.S. Gill said the company's ability to survive the new tariff will depend on market prices.
Ironically, J.D. Irving Ltd. itself recently used the expedited-review process to escape an "all-others" tariff rate in an unrelated case.
Irving was facing a tariff of more than 18 per cent on its supercalendered paper exports to the U.S.
But it applied for an expedited review, which led to that rate being lowered by more than two-thirds, to 5.87 per cent.
J.D. Irving would not comment Friday on whether it would help other mills pay for an expedited review.
Some of the U.S. documents list Irving as part of a group of mills called the New Brunswick Lumber Producers and represented by a Washington law firm.
But Irving has also used its own Washington law firm and has benefited from support from powerful U.S. politicians.
Two influential U.S. senators from Maine, Republican Susan Collins and independent Angus King, both called U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross last month to ask that Irving be investigated individually, public documents show.
Irving employs hundreds of people in its forestry operations in Maine and a staffer for King thanked Ross's office for taking the time to speak about "this important issue for Maine."
The U.S. industry has argued New Brunswick should no longer have an exclusion from tariffs because the share of wood from Crown forests going to sawmills has crossed a threshold that means companies here are benefiting from unfair subsidies.
The Gallant government repeated its call Friday for Ottawa to negotiate the restoration of an exclusion for Maritime mills from American tariffs.
"That's where we want to put all of our effort and our energy," Trade Minister Roger Melanson said of the call for an absolute exclusion of all mills from the U.S. tariffs.
Other than J.D. Irving Ltd., all sawmills in the province are subject to a 20 per cent tariff, which is based on a formula and applies across Canada.
The only other route the mills have to escape that tariff would be to file for an expedited review later this year.
It's a costly regulatory process that would likely require hiring high-priced Washington trade lawyers, and Melanson quickly ruled out the province helping mills do that.
"That's not something we can do," he said. "We will not put ourselves in a position where we are perceived to be subsidizing the industry."
'Senior negotiator' to be named
Melanson said the province will soon appoint its own "senior negotiator" to represent New Brunswick's interests in Washington and Ottawa.
An expedited review could only take place after the U.S. releases its final decision on the tariffs later this year. There's no way for mills to avoid paying it or to get the rate changed between now and then, according to Washington trade lawyer Yohai Baisburd.
Most New Brunswick sawmills will have to pay a
tariff of 20 per cent to export lumber to the United States, says the
U.S. Department of Commerce. J.D. Irving will have a lower tariff of
3.02 per cent. (CBC)
Irving ended up with a far lower tariff of 3.02 per cent.
A determination memorandum from the U.S. Commerce Department lays out the rationale for that figure, listing various government programs that Irving used and assigning each of them a percentage value.
Stumpage fees on Crown land, which the U.S. considers a subsidy, are worth 1.62 per cent, for example. A program that lets Irving sell electricity from biomass to NB Power and buy it back at a lower price is worth 0.09 per cent.
But there's no similar breakdown for the 19.88 per cent tariff applied to all other sawmills in the province and in Canada because it's what's called an "all-others rate."
U.S. law says the "all-other" rate must be calculated by averaging the tariffs applied to mills that were investigated individually. In the softwood case, it was based on rates ranging from Irving's three per cent to a 24 per cent tariff on a British Columbia company.
Irving said this week it agrees with the Gallant government's position that the U.S. decision shows the industry is not subsidized in the province and the exclusion from tariffs should be restored.
But that's subject to Canada-U.S. negotiations and there's no guarantee the Trump administration will say yes to the exclusion.
Expensive proposition
If New Brunswick mills decide to seek an expedited review, it can only happen at the end of the investigation later this year.
The federal government's website says any company seeking an expedited review should consider hiring U.S. law firms that specialize in international trade, an expensive proposition.
"Depending on the complexity of the case, they can be expensive," said Baisburd, a trade lawyer in Washington.
Devon Lumber in Fredericton ships 90 per cent of its products to the United States. (Jacques Poitras)
Harry Gill, the owner of Devon Lumber, which hosted Melanson's news conference Friday, said he wasn't sure if he and other mill owners could afford it either.
"I don't know if we'll have to cross that road or not," he said. "We'll see."
Devon Lumber employs 40 people and ships 90 per cent of its wood to the U.S. Gill said the company's ability to survive the new tariff will depend on market prices.
Irving sought review in other case
Ironically, J.D. Irving Ltd. itself recently used the expedited-review process to escape an "all-others" tariff rate in an unrelated case.
Irving was facing a tariff of more than 18 per cent on its supercalendered paper exports to the U.S.
But it applied for an expedited review, which led to that rate being lowered by more than two-thirds, to 5.87 per cent.
- Forestry changes in 2014 made New Brunswick a lumber target in U.S.
- Uncertain future: New tariff will hurt N.B. sawmills' bottom line
- Woodlot owners worry softwood duties will push them out of business
J.D. Irving would not comment Friday on whether it would help other mills pay for an expedited review.
Some of the U.S. documents list Irving as part of a group of mills called the New Brunswick Lumber Producers and represented by a Washington law firm.
But Irving has also used its own Washington law firm and has benefited from support from powerful U.S. politicians.
Maine politicians speak up
Two influential U.S. senators from Maine, Republican Susan Collins and independent Angus King, both called U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross last month to ask that Irving be investigated individually, public documents show.
Irving employs hundreds of people in its forestry operations in Maine and a staffer for King thanked Ross's office for taking the time to speak about "this important issue for Maine."
The U.S. industry has argued New Brunswick should no longer have an exclusion from tariffs because the share of wood from Crown forests going to sawmills has crossed a threshold that means companies here are benefiting from unfair subsidies.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/maritimes-loses-softwood-lumber-exemption-1.4084447
Nova Scotia softwood lumber exports to U.S. to be hit with 20% tariff
'Needless to say, we are disappointed,' says Trade Minister Michel Samson
By Paul Withers, CBC News Posted: Apr 25, 2017 2:03 PM AT
Nova Scotia has previously been exempt from countervailing duties for softwood lumber it sends to the U.S.
(The Canadian Press)
After a day of uncertainty, the Nova Scotia government
admitted late Tuesday afternoon it has lost a long-standing exemption
from U.S. border taxes on softwood lumber exports from the province, at
least for now.
"Needless to say, we are disappointed," said Trade Minister Michel Samson.
Earlier in the day, Samson said the province was awaiting official confirmation on the fate of the exemption from American authorities.
As of May 1, a 19.88 per cent tariff will be imposed on Nova Scotia softwood forest products shipped into the U.S.
The countervailing duty, announced Monday night, ends a three-decades old exemption granted by the U.S. in recognition that Atlantic Canada's forest industry is not subsidized.
Nova Scotia and two other Atlantic provinces even had support from
the U.S Lumber Coalition, the industry lobby group pushing for punitive
tariffs on Canadian softwood.
On April 3, it amended its petition asking to maintain the exemption for softwood from Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador.
The U.S. Commerce Department said Tuesday it is considering the U.S. industry's request for an Atlantic region exemption.
Samson hopes the countervailing duty is temporary.
"There's been a decision to defer consideration of the exemption. We are going to continue all our efforts to again show to the U.S. Lumber Coalition and the Department of Commerce that Nova Scotia producers have been playing by the rules," he said.
The region's odd province out is New Brunswick, which the Americans claim is subsidizing its forest industry, dominated by J.D. Irving.
Irving asked to be specifically included in the U.S. Commerce Department's investigation into Canadian softwood. As it turns out, Irving was slapped with a three per cent countervailing duty on Monday night, the lowest for any producer in Canada.
Every other producer in Atlantic Canada is now facing a countervailing duty of nearly 20 per cent.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/softwood-subsidy-interpretations-analysis-1.4094133
"Needless to say, we are disappointed," said Trade Minister Michel Samson.
Earlier in the day, Samson said the province was awaiting official confirmation on the fate of the exemption from American authorities.
As of May 1, a 19.88 per cent tariff will be imposed on Nova Scotia softwood forest products shipped into the U.S.
The countervailing duty, announced Monday night, ends a three-decades old exemption granted by the U.S. in recognition that Atlantic Canada's forest industry is not subsidized.
Trade Minister Michel Samson says he hopes the countervailing duty is temporary. (CBC)
On April 3, it amended its petition asking to maintain the exemption for softwood from Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador.
The U.S. Commerce Department said Tuesday it is considering the U.S. industry's request for an Atlantic region exemption.
Samson hopes the countervailing duty is temporary.
"There's been a decision to defer consideration of the exemption. We are going to continue all our efforts to again show to the U.S. Lumber Coalition and the Department of Commerce that Nova Scotia producers have been playing by the rules," he said.
Irving not facing same tariff
The region's odd province out is New Brunswick, which the Americans claim is subsidizing its forest industry, dominated by J.D. Irving.
Irving asked to be specifically included in the U.S. Commerce Department's investigation into Canadian softwood. As it turns out, Irving was slapped with a three per cent countervailing duty on Monday night, the lowest for any producer in Canada.
Every other producer in Atlantic Canada is now facing a countervailing duty of nearly 20 per cent.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/softwood-subsidy-interpretations-analysis-1.4094133
Liberal stance on softwood subsidy ignores U.S. ruling's words
Low tariff rate for J.D. Irving doesn't mean U.S. sees no government subsidies for N.B. mills
By Jacques Poitras, CBC News Posted: May 02, 2017 7:00 AM AT
Premier Brian Gallant has stated the Trump
administration's preliminary decision on softwood lumber demonstrates
that New Brunswick mills are not being subsidized, even though the U.S.
is applying tariffs against New Brunswick sawmills because of government
subsidies. (CBC)
A 17th-century British politician once said an ambassador is "an honest gentleman sent abroad to lie for his country."
In the diplomatic war of words over U.S. softwood lumber tariffs, the Gallant Liberals haven't accurately described what the Trump administration's preliminary decision said last week.
"To me, what it demonstrates is that the New Brunswick businesses are not being subsidized," Premier Brian Gallant said last Tuesday.
"For us it's demonstration that here in New Brunswick, the allegations that are coming from the U.S. industry are false."
It's a key point: under U.S. law, if Canadian softwood exports are subsidized, they're being sold in the U.S. at an artificially low price, putting American producers at a disadvantage. The administration can then apply tariffs and duties to raise the price for American buyers.
Gallant's comments were echoed by his trade minister, Roger Melanson.
"It's encouraging that they recognize that we're not subsidizing the industry," Melanson said.
There's just one problem with their logic: that's not what the Trump administration is "demonstrating" or "recognizing" at all.
"What the Department of Commerce found in the preliminary determination is that there are subsidies in Canada," said Washington-based international trade lawyer Yohai Baisburd. That includes New Brunswick.
Compare that to the high rate applied to one British Columbia company, 24 per cent, and you can see why the Liberals would latch on to the Irving rate to advance their argument.
But the 124-page U.S. preliminary determination memorandum clearly says Irving is subsidized — just at a lower rate than four other Canadian forestry companies it investigated.
It says Irving received "the benefit from subsidies," and tallies up a range of government programs and policies, from stumpage fees on Crown land to a biomass electricity buy-back program, to arrive at a rate of 3.02 per cent.
Under U.S. law and World Trade Organization rules, any subsidy higher than one per cent "can be the justification" for tariffs, Baisburd said.
So the U.S. finding is not "no subsidy," as Gallant asserted, but "low subsidy."
Fredericton Liberal MP Matt DeCourcey, the parliamentary secretary to the foreign affairs minister, has also mixed the two concepts.
He told CBC News last week Irving's three-per-cent tariff "adds
credence to the whole argument that industry right across New Brunswick
should be entirely exempt from any countervailing or punitive duties."
If J.D. Irving were the only sawmill company in New Brunswick, the province might swallow the three-per-cent tariff and move on.
But other sawmills in the province face a higher tariff rate of 19.88 per cent, just like other Canadian companies that weren't investigated individually as Irving was.
The other New Brunswick mills are eligible for the same programs as Irving, and last week Opposition Progressive Conservative Leader Blaine Higgs — rather than claim there are no subsidies — said the U.S. should be consistent and apply Irving's lower rate to other mills.
"That [Irving rate]
In the diplomatic war of words over U.S. softwood lumber tariffs, the Gallant Liberals haven't accurately described what the Trump administration's preliminary decision said last week.
"To me, what it demonstrates is that the New Brunswick businesses are not being subsidized," Premier Brian Gallant said last Tuesday.
"For us it's demonstration that here in New Brunswick, the allegations that are coming from the U.S. industry are false."
It's a key point: under U.S. law, if Canadian softwood exports are subsidized, they're being sold in the U.S. at an artificially low price, putting American producers at a disadvantage. The administration can then apply tariffs and duties to raise the price for American buyers.
Gallant's comments were echoed by his trade minister, Roger Melanson.
"It's encouraging that they recognize that we're not subsidizing the industry," Melanson said.
Washington-based international trade lawyer
Yohai Baisburd said the U.S. Department of Commerce made a preliminary
determination that there are softwood subsidies in Canada, including in
New Brunswick. (Submitted)
"What the Department of Commerce found in the preliminary determination is that there are subsidies in Canada," said Washington-based international trade lawyer Yohai Baisburd. That includes New Brunswick.
Claim based on Irving rate
Gallant and Melanson based their no-subsidy claim on J.D. Irving Ltd., New Brunswick's biggest forestry company, being assigned a tariff of only 3.02 per cent — the smallest rate applied to any company in Canada.Compare that to the high rate applied to one British Columbia company, 24 per cent, and you can see why the Liberals would latch on to the Irving rate to advance their argument.
But the 124-page U.S. preliminary determination memorandum clearly says Irving is subsidized — just at a lower rate than four other Canadian forestry companies it investigated.
It says Irving received "the benefit from subsidies," and tallies up a range of government programs and policies, from stumpage fees on Crown land to a biomass electricity buy-back program, to arrive at a rate of 3.02 per cent.
Under U.S. law and World Trade Organization rules, any subsidy higher than one per cent "can be the justification" for tariffs, Baisburd said.
So the U.S. finding is not "no subsidy," as Gallant asserted, but "low subsidy."
Liberal MP also mixed concepts
Fredericton Liberal MP Matt DeCourcey, the parliamentary secretary to the foreign affairs minister, has also mixed the two concepts.
Fredericton MP Matt DeCourcey said J.D.
Irving's three-per-cent tariff fate supports the industry's argument
that New Brunswick sawmills should be exempt from any duties on products
shipped into the United States. (CBC)
If J.D. Irving were the only sawmill company in New Brunswick, the province might swallow the three-per-cent tariff and move on.
But other sawmills in the province face a higher tariff rate of 19.88 per cent, just like other Canadian companies that weren't investigated individually as Irving was.
The other New Brunswick mills are eligible for the same programs as Irving, and last week Opposition Progressive Conservative Leader Blaine Higgs — rather than claim there are no subsidies — said the U.S. should be consistent and apply Irving's lower rate to other mills.
Calls for all mills to get Irving rate
Trade Minister Roger Melanson says the
Gallant government will soon appoint a senior negotiator to try to
persuade the United States to restore the tariff exclusion for lumber
exported to the U.S. (CBC)
would indicate that we shouldn't be subject to these high duties,"
he said. "I would say if one industry's made that case, that should
apply to the rest of the industries that are here in the province."
As late as Friday, during a photo-op at Devon Lumber in Fredericton, Melanson was still insisting the U.S. ruling supported New Brunswick's position.
"By JDI receiving a three per cent countervailing tax, we clearly read out of this that the industry in New Brunswick is not being subsidized," he said.
But he also allowed that non-Irving mills "see the benefits" of Irving's low tariff "and this is the rate that needs to be applied, at a maximum, to all industry."
Baisburd wouldn't respond directly to how Gallant and Melanson have described the conclusions, or comment on what impact their comments may have. The U.S. government will make a final determination on subsidies later this year, unless the two countries strike a deal first.
"The Department of Commerce would tell you that they make their decisions based on the record that's developed at the Department of Commerce," Baisburd said.
"There are statements that governments make, that interested parties make, and Commerce would tell you that they consider that as part of their analysis, and that ultimately their decision is based on that record."
To read the full U.S. Department of Commerce preliminary decision memorandum click here.
As late as Friday, during a photo-op at Devon Lumber in Fredericton, Melanson was still insisting the U.S. ruling supported New Brunswick's position.
"By JDI receiving a three per cent countervailing tax, we clearly read out of this that the industry in New Brunswick is not being subsidized," he said.
- Uncertain future: new tariff will hurt N.B. sawmills' bottom line
- Forestry changes in 2014 made New Brunswick lumber a target in U.S.
- Ottawa called on to push for renewed softwood exclusion in U.S.
But he also allowed that non-Irving mills "see the benefits" of Irving's low tariff "and this is the rate that needs to be applied, at a maximum, to all industry."
Baisburd wouldn't respond directly to how Gallant and Melanson have described the conclusions, or comment on what impact their comments may have. The U.S. government will make a final determination on subsidies later this year, unless the two countries strike a deal first.
"The Department of Commerce would tell you that they make their decisions based on the record that's developed at the Department of Commerce," Baisburd said.
"There are statements that governments make, that interested parties make, and Commerce would tell you that they consider that as part of their analysis, and that ultimately their decision is based on that record."
To read the full U.S. Department of Commerce preliminary decision memorandum click here.
