Ottawa sues U.S. in lumber trade war

[CHIMO]

WASHINGTON - The Martin government and a coalition of Canadian exporters have launched a new legal attack on the U.S. government over the bitter softwood lumber dispute.

In a lawsuit filed in New York with the U.S. International Trade Court, Ottawa and the Canadian softwood lumber industry are demanding that ''tens of millions of dollars'' in import duties already funnelled to U.S. industries be handed back immediately.

That could easily soar to more than $5-billion in duties collected from Canadian lumber producers being illegally handed over to the U.S. softwood lumber industry in coming years, the Canadian complaint said.

This latest legal salvo comes as trade relations between Canada and the United States -- each other's largest trading partners -- is quickly spiralling into the darkest and potentially most damaging periods ever because of the escalating acrimony over the long-running construction-lumber dispute.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=de14e2fe-80ef-41e4-930e-6f3cd4583a08


Tree falling in the forest? Only effects 25% of US trade.

[achtung_circus]

1. The funneling of tarrifs imposed to make Canada less competetive

to the pockets of mostly southern lumber companies is a double whammy. Does this administration have NO shame? Silly question, of course not.

The dispute has been ongoing no matter who controlled Congress, no matter who controlled the White House. The diversion of funds to plaintiffs is a new one though.

[happyslug]

2. Wake me up when Canada gets serious about this dispute

It has been going on for year and Canada has REFUSED to use its main weapon to force the US Congress to agree to resolve the dispute.

That main weapon is that Canada is the #1 energy exporters to the us, Number 1 over all and #1 in Oil, Natural gas and electricity.

17% of All Oil Imports into the US is from Canada (1.9 Million Barrels per day).
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/trade_and_investment/energy-en.asp

1.8 Billion Dollars of goods and Services cross between the US and Canada every day.
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/trade_and_investment/trade_partnership-en.asp

But if we assume $50 a barrel times 1.9 Billion Barrels per day that comes to $98 Million Dollars in Oil Alone. Natural Gas is similar (And the US is a net importer of Electricity and imports Uranium from Canada). Thus over 10% of the imports from Canada is energy (And a good part of the rest is moving Auto parts from one country to another for finial assembly).

My point here is until I hear that Canada is denying the export of its Oil and Natural Gas, I know Canada is NOT serious about trade or the dispute over softwoods.

[CHIMO]

3. Forget It

You ain't going to hear it!

But you might expect to see the cancellation of NAFTA and the return to international trade wars if that happens.

Although it hasn't appeared in the MSM there is a growing belief that separate trade deals with the US doesn't work. There is more security in international rules such as the WTO.

It is not about softwood or energy, it is about NAFTA!

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. Our government has signed long term commitments on some of our resources

.
.
.

I believe it was Pearson who initiated these committments

BUT

they are coming up for renegotiation in the near future I think -

some in 2008 if I believe

while that does not seem near enough for some

It is in the thoughts of the USA's administration I guarantee you

softwood is just a test - to see how far they can push us

If we fail - we might as well just sign on forever

Regarding the softwood, I think we should drop our profit margin and market abroad

THe USA is playing a dangerous game with our resources, what with China emerging as an economic power. Bad timing in my opinion - it's not as if there is no market for our products elsewhere.

And don't think that the terrorists haven't noticed all those pipelines going from Canada to the United States. In the last few months, maps showing the pipelines routes from some of the suppliers websites are no longer available - wunder why - - - ??

I was amazed when I viewed them quite some while back that almost ALL our pipelines, including the one called the "Trans-Canada" - end up in the United States!!

I would feel much safer if none of our petroleum resources crossed the border, cuz to the terrorists minds, we are supporting the "evildoers" of the West - especially their WarMachine". If we really had any balls up here - we woulda cut off all petroleum supplies the day Mad George dropped the first bomb on Iraq . . .

but then theres them contracts/treaty thingies in the way . . .

and sumtimes we're just TOO "nice"

(sigh)

[CHIMO]

5. I Am Not Aware

Of the commitment(s) that you are referring to and would appreciate if you could amplify. The only one that comes to mind is the auto pact and I believe that that has gone the way of the dodo bird. But would appreciate some bits on this if you have a minute to reply.
Thanks

[buzzard]

11. Old article not sure about relevancy,

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/100.html


snip
"The free-trade agreements committed Canada to an energy policy driven by massive, guaranteed exports to the United States, corporate control of supplies and an economic policy more dependent than ever on the exploitation of primary resources. When prices inevitably rose, the United States, which never gave up its right to store vast supplies of energy for emergencies, was able to dip into its reserves and bring down the price of gas for Americans.

When asked why he would use up reserves supposedly earmarked for such emergencies as war or disaster, President Bill Clinton said last week that the reserves would be restocked immediately.

This is because the United States has a security blanket. Under NAFTA's proportional-sharing provision, Canada must replenish even the U.S. reserve supply -- by law and in perpetuity. The short-term gain for American consumers in lower energy prices may come at great expense to Canadians this winter.

The Canadian government, on the other hand, is left with the limited choices of lowering fuel taxes, thereby forfeiting important tax revenue, or giving direct financial assistance to low-income families, using public funds to do so. In either case, the transnational energy companies get to deflect attention from their outrageous profits, and the demand for their environmentally harmful products continues to grow."

[CHIMO]

12. OK

This relates to FTA/NAFTA which came about under Regan/Mulroney. The item that I queried was about Pearson, which was back in the 1960's. I suspect that the reference is actually to the commitment that Canada made to natural resources to obtain the FTA agreement but I wanted to check.

[applegrove]

7. You are referring to the auto-pact?

[Maple]

8. Auto pact is long gone

[applegrove]

10. I know but he was talking of Pearson. Autopact is all I can think of.

[applegrove]

6. We as Canadians need to have a deep & long discussion with

ourselves about where we go from here. I hope that it happens due to the events causes by bogus tactics and complaints initiated in the U.S. That way - they really cannot blame us. They redo policy all the because of international incidents.

We will have to take a hard look at trade obligations and practices as BRIC grows. Why not do it now. Now that we see the ramifications of world trade in this century. Better to overhall trade practices and perhaps - sign trade agreements with China & Russia & Europe. So our softwood (sustainable industry) has secure markets.

[Maple]

9. Don't think it would take much discussion

Easy sell...except amongst the lazy of course.