 |
| |
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wezil
So long as we do nothing in response what incentive have they to change?
This approach works well for the US. |
They have little to no incentive to change as it stands. Thats why some sort of response is needed. But I still think that Canada gets hurt if trade relations go to crap entirely. Perhaps a levy on all natural gas flowing into the US to recover enough money to get what we are owed.
Such a levy would probably break all sorts of trade rules but if the rules don't matter to the US, why should Canada play by them??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for unintended consequences, the Canadian mills are so efficient that they were still able to make money despite the tariff, and the high Canadian dollar hurting our exports. How do you think the American mills are going to compete once the tariff gets dropped? |
NOT well although my understanding was the US mills were in pretty good shape and have been raking in windfall profits as their prices rose to match the tariff added canadian one.
My comment on unintended consequences addressed WEzil's idea that we ship the US NO LUMBER . . .. OK --largely idling the industry for a while in Canada and creating a shoprtage in the US-- it could work out, but I'm afraid the US would find other sources or this would spur use of alternative materials
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
Take that!
http://www.canada.com/news/national...fa-0f92e06e0a9a
quote:
Angry Canada suspends softwood talks with U.S., cancels Monday meeting
Steve Mertl
Canadian Press
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
VANCOUVER (CP) - The spectre of a wider trade war with the United States grew Tuesday after the federal government suspended negotiations to settle the softwood lumber dispute because of a U.S. refusal to abide by a NAFTA ruling that sided with Canada.
The two sides were expected to meet in Ottawa on Monday but Trade Minister Jim Peterson said he put those talks on hold after consulting with lumber-producing provinces and the forest industry.
An industry source said the push is on to get Prime Minister Paul Martin to speak directly with President George W. Bush before the dispute damages the two countries' trading relationship, the biggest in the world and largely hassle-free.
Peterson said in a statement he informed U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, his American counterpart, of the decision.
"I have conveyed Canada's position to Mr. Portman . . . and appreciate our open dialogue," said Peterson.
Portman's spokeswoman, Neena Moorjani, said the U.S. government was disappointed and hoped talks would resume shortly.
"As Ambassador Portman has noted, we continue to believe it is in the interest of the United States and Canada to reach a permanent, market-based negotiated solution and had been preparing for these talks with this goal very much in mind," Moorjani said from Washington.
In a prepared statement, she reiterated the U.S. view it is not flouting its NAFTA obligations. U.S. trade officials argue a move last fall to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling on softwood duties rendered last week's ruling by a NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee moot.
The Canadians claim the Americans are hiding behind a legal technicality to avoid cancelling punitive tariffs on Canadian lumber and returning more than $5 billion in duties collected since May 2002, with interest.
B.C. Forests Minister Rich Coleman, whose province accounts for more than half of lumber exports to the United States, said scraping the duties and returning the money would renew confidence in a negotiated settlement.
"Until we see some good-faith measure from the United States there's not really much point in our people going to the table to see if there's a possibility of a deal," he said.
The U.S. decision represents a fundamental breach of faith, said Gordon Ritchie, who helped negotiate the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, whose dispute-resolution mechanism carried over into NAFTA.
"I certainly support suspending the discussions," Ritchie, brought in to help with the lumber talks, said from Ottawa.
"There's no way that I can sit across the table from somebody whose main bargaining leverage is that he isn't complying with the existing agreement. That has to be cleared up first."
The extraordinary challenge committee is NAFTA's court of last resort. The U.S. had demanded it review NAFTA appeal decisions that found Canadian softwood imports posed no threat of injury to American producers.
The panel - two Canadians and an American - last week unanimously upheld the earlier rulings, which under the treaty carry the force of law.
"We're not talking about some trivial violation," said Ritchie.
"If they don't obey the ECC they're in violation of their own law," said Carl Grenier of the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council. "Perhaps that's not really dawned on them yet."
Barring an American climb-down, Canada will have to decide what its next step will be, said John Allan, president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council.
"There's been reference to retaliation; I see linkage (with other trade issues) is coming back onto the table," he said, referring to NDP Leader Jack Layton's suggestion Monday that Canada slap an export tax on oil and gas shipments.
"I think the federal government's going to have to take time to think through what they can do and what they should do."
Under NAFTA, Ottawa can apply for retaliatory duties on a range of U.S. imports and last year set the wheels in motion to retaliate under WTO rules potentially against billions of dollars in U.S. goods.
But a spokesman for the American lumber industry claimed the Canadians used U.S. response to the NAFTA ruling as a pretext to pull out of the talks.
"I don't think the Canadian provinces and the industry within those provinces are able to come to a consensus on how to deal with the issue," Barry Cullen, executive-director of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, said from Washington. "I think that's the fundamental problem."
Cullen said the Americans were expecting the Canadians to table a response to a U.S. proposal for a temporary export tax to replace lumber duties while the provinces implement open-market reforms to their forest policies.
The Americans were also looking for a limits on exports of lumber from dead stands of pine beetle-infested timber in the B.C. Interior, which must be logged before it rots. Quotas are a non-starter with the Canadians.
Canada exports about $10 billion a year in spruce, pine and fir lumber a year 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.
Incentive to reach a settlement diminished in the last couple of years as a red-hot U.S. housing market drove up lumber prices.
A downturn would increase pressure on both sides to cut a deal, more so on the American industry whose mills are far less productive at low lumber prices than their Canadian counterparts.
The U.S. lumber coalition argues provincial forest policies help give the Canadian industry that edge.
© The Canadian Press 2005 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:37
|
|
Good question. If you know anything about the lumber industry in Canada, you will see why. The stumpage tariff at least in British Columbia subsidises one part of the industry at the expense of the other. BC has two logging industries, coastal and interior. The coast harvests wood like Cedar and other hardwoods. The interior, where I am from harvests softwoods like pine, spruce, fir, etc. The problem is that the terrain on the coast makes it difficult to harvest timber, and the volumes of production on the coast are not enough for most businesses to make money.
So the provincial government came up with this idea of stumpage to ensure that coastal logging could operate, at the expense of lumber producers in the interior. Stumpage usually isn't a big issue, since the folks in the interior make a considerable amount of money. So the reality is that stumpage helps the Americans compete against Canadian softwood lumber, since it raises their costs.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005 20:28
How about biting the bullet for 6 - 12 months and sending NO LUMBER of any kind....?
How ya been, Chez-Its?
|