Canada 'extremely pleased' with NAFTA softwood ruling

[justinsb]

Canada 'extremely pleased' with NAFTA softwood ruling

Last Updated Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:03:52 EDT
CBC News

The Canadian government said Wednesday it has won another victory in the softwood lumber fight with the United States.

A NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee rejected U.S. allegations that an earlier ruling in support of Canada's position violated NAFTA rules.

"We are extremely pleased that the ECC dismissed the claims of the United States," said International Trade Minister Jim Peterson.

"This is a binding decision that clearly eliminates the basis for U.S.-imposed duties on Canadian softwood lumber. We fully expect the United States to abide by this ruling, stop collecting duties and refund the duties collected over the past three years," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/08/10/softwood-050910.html

[SixStrings]

1. For some reason I don't think this is over...

"This is a binding decision that clearly eliminates the basis for U.S.-imposed duties on Canadian softwood lumber. We fully expect the United States to abide by this ruling, stop collecting duties and refund the duties collected over the past three years," he said.

I will be surprised if they 'abide' by this ruling at all. And refund the duties collected? Can't see that happening either. I'm sure the US will ram some type of protectionist law or tariff thru in short order.

[justinsb]

2. If they do

I don't think there is any option left but to impose counterveiling duties. This is the 3rd ruling against them.

[Spazito]

3. I agree, we need to put a huge duty on our oil exports to the US

and let them chase us up the ladder of NAFTA while we ignore their rulings till the US caves on softwood lumber. I am so sick of the US ignoring the rulings!

[justinsb]

4. Well...

I think that an export duty on all resource exports including oil, water, natural gas, etc., is a good idea generally - at the very least an export duty to non-Kyoto countries. But, in response to this I think a duty on US imports sufficient to make up the losses on softwood would be appropriate.

[CHIMO]

5. I Doubt

That a duty on oil and gas would affect the purchaser. It would only mean a lower price to the producer. I would think that tariffs on incoming goods would be better.(In all this the environment is being ruined, water is only one issue.)

There should be a better remedy such as a certain value added in the form of finished product being done here, and if local labour is not available then importing labour to satisfy capital needs should not be allowed.

[Spazito]

6. I should have expressed myself better

What I meant is there should be an additional tax attached to all oil and gas being sold to the US and it would remain until the US accepted the numerous NAFTA rulings and returns their ill-gotten monies. Those two products are essential to the US and they would be hard pressed to reduce their importing of them.

[CHIMO]

7. OK

But as the price is established by others and a lot of the crude is heavy oil the selling price is not established by the Canadian market. So someone would have to reduce their portion to match the market. I think that that price would be at the source. Also natural gas price is a function of oil prices and it to would be treated similarly.

An interesting point that I just thought about is that Canada is selling the oil and gas across the border less the GST while Canadians have to pay this part. I wonder if there isn't something in the Charter to contest this. Why should we charge more to Canadians than others on a natural resource?

[jim3775]

9. Oh god no...

I hope you enjoy an American military occupation. :D

[Canadian_moderate]

10. They buy 87% of our exports

Whereas we buy a much smaller fraction of theirs. Do you really think we can win a trade war or any other type of war for that matter?

The only hope we have is for WTO and NAFTA rulings to be enforced.

[Spazito]

12. They NEED our oil, gas and electricity so they won't be going

elsewhere for those essentials which are a big part of that 87% figure. It amazes me how we, including me until recently, just buy into the bogus meme that we are helpless to counter the big ol' US because we are so totally dependent on them. It is the reverse, imo, they are totally dependent on our exports of oil, gas, electricity and water.

[IntravenousDemilo]

8. Yes, they could do something protectionist like that...

...which we should counter by shutting off all oil, natural gas, electricity, and water to the US until we get what we want -- it would take very little for us to bring the American economy grind to a standstill. There's probably a little power switch in Quebec that someone could flick, and the lights would go out all the way down the Eastern Seabord.

It's just a good thing for our continental roommate that we're not that way. I'd like to see us become a lot more assertive. We are getting a little tired of bending over and reflexively grasping our ankles whenever the US government undoes its belt.

As for the ridiculous and expensive "war on drugs", Canada should "just say no" to the DEA. Fuck 'em if they don't like it.

[metis]

11. This is far from being over

Canada has won a major victory in the softwood lumber dispute with the United States, but few in the industry expect it will mark the end of the multibillion-dollar trade war.
--
Washington quickly warned it is ignoring Wednesday's decision in favour of a 2004 ruling from the International Trade Commission, an arm of the U.S. government, which supports its case - even though it's generally believed that and other earlier decisions have all been trumped by the NAFTA conclusion.
"We are, of course, disappointed with the (panel's) decision, but it will have no impact on the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders," said Neena Moorjani, press secretary for the U.S. Trade Representative, Rob Portman.
The U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, representing the American industry, denounced the NAFTA process and said it will continue to fight what it claims are unfair Canadian subsidies.
Not all Americans agree. A U.S. homeowners lobby called on the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush to "do the honourable thing" and drop the softwood war.
http://www.cp.org/premium/ONLINE/member/National/050810/n0810119A.html

[CHIMO]

13. Well It's Coming

Folks.

Just heard the king say that the premiers meeting will tell the feds to take all legal means to fix this soft wood lumber thing in their final pronouncement.

Does anyone think that cancellation of NAFTA fits that category?

[Canadian_moderate]

14. Cancellation of NAFTA?

Do you really think that a great idea consider how little diversity there is when it comes to the breakdown of countries to which Canada exports?

I agree that there have been numerous snags since implementation of Free Trade and NAFTA, but all-in-all Canada's economy has gained through these trade agreements. Protectionism is not the way forward.

[CHIMO]

15. OK

Let's sign a separate trade deal on softwood lumber. Guess NAFTA doesn't apply on that. And by the way we don't have a level playing field on the auto trade. The US has to pay more for health insurance. So if we don't go to private coverage I guess that there would be the same case to be made in auto trade, so that will have to be covered by a side deal as well eventually.

Did you notice that just recently the US prevented the purchase of an oil company because it might be detrimental to their national security. Well we can't do that unless it was protecting North American Security. NAFTA prevents that so I guess that that paragraph in the trade deal would stand.

I have, and we all have, heard how much our trade has increased since NAFTA. Well I have yet to see an analysis that has had general agreement on the net added value for the country from NAFTA.

However, I don't think that NAFTA will disappear down the drain just yet.