1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050818 ... od_dispute

Canada must put aside rhetoric in softwood dispute: U.S. ambassador GREG BONNELL
Wed Aug 17, 8:39 PM ET

TORONTO (CP) - Canada must put aside the rhetoric and return to the negotiating table if the softwood lumber dispute with the United States is to be settled once and for all, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins said Wednesday.

"That's a decision the Canadian government has to make," said Wilkins. "We want a negotiated settlement, we want to bring finality to the issue." "What we don't need is continued rhetoric to raise the emotional issues."

Canadian and American negotiators were scheduled to meet next week on the issue, but Ottawa cancelled those talks after the U.S. refused to abide by a recent NAFTA ruling in Canada's favour.

The stalled negotiations have raised the spectre of a wider trade war with the U.S. on the issue.

On Wednesday, Wilkins made it clear that the next move belongs to Canada.

"The United States put a proposal on the table. We need to get a response to that at some point from Canadian negotiators and continue negotiations," Wilkins told reporters after speaking to a gathering of the American Chamber of Commerce in Canada.

"What we need to do is let the negotiators do their job, get together and try to work out finality. Otherwise, you're just going to continue to have one lawsuit after another."

Last week, a NAFTA panel dismissed Washington's claims that Canadian softwood exports are subsidized and damage the U.S. lumber industry.

Canada immediately called on the U.S. to return about $5 billion in countervail and anti-dumping duties collected from Canadian companies.

The Americans refused, saying the ruling didn't end the matter because it did not deal with a 2004 decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission which supported the American case.

Wilkins defended his country's interpretation of the ruling, saying he refused to accept the argument that the U.S. is simply not respecting the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"The bottom line is, we need to get the negotiators to get together... and get this issue behind us once and for all," Wilkins said, adding he hoped the cancelled talks would be rescheduled soon.

Canada exports about $10 billion a year in spruce, pine and fir lumber to the U.S. home-construction and renovation sectors, comprising about a third of the American market.

U.S. producers have claimed for decades Canadian exports are subsidized by low Crown timber-cutting fees and other policies, launching four trade actions since the early 1980s.

A five-year quota deal created an uneasy truce in the late 1990s, which evaporated when the agreement expired in 2001.

The United States collects about $100 million a month in lumber duties, money it claims it does not have to return even if Canada ultimately wins its trade challenges.


I find this to be highly hypocritical coming from a country that ranks as one of the world's most rhetoric based. Right now, I'm tempted to say start a trade war, but decisions made in anger tend to be poor ones. The other thing I find odd is that 'super-patriot' and supporter of all things good and Canadian, Steven Harper, is totally silent on this.

   

What in the world is there to negotiate. The USA has lost every trade ruling possible.

   

No matter what kind of agreement is negotiated we all know the United States will ignore it if it doesn't benefit them. They are so damn protectionist that Canada should impose tarrifs on everything that goes into the states.

   

"The Americans refused, saying the ruling didn't end the matter because it did not deal with a 2004 decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission which supported the American case. "


(as I understand it..)
Their may be an issue there because we are logging crown land and they are not, but I would have expected this to have been taken into account.
Time for them to pay up.

   

ridenrain...I wonder how many times the U.S International Trade Commission has ruled against an American interest?

   

from what I've heard, it's been 8 for Canada and one against.
That was more in response to Richard's thread.

   

I presume you meant tariffs on products originating FROM the US rather than Canada. Either way it would be cutting off our collective noses to spite our face. There is no doubt the Americans are at fault on this one but they suffer with their own Copps/Parrishs who are in no mood to cooperate with Canada and are happy to endorse the lumber industry’s self-serving interests. This does not justify the American stance but it is a nuance we have failed to address and helps to fuel the protectionists.

   

"The Americans refused, saying the ruling didn't end the matter because it did not deal with a 2004 decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission which supported the American case. "

Why.. the one they did, of course.

The dislike between Paul & his Liberals vs George & his Republicans is a big part of this and the problem is that the West that suffers.

   

The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was created to prevent unilateral action by either side in resolving trade disputes. The softwood dispute is clear proof that the U.S. is in violation of the spirit and the letter of the FTA.

The World trade Organzation has ruled that the US. is in violation of the FTA and NAFTA, and rejected claims of injury to U.S. companies. It also authorized Canada to use countervailing duties, on exports to or; imports from the U.S., to reclaim any illegal tariffs imposed by the U.S. on Canadian softwood imported to the U.S.

Three NAFTA panels have ruled that the softwood tariffs are in violation of the agreement and have rejected any claims that the U.S. softwood producers have been injured. They also rejected claims that Crown Land stumpage fees amounted to a subsidy.

The U.S. has been repeatedly found to be in violation of NAFTA and ordered to return the illegal tariffs to Canadian softwood producers. It has exhausted every legal means to have this dispute brought to a negotiated settlement. It's continued belligerence in, not adhering to the trade agreement and it's refusal to abide by the rulings of trade organizations and panels, highlights the folly in continued negotiations.

THE TIME FOR NEGOTIATION IS OVER!!!

Some random thoughts,...

- A spokeman for the U.S. Home Builders Association estimates that price difference between Canadian and American lumber (without the illegal tariff on Canadian lumber) amounts to $750 on the cost of an average home. A negligible amount when the average new home cost is in a range of $175 000 - 200 000. The difference for the new home buyer would be in their favour.

- Canadian softwood accounts for about 1/3 of the lumber used for new home construction in the U.S. Without this lumber, U.S. new home buyers would likely be paying tens of thousands more for their purchase as U.S. producers would have a very difficult time meeting demand. If Canadian lumber were withdrawn form the U.S. market altogether (and trust in the fact there are plenty of overseas markets that would kill to have Canadian lumber at U.S. prices) the current boom housing market (realistically it has surpassed any measure for a bubble) in the U.S. would go bust.

- The research, development and exploration credits given to companies operating in Alberta's oilpatch amount to tax holidays that sometimes exceed 20%. The cry of "illegal subsidies" coming from the U.S. government regarding Canadian oil and gas is positively deafening don't you think. Hmmm, now about those countervails we have been authorized to use,...

- The U.S. is in the process of trying to craft a Free Trade Agreement with Central America. The ongoing softwood dispute, and other violations of NAFTA by the U.S., should give all Central American participants pause to consider whether participating in such an agreement is an objective worth pursuing.

   

The USITC has no jurisdiction to resolve trade disputes that fall under the purview of NAFTA or any other trade agreement entered into by the U.S. Their ruling in this matter is irrelevant as is their involvement. I posted about this organization in another thread. They are part of the Federal government in the U.S. and they exist only to rule in favour of the U.S. government in it's many ongoing trade disputes. After viewing their website, my opinion of the USITC is that they seem hellbent to start a trade war between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Not a wise course (in my opinion) for a country EXTREMELY dependent on imports, not only for consumer demand but for industrial survival (whom do you think supplies the majority of gas and electricity consumed by American industries and consumers?).

According to the Department Of External Affairs, in 2004 Canadian exports to East Asia grew by 8%. During the same time, our exports to Europe increased by 13.5%, and the growth of exports to China exceeded 20%. Sadly, our exports to the U.S. are nearing a plateau, after which a decline may be possible. If there are willing buyers for Canadian goods and resources, that is the avenue we should be on. Trying to deal fairly with the U.S., and expecting them to do the same, is starting to look like a dead-end street in more ways than one.

   

GunPlumber..I completely agree. Canada should look to other markets for our products. I am sure that Europeans wouldn't mind Canadian lumber, Hell the Chinese build houses too. We don't have to depend on the Americans as much as everyone wants to make us think. Americans rely on Canadian natural gas and hydro and sooner or later, water. We hold the trump cards and should start playing them. If California doesn't pay it's hydro bill then we flick the switch.

   

Harper's pro-American stance is known to many, however this is one issue where he would be well advised to stay silent. Advancing an opinion on this subject in favour of the American position would have a hugely negative effect on Conservative support in the West (especially in B.C.). Anything he says, can and will be used against him by the Liberal Party in a court of public opinion. He is quite literally caught, in the diminshing space between a rock and a VERY LARGE rock.

If he had any political savvy (always in doubt with him), he'd be on the next plane to D.C.. He could explain to the folks in Washington that they've already lost and they could do a fellow conservative a BIG favour by telling Canadians that he was chiefly responsible for ending the tariffs and having the ill-gotten gains returned to Canadian producers. Any attempt by him to reinforce the American's current position and you may as well just hand ol' Steve the sepuki knives.

   

The California hydro situation is a bit more complicated than a simple NAFTA violation. It is has been found that energy traders (mostly those employed by the former Enron corporation) in collusion with electricity producers created fake shortages in 1999 - 2000 (including routing power into and then straight out of California, and sending power produced in California out of state at the height of the "shortages"). Sadly, some Canadian producers knowingly particpated in this scheme to artificially inflate electricity costs in California. Some of the Canadian producers have agreed to make restitutuion to the State Of California and it's Energy Resources Board. Other Canadian companies are in litigation or negotiation with ERB. At any rate, the Canadian government and the affected Provincial goverments should apply maximum pressure to these Canadian producers to seek a swift and just resolution. And it should hold their feet to the fire until all damages are repaid by them.

It only takes a slight misstep to fall off the high road, and the Canadian governemnt absolutely must take a hard line against Canadian companies that act improperly on matters of international trade.

   

I think canada should do the second, merely for entertainment purposes, and it shouldn't be any person doing it in representation for Canada, it should be a higher up.

In seriousness though, they should retaliate so they have something to offer to drop at the negotiating table.

   

Hmm Thematic, you listening to this? This was exactly the type of thing I was trying to hammer home. The U.S can't play fair so they resort to "shadow negotiations" in which they actually believe they are in a position to "negotiate" when clearly THEY have lost.

   

1  2  3  4  5  6  Next