NationStates Jolt Archive

Saw this bit when I hopped online this morning;

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060424/softwood_update_060424

Looks like some sort of compromise is around the corner?

As part of the agreement, Canadian lumber firms would be held to a 34 per cent share of softwood lumber in the U.S. market, which is roughly Canada's current share.


The U.S. would return 78 per cent of the $5 billion it collected in anti-dumping and countervailing duties beginning in 2002.

The remaining 22 per cent would likely go to the U.S. lumber industry to help defray the costs of their legal challenges.

Not exactly in the spirit of free trade in my opinion, but it would definitely get us pass the impasse. So, what do you think? Any Americans who think 'screw Canada'? Any Canadians who think it's too little too late? Europeans who just don't care?

I'm an American that doesn't care. Boo lumber! Yay hemp! :)

Saw this bit when I hopped online this morning;

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060424/softwood_update_060424

Looks like some sort of compromise is around the corner?



Not exactly in the spirit of free trade in my opinion, but it would definitely get us pass the impasse. So, what do you think? Any Americans who think 'screw Canada'? Any Canadians who think it's too little too late? Europeans who just don't care?
European who thinks Canada should not be punished for proper (well at least er better) management of it's forests, and that the US should shut up about fair trade and market economies if it does not practice what it preaches. On the other hand if the UK did the same we may be better off.

Looks like there's going to be a lot of happy lawyers around in the USA. Time to belt them over the head with some wood :)

(Not North American)

Saw this bit when I hopped online this morning;

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060424/softwood_update_060424

Looks like some sort of compromise is around the corner?



Not exactly in the spirit of free trade in my opinion, but it would definitely get us pass the impasse. So, what do you think? Any Americans who think 'screw Canada'? Any Canadians who think it's too little too late? Europeans who just don't care?
The deal is a rip off. The US should stick to the letter of the agreement, or perhaps Canada should start to renege on the energy side of the NAFTA agreement?

The deal is a rip off. The US should stick to the letter of the agreement, or perhaps Canada should start to renege on the energy side of the NAFTA agreement?

Welcome to politics.

The deal is a rip off. The US should stick to the letter of the agreement, or perhaps Canada should start to renege on the energy side of the NAFTA agreement?

I don't think it's a perfect scenario by any stretch, but I think it would keep the american side from worrying about their lumber industry 'collapsing', and it would keep Canadian industry working at the same levels in the US and get a return on the majority of the duties. Generally, speaking, I think it would be a decent deal.

In the meantime, anyone outside of North America interested in some softwood? Good Price!

I'm not going to believe it until I see it.
America has been screwing around on this problem for far too long. It's probably going to take a long time for the industry to recover in Canada... although that much money could put a spark back into it... IF they pay.
As I said... I'm not t' be trustin' them yanks just yet!

So is 34% our share of the market before the US started slapping all these duties on our lumber, or is it what our share of the market fell to after they did? Because if we are agreeing to the lower number that is reidiculous. It rewards the US for their illegal practices. And accepting a permanent cap is just dumb, not to mention not consistent with Free Trade.

Great! Now will Canada's Methanex corporation please stop suing for the right to violate US environmental regulations?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3474

Great! Now will Canada's Methanex corporation please stop suing for the right to violate US environmental regulations?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3474

As soon as UPS stops suing Canada for having such a thing as Canada Post.

As soon as UPS stops suing Canada for having such a thing as Canada Post.
Isn't NAFTA great?

Not exactly in the spirit of free trade in my opinion, but it would definitely get us pass the impasse. So, what do you think? Any Americans who think 'screw Canada'? Any Canadians who think it's too little too late? Europeans who just don't care?
South Americans, Asians, Africans and scientists from the Antarctic just don't count huh. :p

The US is hypocritical with respect to capitalism, but that is not news to anyone.

Isn't NAFTA great?

Oh it's wonderful! I think we should sign a bigger and better agreement just like it. I shall call it the Free Trade Area of the Americas!

South Americans, Asians, Africans and scientists from the Antarctic just don't count huh. :p

The US is hypocritical with respect to capitalism, but that is not news to anyone.

My apologies to South and Central Americans, Africans, Australians and scientists from the Antarctic. Feel free to say that you just don't care.

Edit: Oh, and Asians. Silly me.

..we need out of it.

Every ruling under the rules of the treaty that the US agreed to has ultimately come down on the side of the Canadian's saying that there are no illegal duties.

With this deal, the US proposes to return only 78% of the money it stole from our lumber industry, and put a cap on Canadian products thus invalidating any efficiency gains Canada might realize in the future. This is protectionism at its finest. Tell me, Americans, are you willing to subsidize your inefficient lumber industry at the cost of higher prices on your buildings and furniture? Because that's what the US lumber lobby is having you do.

If not, write your own government officials protesting any cap that the lumber industry might apply as against the letter and spirit of free trade.

If this deal goes forward, then as soon as the cheque clears the bank, I suggest Canada withdraw from NAFTA to reclaim the 75% of our oil exports that right now it requires go to the United States, and instead pursue an extensive oil agreement with China.

Our tax climate is already more favorable to business than the United States (especially when you consider that businesses here don't have to pay health-care expenses) our people are more educated, all we are lacking are the economies of scale that the US gets. Well, we'll never realize those economies of scale if we keep shipping everything south at cut-rate pricing. (nor, for that matter, if we decide to get rid of our own immigrants.. what a stupid idea. The one thing that Canada needs is people -- we shouldn't just be welcoming immigrants, legal or otherwise, we should be actively seeking them)

I am a free trader.
Even if Canada were illegally subsidizing their lumber industry – I say great!
If the Canadian taxpayer wants to foot some of the bill for building my new house, I am all for it.

The real question that should be asked by Canadians is not why is the US throwing tariffs on lumber, but why are their tax dollars subsidizing the lumber companies.

I am a free trader.
Even if Canada were illegally subsidizing their lumber industry – I say great!
If the Canadian taxpayer wants to foot some of the bill for building my new house, I am all for it.

The real question that should be asked by Canadians is not why is the US throwing tariffs on lumber, but why are their tax dollars subsidizing the lumber companies.

It's not that Canadians are 'subsidizing' the price of lumber. It's a difference in which stumpage fees are handled. Since, in Canada, the forest is publicly 'owned', the stumpage fees are set administratively. In the US, the fees are set by market forces, and they tend to be higher than the Canadian prices. Thus, a tariff.

However;

In March 2006, a NAFTA panel ruled in Canada's favor, finding that the subsidy to the Canadian lumber industry was de minimis, i.e. a subsidy of less than one percent. Under U.S. trade remedy law, countervailing duty tariffs are not imposed for de minimis subsidies.

Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Canada_softwood_lumber_dispute

So, it's not really about Canadians figuring out a way to subsidize their industry, but a difference between the two countries on how to regulate forestry.

I am a free trader.
Even if Canada were illegally subsidizing their lumber industry – I say great!
If the Canadian taxpayer wants to foot some of the bill for building my new house, I am all for it.

The real question that should be asked by Canadians is not why is the US throwing tariffs on lumber, but why are their tax dollars subsidizing the lumber companies.They're not.

The governments of Canada charge less per stump in Canada than can be found in the US. This much is true, and is the entire basis of the US's case.

It does not consider several factors, however:
1. Canadian lumber companies are required to pay all the costs associated, including that of building the roads into the logging sites. They are also required to pay for the entire costs of reforestation of the same or greater number of trees than they take down.
2. Hampered by this and by US protectionism before NAFTA, Canadian lumber companies were forced a couple of decades ago to become very efficient to even survive in the marketplace. Once NAFTA removed the US protectionism, those efficiencies played out in the standard way you'd expect -- lower prices and better quality lumber meant a larger share of the market was captured.
3. Canada has more trees, period. More supply + competition = lower prices.

When you consider all of these factors, you come to the same conclusion repeatedly come to by various panels and tribunals within NAFTA: No illegal subsidization has been occuring.

I'm surprised that more Americans don't seem to care that they're paying a lot more for building materials than they would be if their government would stop "protecting" them.