From the historical record, it is very clear that the Americans, whether Democrats or Republicans, on the Hill or in the administration, are simply not prepared to agree to free trade in lumber, period. It is their view, and was their view from the outset, that it had no part in the free trade agreement. Under President Reagan it was carved out under a separate memorandum of understanding, and the agreement I negotiated necessarily permitted that understanding to continue to govern that sector.
When Canada terminated that agreement because of precisely the sort of micro-management they're trying to do again, a new administration was in power and took the same position. They violated the GATT, in those days, and the free trade agreement in order to come after Canada in a totally unwarranted fashion.
When they lost their cases before the panels—exactly the same scenario we have here, including an extraordinary challenge, which they lost--although they had the decency to stop collecting the duties, they refused to pay anything back unless and until a managed trade agreement was reached, which was the Softwood Lumber Agreement.
When that expired, again it was the same thing. They immediately came in with trumped-up countervailing duty and anti-dumping charges. When they lost before the panels I was shocked, and I'm not easy to shock, because at that point we were in intense negotiations with the Americans on the basis of an agreement not dissimilar from this. When the special trade representative of the United States, a cabinet-level officer, basically said that the United States was not going to respect its obligations under the free trade agreement, it was a disgraceful day in U.S. trade policy.
When the Commerce Department went on to make clear that they were under no circumstances prepared to return the deposits, indeed they claimed they could not return the deposits except under a special separate managed trade agreement, I regretted that. But I'm a realist, and my answer to Mr. Rutenberg is that I wish he were more successful back home in Washington in persuading the folks on Capitol Hill and in the administration to realize the kind of economic impact this sort of protectionist nonsense has on U.S. home builders and the purchasers of those homes. It's very bad public policy. However, he hasn't been successful, and the current administration has taken a posture that is even more opposed to any form of free trade than the previous one.
One can always live in hope. It is possible that there could be a dramatic sea change in U.S. politics, and for the first time in 25 years you could have a Congress and an administration that were prepared to play by the rules. But I see no evidence of that.