NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=899e7f93-4228-4ae6-b753-163de6c725f7

U.S. editorial backs Canada on softwood

Canadian Press

Friday, October 07, 2005

WASHINGTON -- America's most powerful business publication threw its considerable influence behind Canada on Friday in its nasty trade spat with the U.S. over softwood lumber.

The Wall Street Journal, which has backed Canada in the past, said in an editorial Friday that Prime Minister Paul Martin has a strong argument about U.S. duties on Canadian softwood imports that average about 20 per cent.

"Americans have a stake here too, since the duties add about $1,000 to the cost of a new home and affect thousands of jobs in industries that depend on lower-cost Canadian lumber," the editorial said.

"President (George W.) Bush's vision of a strong North America depends upon the integrated market being allowed to work. That's as much in the interest of Americans as Canadians."

Martin met the newspaper's editorial board this week to discuss several topics, including the fact that U.S. officials aren't abiding by a final ruling under the continental free trade pact that sides with Canada.

He spent much of the day Thursday focusing on softwood, including a speech to Wall Street power brokers where he said the U.S. refusal to stop the punishing duties and return some $5 billion Cdn already collected is "nonsense" and "a breach of faith."

A panel under the North American Free Trade Agreement ruled in August that Canadian lumber doesn't pose a threat to American producers.

U.S. companies argue softwood from north of the border is unfairly subsidized and dumped on the American market at a low price.

discussion...

Well don't let our President fool you, there is *some* sense down here...

Though a valuable source for light investment research one must be aware there are occasions where the WSj is biased. So a grain of salt be reccomended with ingestion.

Though a valuable source for light investment research one must be aware there are occasions where the WSj is biased. So a grain of salt be reccomended with ingestion.Do you disagree with the Journal on this particular matter, though?
I happen to agree, wholeheartedly. It's about time that the American government stopped making excuses. It's not like we ever pushed free trade on them; we just want them to hold up their end of the bargain. They have no right to impose tarrifs on Canadian goods.
"You want free trade, you want free trade. Too Bad!" - The Right Honourable Jean Chretien.

Do you disagree with the Journal on this particular matter, though?
I happen to agree, wholeheartedly. It's about time that the American government stopped making excuses. It's not like we ever pushed free trade on them; we just want them to hold up their end of the bargain. They have no right to impose tarrifs on Canadian goods.
"You want free trade, you want free trade. Too Bad!" - The Right Honourable Jean Chretien.
Well they have every right to impose tariffs on anything they want coming into their country however, is it nescessary? I don't believe it is. Canadian people gotta eat too. ;)

I feel there are more pressing matters in the world today than tariffs on Canadian softwood imports. Like terrorism, oil, global warming, religion, etc.

That's my position.

I feel there are more pressing matters in the world today than tariffs on Canadian softwood imports. Like terrorism, oil, global warming, religion, etc.

That's my position.

But they are not the only matters.

Stop reading this thread if it displeases you.

Well they have every right to impose tariffs on anything they want coming into their country however, is it nescessary? I don't believe it is. Canadian people gotta eat too. ;)You all had the right to impose tarrifs, until you entered into a free trade agreement with Canada. Now, not so much.
When it comes down to it, all countries are protecting their own interests. But you entered into an agreement that you considered to be benificial overall, and now aren't holding up your end of the bargain. You want to be able to pick and choose when to observe this legally binding agreement, and that's not right. The American government has shown itself to be untrustworthy.

I feel there are more pressing matters in the world today than tariffs on Canadian softwood imports. Like terrorism, oil, global warming, religion, etc.

That's my position.So since terrorism and global warming and (supposedly) oil and religion are the most pressing matters in the world today, legal contracts become void? Terrorism is worse than tarrifs, but both are bad (in this case; I don't actually support the free trade agreement or free trade in general).

You all had the right to impose tarrifs, until you entered into a free trade agreement with Canada. Now, not so much.
When it comes down to it, all countries are protecting their own interests. But you entered into an agreement that you considered to be benificial overall, and now aren't holding up your end of the bargain. You want to be able to pick and choose when to observe this legally binding agreement, and that's not right. The American government has shown itself to be untrustworthy.
What's worse is how easy someone like the lumber lobby can sway opinion even if it means breaking agreements. Scary, no?

"Americans have a stake here too, since the duties add about $1,000 to the cost of a new home and affect thousands of jobs in industries that depend on lower-cost Canadian lumber"


and theyre also suggesting on the rebuilding in New-Orleans for example, money can be saved there

"You want free trade, you want free trade. Too Bad!" - The Right Honourable Jean Chretien.
*NEWS FLASH*
Prime Minister Paul Martin appoints Jean Chretien as a new ambassador to the US. In a news conference in Washington this afternoon, Chretien made this comment to his American counterpart, "You want Iraq, you want Iraq. Too bad!".

lol

What's worse is how easy someone like the lumber lobby can sway opinion even if it means breaking agreements. Scary, no?True story.
Scary, but not exactly surprising. Our governments worship at the altar of capitalism.

*NEWS FLASH*
Prime Minister Paul Martin appoints Jean Chretien as a new ambassador to the US. In a news conference in Washington this afternoon, Chretien made this comment to his American counterpart, "You want Iraq, you want Iraq. Too bad!".

lolI can actually hear him saying that, and I have to agree with the voices I hear in my head. :p
He wasn't always eloquent, but he usually got the point across. In this case, another way to put it would be, "you asked for this, so stop bitching". He is a very wise man, and I miss him.

I can actually hear him saying that, and I have to agree with the voices I hear in my head. :p
He wasn't always eloquent, but he usually got the point across. In this case, another way to put it would be, "you asked for this, so stop bitching". He is a very wise man, and I miss him.

I used to think he was stupid, before I found out he just wasn't very good with words. I also wanted him to retire, but now, seeing who replaced him, I think we were better off in his days...

Chretien - gotta love this guy, he actually stand up for us canadians.

*bump

Chretien - gotta love this guy, he actually stand up for us canadians.
Chretiens' mangling of english was always so highly entertaining. I remember once he said, "it's like the getting upset with the milk on the floor" - and after I thought about it, I realized he was trying to say 'there's no use crying over spilled milk'.

Head and shoulders above any stoopid thing Mr. Bush has had to say.

..during Canada day a few years ago, his speech about how our incestors founded a country they could be proud of.

I used to think he was stupid, before I found out he just wasn't very good with words. I also wanted him to retire, but now, seeing who replaced him, I think we were better off in his days...
We really weren't, we were just fooled into thinking it. Look at how well we are doing now. Team Martin is great - minus the Martin. We need a stronger voice for Canada.