1  2  3  Next

U.S. politicians call for formal softwood talks
Updated Tue. Feb. 14 2006 11:34 PM ET

Canadian Press

WASHINGTON — Americans are calling on Canada to finally sit down for formal talks on softwood lumber, saying they hope it'll be the first order of bilateral business for the new Conservative government.

"All of us hope for a new beginning with Canada,'' said Oregon Senator Gordon Smith, who chaired a subcommittee hearing on the bitter dispute and called for a shared North American market that abides by similar rules.

Officials made it clear, though, they still believe Canada unfairly subsidizes its lumber and they wouldn't rule out more litigation if necessary.

"My mills can compete against other mills,'' said Smith, whose state is a major lumber producer.

"But they can't compete with the Canadian government. It's that simple.''

Where we stand now is unacceptable,'' added Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine.

"Our persistence has been outmatched by the Canadians ... There is a wrong that needs to be righted.''

Susan Schwab, the deputy U.S. trade representative, said her boss Rob Portman has already been in touch with his Canadian counterpart David Emerson to say officials are ready any time to talk.

Canada broke off formal negotiations last July, after the United States ignored a key free trade ruling that backed Canada and called for the return of some $5 billion Cdn in lumber duties to Canadian companies.

But Emerson, who jumped from the Liberals, has faced accusations in Canada he torpedoed a softwood deal before the Jan. 23 election while the party was waging an anti-U.S. campaign.

The proposal was reported to have called for Washington to reimburse some 75 per cent the penalties in return for concessions like export quotas in Ontario and Quebec.

There was no mention of any informal talks Tuesday.

But Frank Lavin, an undersecretary in the U.S. Commerce Department, said while the United States is keen to sit down, it will continue to uphold its interests, in court and out.

Officials have not ruled out an appeal of the panel decision under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Softwood penalties are now at about 10 per cent, about one-half of what they once were. But Lavin said no one should mistake that for a trend and they could rise the next time the department conducts a review.

Bill Kluting, of the the Western Council of Industrial Workers, said each country should appoint a top-level envoy who has the power to negotiate a binding agreement by this September.

"These special envoys would have the power to place limits on Canadian imports, especially when demand and prices in the U.S. are low.''

"This is when we get hurt the worst,'' said Kluting, who estimated more than 10,000 U.S. mill workers have been forced from their jobs since 2001 because of Canadian imports.

Kluting was also demanding Canada impose a stumpage fee system over time and said the envoys should be given wide discretion over the use and disbursal of penalties currently held by U.S. Customs.

But Barry Ruttenberg, of the National Association of Home Builders, said the United States should abide by the NAFTA ruling and cut lumber tariffs that needlessly add more than $1,000 US to the cost of a home.

Besides, more than five million U.S. workers in housing and related industries that use softwood, far more than those who work strictly as lumber producers.<

Restrictions on Canadian softwood actually do little for the industry, because "the vast majority of the domestic timber supply is unsuitable for framing walls in homes,'' he said.

"Canada's spruce and white pine is a different species that is far better suited for wall-framing because it is less likely to bend, crack or warp.''

Steve Swanson, chairman of the U.S. lumber coalition fighting Canadian imports, said Canada is "addicted'' to subsidies and U.S. penalties should be doubled again before negotiations are renewed.

"All we're asking for is to let the markets decided where the lumber is, not governments,'' he said, adding the pain of declining markets should be felt equally on both sides of the border.

"This issue would disappear the day that Canada made reasonable, transparent and enforceable commitments to end their unfair trade practices and allow open and competitive markets for timber and logs.''

The Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports is challenging the constitutionality of NAFTA's dispute-resolution mechanism.

   

Hmmmmmm thought we already had a deal called NAFTA.

   

I think all Canadians thought that, but it turns out we were wrong. NAFTA only works when it's in the American's interests.

If we ever negotiate the FTAA, we'd better make sure that it works better than NAFTA does...

   

or better yet, slap duties on all things from US farms because of their subsidies!
oops, what am i saying, that would mean harper has balls....

   

Not just our oil, Avro...gas and electricity as well. Coal too, for that matter. An energy export tax.

They can theoretically replace the oil for a price, although it's doubtful they will be able to in reality, but they have no easy replacement for gas and electricity because of the infrastructure involved. It will also silence a lot of the criticism from Alberta, since Quebec, Manitoba and BC sell most of the electricity into the US market.

Martin should have done this more than a year ago. Harper should do it before the snow melts.

   

Start a trade war with our biggest trading partner,real good idea.Info for you,they dont have to buy our coal,slap a tax on it and find out how fast you put Candian miners on the dole.Then we would also have to tax China as they are Canada's biggest buyer of coal.

Slap a tax on gas and guess who also pays it? Us,the consumer,but if you want to run this country into the ground then tax's are the answer.

Man I hope all dippers dont think like you.

   

This would be an export tax on exports to a specific country as a retaliatory measure, Ziggy. It wouldn't cost you anything, and it would have nothing to do with China.

Letting the US continue to bone us just because they are our biggest trading partner is nothing more than inviting them to bone us some more. It went to a binding panel, we won. They either accept that judgement, or there have to be consequences. Do you think the US would let us get away with violating NAFTA without repercussions?

It wouldn't last long, either. If everybody in the US saw their energy prices rise by 15% overnight so that Bush could pander to a small number of his political supporters, the softwood problem would go away in a hurry. The political pressure on Bush and Congress would be massive.

   

Were just damn lucky they even take any coal from us,twenty years of breaking into and establishing a market would be wiped out in a flash with a tax.


Retaliation works both ways bub. Guess who's going to win that one?

Sounds like you want to punish the states more then anything,revenge is a dish best served cold rev. if you think we could win a trade war with the states then go outside and give your head a shake.

   

So what do YOU propose we do? Suck it up and take in the ass? Obviously talking isnt doing shit. So what other leverage do we have here? All Im hearing is that we have to suck it up from you. Personally, I think thats bullshit. And would not want to stand by and let this go on without showing those assholes that we will not take it lying down.



Edit:
Do we not send a lot of water over to the US? Is that not something we can use to our advantage? If nothing else, THAT would have the biggest smack in the face I would think. No?

   

is not the answer.New government,lets see how they handle it before going off half cocked.

   

Ya I can hardly wait to see what comes of it all. Somehow I just dont feel the confidence I should in a new Con government. I just have a sad eery feeling of seeing them laughing it up together.....just my dislike of harper perhaps

I do have to wonder why you might think it half cocked....I mean after what is it? 5 rulings by NAFTA in our favour and countless "talks" that retaliation is far from out of sight here. I find it necessary to do so. Just stinks of Canadians getting stepped on by the bigger guy.

   

Slap a tax on energy exports to the US. Won't do any long term harm, China would jump on the occasion and get all the juicy energy.

In a trade war, with the US, we have the upper hand. Most of our exports, is in high demand accross the world. And energy, is something the US can't afford to loose a grip on. The US can't afford to loose their ''first grab'' status for Oil and Natural Gas. Cause then they would loose it to China.

   

i agree with ziggy on this one. see how the new government handles it.

However, the only way the new governmetn can prove they handled the situation well is if we get every penny back.

Thing is, the trade war started when the tariffs were first put in place. that was the initial attack, and this attack has continued ever since. diplomacy hasn't worked so far. it might now since harper and bush might get along better. but if it doesn't we do have to defend ourselves.

the only kids on the playground that were bullied were the ones that either didn't, or couldn't fight back. if we can fight back, lets hit em where it'll hurt, when it'll hurt the most. mostly natural gas, coal, electricity and water. i don't say oil because the states can get that from elsewhere. coal may not be the best idea either, so i say we set up a gas, electrical, and water tax first. an even better idea would be to simply kill the flow of all three, see what happens.

   

1  2  3  Next