Thanks, Metchosin. From the link:

"NAFTA has brought a wave of economic progress unprecedented in our times, but increasing trade protectionism is putting those benefits at risk," Winter said in a news release Monday.

"He called on chambers in all 50 states to urge Bush to respect its obligations under NAFTA and move quickly to a negotiated settlement on softwood.

"Canadian politicians and forest industry executives have been in an uproar since U.S. trade officials indicated earlier this month they would not comply with a final NAFTA appeal. It found Canadian lumber imports into the United States posed no threat of injury to American producers.

"The Canadians believe the ruling removes the justification for punitive duties imposed in May 2002 after U.S. mill owners filed their fourth trade complaint in two decades claiming Canadian softwood is subsidized. (* See below)

"U.S. Customs has collected more than $5 billion in duties so far, at a current rate of $100 million a month.

"Canada suspended negotiations after the American decision to ignore the ruling. "

* So, you are saying that Canadian softwood production is NOT subsidized? A couple of things come to mind in connection with this complaint. One is that political things rarely have only one side to them.

On the one hand, Canada values NAFTA as having "brought a wave of economic progress unprecedented in our times..."

On another hand, Canada is owed the return of $5 billion in duties that the US has collected on the basis of the belief that Canada's softwood industry is unfairly subsidized.

It may well be that Canada will eventually satisfy the US as to its allegedly unfair practices, in which case Canada's industry should be repaid the duties. If Canada does NOT satisfy the US on the matter, I can see that the US may well continue levying the duties.

Do I understand the matter?