Canada must put aside rhetoric in softwood dispute
PJB @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:16 am
Robair Robair:
Ahhh..What the hell..Let's just ignore it. The States ignores rulings that don't go in their favour.
Robair @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:21 am
Avro Avro:
I heard this morning and I am not surprised that the U.S. seeked a private ruling from a organization that is outside the NAFTA body. If this is what they want then it is time to tear up the NAFTA agreement in front of their face. It is a shame because I kind of liked NAFTA but only if the rules are followed and the U.S. clearly doesen't believe in rules.
How could anybody trust them in the future, bad buisness move.
If you kind of liked NAFTA, then you don't know what it was about.
How could anybody trust them in the future, bad buisness move.
NAFTA isn't about trade, it's an ivestment deal. It's the sale of Canada. There is only one political party telling it like it is.
insignificant @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:27 am
ROBAIR is right!
NAFTA isn't a very rosy deal. It guarantees AMERICA access to Canadian commodoties such as water. I havent ever read the agreement, but that is how I understand it.
It also allows the US and US companies to sue the Canadian gov't if it fails to provide the goods.
That said, if the US doesn't live up to IT'S end of the agreement, then what good is NAFTA? It isn't worth the paper its written on! Maybe it needs to be scrapped and re-written. Who knows!!!
Zipperfish @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:57 am
An export tax on oil and gas is not fair to Alberta. Protectionism works against our long term interests. A trade war with the US is like playing leap frog with a unicorn. US trade policy and the US dollar, unlike Canada, is backed by a bullet and it must be kept in mind that the US will maintain trade with Canada only so long as they deem it to be in their interests, at which time they will help themselves through whatever means they see fit.
This is not because the US is evil, but because they have the power. That's the rules of the game.
Canada has been in this situation before and have succesfully navigated through. Ratcheting up a trade war is simply not an option for Canada; we are not on even footing with the US. But we are more savvy traders and that is what is required now.
Incidentally, water is not a commodity under NAFTA, until such time as it is treated like a commodity once, and thereafter it becomes a commodity.
Jusin @ Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:33 am
Tman1 Tman1:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
*Pulls out the Rosetta Rant Rock and begins translating*
I think someone suggested that we could sell our natural gas, oil and electricity to someone either than the States to teach them a lesson. Due to geographical reality, it would be a bit difficult, but other people don't seem to understand this no matter how plainly he has tried to explain it (unless there really are secret pipelines and power cables running to Europe)
. Make it an oatmeal raisin please.
I think someone suggested that we could sell our natural gas, oil and electricity to someone either than the States to teach them a lesson. Due to geographical reality, it would be a bit difficult, but other people don't seem to understand this no matter how plainly he has tried to explain it (unless there really are secret pipelines and power cables running to Europe)
. Make it an oatmeal raisin please.
Hmmmmm cookie.
JK
Jusin @ Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:41 am
nomad37 nomad37:
Some nice posts, cool.
Well in the meantime since my last comment, I've tried to do a little homework on this whole topic. My first question was, why in the world does the US think they are right? You guys can just go strictly with the evil bully theory, but as a US citizen, I like to think there was a grain of truth in there once upon a time from the US's point of view. And why does the US think Canada should negotiate? Again, bear with me here, it's always interesting to try to see the other guy's point of view, even if you think they're totally wrong. (An aside - you want a cultural difference? I can actually do this with Canadians.)
I learned a couple things while doing my homework. First, this is a really, really, complicated issue. I saw many a Ph.D. thesis in International Law written on this particular dispute, from both sides of the border. Interesting. The only thing I'm sure of now is that I don't know much.
Second, to the assertation that Canada has never lost any ruling on this. Well, technically true I think, but the details are interesting. Both the WTO in 2001, and NAFTA in 2003 have ruled only partially in Canada's favor. Both bodies agree that Canada's low stumpage fees DO amount to a subsidy. Now, government subsidies are generally a free-trade no-no, and for better or worse (mostly worse) Canada has signed free trade agreements with the US and appears to honour them. So Canada is sort of in the wrong. However, both bodies have agreed every time that the method the US used to calculate the subsides, and therefore the punitive tariiffs, is stupid and wrong. Both told the US Commerce Department not that what Canada was doing was right (in particular BC, I should say) - but that the method the US used to calculate the retaliatory action was wrong, and they needed to go back and recalculate using something more reasonable. Enlightening! So, the US at one point has reason to believe they were not totally in the wrong regarding subsidies and dumping by Canada. The US administration then let themselves be WAY too influenced by a few key lobbyists for the lumber industry however, and went absurdly overboard with the tariffs they slapped on Canadian lumber products.
Btw, you've got a lot of forest, but your high-quality lumber is going fast. Perhaps slightly higher stumpage fees aren't entirely absurd, and that money could be put towards something other than decimating your natural resources and shipping them south of the border. (Again, I think Canada has been too willing, even eager, to be a colonial economy of the US.) Just a thought. But I digress.
So, maybe it is not unreasonable for the US to want Canada to negotiate. The rulings weren't entirely in Canada's favor. Worse, in the NAFTA sphere, after the recalculations are done, the US should give back what it wrongly collected in tariffs, but under WTO rules, the US doesn't have to. So, you can be sure the US will try to drag it out in the WTO for as long as it can. Is it worth it, when Canada was found to be "wrongly" subsidizing the industry? Also, I learned that Canada has their own anti-dumping laws (SIMA?), and uses it to slap tariffs on other countries when they rule goods are being subsidized and therefore unfairly "dumped" in Canada. You protect your industries, too, in a very similar way. No big surprise, right? It's not necessarily bad for a country to want to protect key industries. Canada has negotiated before as well on this issue. So one might think that should work again. I wonder if it is possible, just possible, that a negotiated settlement could help both sides of the border. I don't know. Certainly feels better to just start swinging away I guess. I just don't see, given the long history of this dispute, that the US is going to suddenly agree that your low stumpage fees and any amount of raw logs are ok after all (the WTO and NAFTA never agreed with that), drop all tariffs and restrictions and give 100% of your money back. So what to do?
Clearly, the first thing the US needs to do is comply with the international trade bodies and change it's anti-dumping margin calculation methodology. Then, maybe, after we stop being total bullies, there will be room to negotiate. We're in the wrong right now, and it's reasonable for Canada to retaliate to cause some pain to force this issue. But, if after a reasonable recalculation, if it still smells like dumping, then it might be time to negotiate. In some provinces and for some companies, there may not turn out to be any countervailing whatever needed after all. But we'll see, and for some, particularly in BC, there might be, and then we'll have to talk about it.
BTW, some of you mentioned working with US interests on your side, wanting to end this dispute and get rid of, or at least lower, restrictions and tariffs. There's a lot of them! It's apparently a small but powerful group of industry lobbyists keeping to the absurd line that the tariffs we imposed were the right thing to do. After all, the only people that get hurt as much as your lumber industry are US consumers. Here's some people on your side I think:
"Congressmen Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), Richard Neal (D. Mass.), David Dreier (R-Calf.), and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) introduced H. Con. Res. 197, an updated concurrent resolution in the House with 22 original sponsors on May 22, 2003. The resolution calls on the Bush Administration to pursue discussions with the Canadian Government to "promote open trade between the United States and Canada on softwood lumber, free of trade restraints that harm consumers." The resolution is similar to one introduced in the Senate on March 13, 2003. S. Con. Res. 22, which was introduced by Senators Don Nickles (R-Okla.), Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), James Inhofe (R-Ore.), Chuck Hagel, (R-Neb.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). " They're your friends right now. Also, the Manufactured Housing Institute. The National Association of Homebuilders. The American Association of Homeowners. The Alliance of American Consumers for Affordable Homes. The Internation Sleep Products Association. The list goes on - any manufacturer that needs high-quality lumber, and any consumer organization of products that use such lumber.
As a final note, I'm not defending what the US is currently doing. I'm embarrassed, in fact.
We should immediately recalculate as the WTO and NAFTA boards have ruled, and see how it looks. If we need to negotiate from there, let's do it, before this hurts more people on both sides of the border for the sake of a few American lumber companies. Ignoring the rulings of free trade bodies when we've pushed those agreements originally and slanted them to our advantage in the first place is not going to win us any good world citizenship contests, or any friends.
And sorry it seems I am always late to a thread. Have my day job, ya know.
Well in the meantime since my last comment, I've tried to do a little homework on this whole topic. My first question was, why in the world does the US think they are right? You guys can just go strictly with the evil bully theory, but as a US citizen, I like to think there was a grain of truth in there once upon a time from the US's point of view. And why does the US think Canada should negotiate? Again, bear with me here, it's always interesting to try to see the other guy's point of view, even if you think they're totally wrong. (An aside - you want a cultural difference? I can actually do this with Canadians.)
I learned a couple things while doing my homework. First, this is a really, really, complicated issue. I saw many a Ph.D. thesis in International Law written on this particular dispute, from both sides of the border. Interesting. The only thing I'm sure of now is that I don't know much.
Second, to the assertation that Canada has never lost any ruling on this. Well, technically true I think, but the details are interesting. Both the WTO in 2001, and NAFTA in 2003 have ruled only partially in Canada's favor. Both bodies agree that Canada's low stumpage fees DO amount to a subsidy. Now, government subsidies are generally a free-trade no-no, and for better or worse (mostly worse) Canada has signed free trade agreements with the US and appears to honour them. So Canada is sort of in the wrong. However, both bodies have agreed every time that the method the US used to calculate the subsides, and therefore the punitive tariiffs, is stupid and wrong. Both told the US Commerce Department not that what Canada was doing was right (in particular BC, I should say) - but that the method the US used to calculate the retaliatory action was wrong, and they needed to go back and recalculate using something more reasonable. Enlightening! So, the US at one point has reason to believe they were not totally in the wrong regarding subsidies and dumping by Canada. The US administration then let themselves be WAY too influenced by a few key lobbyists for the lumber industry however, and went absurdly overboard with the tariffs they slapped on Canadian lumber products.
Btw, you've got a lot of forest, but your high-quality lumber is going fast. Perhaps slightly higher stumpage fees aren't entirely absurd, and that money could be put towards something other than decimating your natural resources and shipping them south of the border. (Again, I think Canada has been too willing, even eager, to be a colonial economy of the US.) Just a thought. But I digress.
So, maybe it is not unreasonable for the US to want Canada to negotiate. The rulings weren't entirely in Canada's favor. Worse, in the NAFTA sphere, after the recalculations are done, the US should give back what it wrongly collected in tariffs, but under WTO rules, the US doesn't have to. So, you can be sure the US will try to drag it out in the WTO for as long as it can. Is it worth it, when Canada was found to be "wrongly" subsidizing the industry? Also, I learned that Canada has their own anti-dumping laws (SIMA?), and uses it to slap tariffs on other countries when they rule goods are being subsidized and therefore unfairly "dumped" in Canada. You protect your industries, too, in a very similar way. No big surprise, right? It's not necessarily bad for a country to want to protect key industries. Canada has negotiated before as well on this issue. So one might think that should work again. I wonder if it is possible, just possible, that a negotiated settlement could help both sides of the border. I don't know. Certainly feels better to just start swinging away I guess. I just don't see, given the long history of this dispute, that the US is going to suddenly agree that your low stumpage fees and any amount of raw logs are ok after all (the WTO and NAFTA never agreed with that), drop all tariffs and restrictions and give 100% of your money back. So what to do?
Clearly, the first thing the US needs to do is comply with the international trade bodies and change it's anti-dumping margin calculation methodology. Then, maybe, after we stop being total bullies, there will be room to negotiate. We're in the wrong right now, and it's reasonable for Canada to retaliate to cause some pain to force this issue. But, if after a reasonable recalculation, if it still smells like dumping, then it might be time to negotiate. In some provinces and for some companies, there may not turn out to be any countervailing whatever needed after all. But we'll see, and for some, particularly in BC, there might be, and then we'll have to talk about it.
BTW, some of you mentioned working with US interests on your side, wanting to end this dispute and get rid of, or at least lower, restrictions and tariffs. There's a lot of them! It's apparently a small but powerful group of industry lobbyists keeping to the absurd line that the tariffs we imposed were the right thing to do. After all, the only people that get hurt as much as your lumber industry are US consumers. Here's some people on your side I think:
"Congressmen Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), Richard Neal (D. Mass.), David Dreier (R-Calf.), and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) introduced H. Con. Res. 197, an updated concurrent resolution in the House with 22 original sponsors on May 22, 2003. The resolution calls on the Bush Administration to pursue discussions with the Canadian Government to "promote open trade between the United States and Canada on softwood lumber, free of trade restraints that harm consumers." The resolution is similar to one introduced in the Senate on March 13, 2003. S. Con. Res. 22, which was introduced by Senators Don Nickles (R-Okla.), Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), James Inhofe (R-Ore.), Chuck Hagel, (R-Neb.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). " They're your friends right now. Also, the Manufactured Housing Institute. The National Association of Homebuilders. The American Association of Homeowners. The Alliance of American Consumers for Affordable Homes. The Internation Sleep Products Association. The list goes on - any manufacturer that needs high-quality lumber, and any consumer organization of products that use such lumber.
As a final note, I'm not defending what the US is currently doing. I'm embarrassed, in fact.
We should immediately recalculate as the WTO and NAFTA boards have ruled, and see how it looks. If we need to negotiate from there, let's do it, before this hurts more people on both sides of the border for the sake of a few American lumber companies. Ignoring the rulings of free trade bodies when we've pushed those agreements originally and slanted them to our advantage in the first place is not going to win us any good world citizenship contests, or any friends.And sorry it seems I am always late to a thread. Have my day job, ya know.
Wow, I vote we do what he says.
yeah