The US says screw NAFTA on Softwood Lumber

[canuckcat]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...al/?query=nafta

So what now? This like taking someone to court and after a judgement has been found in your favour, thugs and gangsters kill the judge, all the jury, and all court employees... and then your assailants ask for a retrial and pretend nothing untoward has happened - as they smile at you... ... why do we make treaties with a country that acts as a rogue state? We should be making plans with other countries who have responsible govenments. The US has no credibility anymore on the world stage. We as Canadians are the last to admit this because we are are just next door - and we want them to be virtuous - but they are not, they threat us like shite (ad.,Scottish). But the truth is, it's time to look at managing the US in other ways...

[Toro]

Such as?

[mcqueen625]

We manage the United States, get real! the truth is that they manage us, and because of their size and their capacity as an importing country, we need them far more than they need us. Sabre rattling Liberal politicians are just doing more damage to Canada/US relations. Myself I was never in favor of either the FTA, or NAFTA and neither were those who saw these deals for what they really were, politicians with business and law background's simply following a corporate agenda. The only ones that actually benefit from these treaties are the corporations because they can move their operations offshore where they can use virtual slave labour to manufature products that were once made here by workers who were paid good wages. These profit greedy corporations can now ship the finished product back into Canada and the U.S. duty free, and that allows these greedy corporations and their shareholders to maximize porfits.

These treaties have turned Canada from a manufacturing nation into a service sector nation where wages are traditionally low. Just look around at Ontario and Quebec and remember back when factories abounded, and are now closed. Many former employees work in the call centre industry, and even those jobs are now being outsourced to places like India. IBM and Air Canada are prime examples of this happening. If the corporations have their way the whole world will be living at third world levels, all except themselves, and their shareholders.

Canada should never have signed on the dotted line in the first place, now it is too late because the corporations now control governments and government policy. Paul Helyer, former Finance Minister under Pierre Trudeau wrote a book entitled, "The Evil Empire," in which he outlines the corporate takeover of the world. This book is a worthwhile read, and a scary scenario.

[Sir Chauncy]

Need them my azz. Canada was simply lazy a century ago and took the easy, profitable trade way out. We traded next door. We put all our eggs in one basket.

We need to push for more trade abroad, cut ties with America, cut our reliance on them, and stop the FTA and NAFTA.

They need our lumber, that is fact. They can now produce at best just sixty percent of their own needs. If we stopped shipping wood products Americans would soon find housing to expesive to own.

They love saying they dont need us, but they dont buy what we have simply to be good neighbors. They need hydro, they need and want water diversion now.

We should open up the doors with China and Russia and South America and any other country willing to deal.

Sure times may get tough for a spell, but we will become a free agent, unreliant on the States and in a position where no one country can hurt us financially so badly again.

Trading elsewhere and forcing America to finally deal fairly and honestly if they want our goods is good for our self protection as a country.

Will we?

I think we may be forced to soon, or else admit that we dont count as a country anymore and just become another State of America.

Sir Chauncy

[Argus]

These treaties have turned Canada from a manufacturing nation into a service sector nation where wages are traditionally low. Just look around at Ontario and Quebec and remember back when factories abounded, and are now closed. Many former employees work in the call centre industry, and even those jobs are now being outsourced to places like India. IBM and Air Canada are prime examples of this happening. If the corporations have their way the whole world will be living at third world levels, all except themselves, and their shareholders.

The world has changed. The closure of labour-intensive manufacturing industries was well-underway before Free trade. And it's been happening to the US and throughout Europe, with work being transferred to cheap-labour third world nations, and lately, primarily, China. I might not like it and I can see a few ways of slowing this (like taxation based on employee count) but you can't blame it on the Free Trade agrement.

[Argus]

Need them my azz. Canada was simply lazy a century ago and took the easy, profitable trade way out. We traded next door. We put all our eggs in one basket.

We need to push for more trade abroad, cut ties with America, cut our reliance on them, and stop the FTA and NAFTA.

The feds have been pushing for trade abroad for many years. Have you forgotten those notorious international trade jaunts led by Chretien, with most of the premiers in tow, begging for trade all over the world? They accomplished nothing.

The fact is that European markets are extremely difficult to penetrate because of their own mutual economic agreements. Asian countries are very protectionist, particularly the Japanese and South Koreans. The Chinese require production facilities be established in their nation, rather than other nations shipping masses of manufactured goods there. What does that leave? Impoverished third world nations?

Eighty-five percent of our trade goes to the US. There's no getting around that.

They need our lumber, that is fact. They can now produce at best just sixty percent of their own needs. If we stopped shipping wood products Americans would soon find housing to expesive to own.

Utter nonsense. We are in intense competition with other lumbering nations like Brazil, Finland, and increasingly, eastern europe, and the US would have no difficulty satisfying their needs elsewhere. Meanwhile, our lumber industry would collapse.

They love saying they dont need us, but they dont buy what we have simply to be good neighbors. They need hydro, they need and want water diversion now.

Ontario imports electricity from the United States, and will need to do so for some time.

We should open up the doors with China and Russia and South America and any other country willing to deal.

Been in a store lately? Do you have any idea how much stuff sold is from China now? Meanwhile, China wants nothing from us but raw materials. Russia and south America have no money.

Sure times may get tough for a spell,

Yes, you could call it that, a depression worse than the dirty thirties, lasting decades. Yeah, tough for a spell.

[August1991]

The tenor of this thread is depressing, and its basic premise fundamentally false.

Andrew Coyne correctly argued this week that Canada should declare unilateral free trade and ignore what the US or any other country does.

When two people trade, they are not competing with one another but rather co-operating. The analogies to war, and hitting back at the bully or being too small to resist, are completely wrong.

A better analogy would be a bridge joining two cities separated by a river. If one city government starts to collect a toll at its end of the bridge, should the other city government collect a toll too at its end? What's the point? What will the new toll accomplish? (Note too that it makes absolutely no difference the relative sizes of the two cities.)

[Guest eureka]

I don't find it depressing, August. I find it very encouraging that Canadians are finally starting to assert themselves and not act as a doormat for the US.

The relationship has almost always been a one sided benefit and, in many areas has impeded the development of Canada. The natural wealth of Canada should have made ita country at least as prosperous as the US long ago. Instead, we have sold our birthright to them.

The WTO offers Canada a far superior protection in trade matters and the US will not retaliate. More than two million Americans are dependant on trade with Canada for their jobs.

[August1991]

I find it very encouraging that Canadians are finally starting to assert themselves and not act as a doormat for the US.

Fine, we can discuss the merits of the Canadian government asserting its sovereignty, or even how Canadians can stand up to Americans. But that is not the issue here at all.

The American government has imposed a toll at its end of the bridge. I fail to see how building a toll gate at our end of the bridge in "retaliation" can be construed in anyway as asserting ourselves or as showing Americans we're not doormats.

The only people crossing the bridge are Canadians or Americans who want to deal with Canadians. IOW, a Canadian toll gate would just be hurting Canadians. It is strange to argue that self-assertion starts with self-flagellation.

The relationship has almost always been a one sided benefit and, in many areas has impeded the development of Canada.

We are discussing a bridge over a river that separates a small town and a large city. You tell me which citizens are more likely to be on the bridge. People on both sides of the river benefit from the bridge. No bridge is one-sided.

The WTO offers Canada a far superior protection in trade matters and the US will not retaliate.

The WTO, like NAFTA, was designed to remove tollgates and make it difficult to install them. Both NAFTA and WTO have more or less succeeded.

The world has enough natural barriers - rivers for example. Governments should not add more.

[Argus]

I find it very encouraging that Canadians are finally starting to assert themselves and not act as a doormat for the US.

Fine, we can discuss the merits of the Canadian government asserting its sovereignty, or even how Canadians can stand up to Americans. But that is not the issue here at all.

The American government has imposed a toll at its end of the bridge. I fail to see how building a toll gate at our end of the bridge in "retaliation" can be construed in anyway as asserting ourselves or as showing Americans we're not doormats.

The only people crossing the bridge are Canadians or Americans who want to deal with Canadians. IOW, a Canadian toll gate would just be hurting Canadians. It is strange to argue that self-assertion starts with self-flagellation.

Well, you are right, August, and you are wrong. You are technically write, theoretically right, but practically wrong. It does make a difference what the toll is and how it is applied. A properly applied toll can benefit one side while damaging the other. The American's toll harms both sides, of course. It harms Canadians by damaging our lumber industry. It harms Americans by making softwood more expensive for all consumers. But that "toll" was never meant to help America. It was meant to help a specific sector in order to gain votes and cash donations. And no doubt it has accomplished this.

Clearly trade barriers hurt both sides to some degree. You just have decide where your interests lie. If we see it as in our interests to protect a sector of the economy from US competitors, even while acknowledging this will lead to higher consumer prices, then we apply the toll there.

But really, I am against trade retaliation. As much as this boneheaded move by the Bush administration irritates me we are, overall, doing extremely well in trade with the US. The tarrifs are a miniscule tax on the massive export surpluses we enjoy with the Americans. Any trade war would damage us far, far more than them. That's simply the nature of the purchaser/seller relationship. In an area where the purchaser can always find another seller, but the seller can't find other purchasers, you just have to grin and bear it.

Retaliation will have to come in other areas. Or perhaps, just wait. Bush will be gone in a few years, and surely the next administration won't be as incompetent and ignorant as this one.

[Guest eureka]

If the bridge analogy is to be given merit, then we must discuss how to replace the rotting parts. The rot is FTA.

The Free Trade Agreement is no longer in effect since America has unilaterally rejected the only section that was of any use to Canada. That is the Dispute resolution mechanism; limited use, but with some saving from disaster for Canada.

Therefore, we should revert to the original and stronger bridge. The WTO.

The FTA was designed to avoid the unpleasant teeth possessed by GATT and the WTO and to allow unfair trade and investment practices by the US. We now have the opportunity to correct our serious errors. We lose nothing by rejoining the international community in our trading practises. Trade with the uS will carry on just as it is; and as it was before Free Trade.

American access to our energy will again be within the power of the Canadian government to control. a greater measure of control over our industrial capacity will be brought back home. American investment will be subjected to the same rules as Canadian with our government having the power to regulate it.

There is nothing to lose and we could more readily diversify trade since many of the constraints under NAFTA will be removed.

[PocketRocket]

  Mr. Wilkins called on Canada to resume negotiations rather than trade litigation to settle the softwood dispute,...... 

Translation: We don't like the deal that we already have in place (NAFTA), so let's make a new one just for softwood lumber.....

......which has escalated following Washington's announcement that it would ignore a NAFTA ruling in Canada's favour. 

Translation: .......because we're bigger, badder, and richer, so we can get away with breaking our own rules, even when caught red-handed.

"Emotional press conferences are not going to settle the issue," Mr. Wilkins told the Citizen editors. "Canada needs to come back to the table. We need to close the door, roll up our sleeves and negotiate as need be, with good faith, and bring finality to it."

Very magnanimous of him to offer to negotiate "in good faith".

Only problem is the "good faith" got chucked in the trash bin, by the USA, by ignoring NAFTA in the first place.

Wilkins' use of the term "good faith" is a joke. It's time the USA showed some good faith and lived up to the deal that they initiated in the first place.

But, being the biggest kid in the schoolyard, they pretty much get to call the shots, and aren't about to let us forget it.

[Toro]

The WTO offers Canada a far superior protection in trade matters and the US will not retaliate. More than two million Americans are dependant on trade with Canada for their jobs.

I wish this were true but its not. The WTO has ruled against America on softwood lumber as well, but that hasn't changed America's behavior.

[Toro]

Andrew Coyne correctly argued this week that Canada should declare unilateral free trade and ignore what the US or any other country does.

This is true economically, but Canadians may be at a point that national pride and a sense of justice are at stake and are willing to pay a higher price for certain goods such as California wines.

[Argus]

The Free Trade Agreement is no longer in effect since America has unilaterally rejected the only section that was of any use to Canada. That is the Dispute resolution mechanism; limited use, but with some saving from disaster for Canada.

If their actions nullify the effectiveness of the dispute resolution mechanism then there is no way for them to force us to do anything. So why do you care?

[Toro]

The other thing is that by walking away from NAFTA, not only does it not solve softwood lumber, it invites other disputes in the future.

[Guest eureka]

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean, Argus.

If we walk away from NAFTA, why would it lead to other disputes in the future? We can do so, legally and trade relationships then are guided by GATT and now WTO rules.

That means the situation before Free Trade Agreements. Then, our lumber entered the US duty free and in the many years there had never been an action against Canada.

If the WTO is violated, retaliation would not be by Canada alone. It has happened before in other commodities and the uS has backed down.

[Cartman]

You are theoretically correct August. A toll is not helpful. But if both cities drew up legislation forbidding tolls and the larger one keeps erecting them at will, does the legislation do any good? Given the existence of tolls, does not the smaller city either have to rewrite the legislation to be more stringent, have it applied by a greater power or recognize that it is meaningless and put their own in place (say on oil)? NAFTA is not the same as free trade and if the US keeps violating its provisions, then we are already in a trade war of sorts.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

A better analogy would be a bridge joining two cities separated by a river. If one city government starts to collect a toll at its end of the bridge, should the other city government collect a toll too at its end? What's the point? What will the new toll accomplish? (Note too that it makes absolutely no difference the relative sizes of the two cities.)

When the bridge was built, it was agreed that there wouldn't be any tolls. (provided all was on the up&up) Then, one side put up a toll booth anyway, they were told it was wrong to do so, but refused to recognize any authority but their own gun. They are robbing the people at both ends, really, for the buyer pays a higher price than they should (or were meant to), and the seller doesn't get the full profit for his goods (if the market would bear the higher price then the seller should get the proceeds). The unfortunate reality is that the US gov't is acting as nothing more than a 'highwayman'.

The only thing that put an end to 'highway robbery' all those years ago, was to apply (and enforce) the death penalty, up to and including 'being found in the woods while wearing a disguise' (which was on the books in Calgary until recently).

[August1991]

A properly applied toll can benefit one side while damaging the other.

Argus, that's true in certain special circumstances. And ironically, one of those circumstances is softwood lumber. If Canada could get Canadian softwood lumber producers to limit their trips across the bridge, they would be richer and the only loser would be American consumers.

Then, one side put up a toll booth anyway, they were told it was wrong to do so, but refused to recognize any authority but their own gun. They are robbing the people at both ends, really, for the buyer pays a higher price than they should (or were meant to), and the seller doesn't get the full profit for his goods (if the market would bear the higher price then the seller should get the proceeds).

Thelonious, re-read what you just wrote.

Every tax of every government is a tollgate. Why pick on this one in particular?

I believe the Ontario premier promised not to impose anymore tollgates and then went ahead and did exactly that. Do you think if Martin imposed a new tax in Ontario that would somehow induce McGuinty to remove his health taxes? A similar reasoning underlies the idea that we should "retaliate" by imposing tariffs on American goods.

But if both cities drew up legislation forbidding tolls and the larger one keeps erecting them at will, does the legislation do any good?

Cartman, nice to see you back here. What does size have to do with this? Either city at either end of the bridge can impose a tollgate.

I think the main point is that this policy hurts the US more than it hurts Canada. I think Canada should be in favour of free trade and I am pleased to see people like Linda McQuaig and Tom Walkom upset that Bush Jnr is not a free trader.

This is true economically, but Canadians may be at a point that national pride and a sense of justice are at stake and are willing to pay a higher price for certain goods such as California wines.

We can take our pride in winning hockey games, or having higher incomes. Imposing barriers to trade will get us neither. The smart way is to impose none, regardless of what other foreign governments foolishly do.

[mirror]

Well, well, the Americans are finally starting to pay attention, and it seems that Canada is not the only one have trouble with these agreements with the US. Here's a story in the LA Times. It seems like the Bryd amendment is at the root cause of most of these disputes. As I suspected the US are causing the entire problem:

Unwitting Victims Of A Trade Battle

[Cartman]

Kinda ironic that those professing free trade are often the ones who violate these ideas. Free trade is the ideal I believe, but it seems impossible to implement.

The article by Mirror was interesting. I wonder if there are more trade disputes now or if we just hear about them due to having a free trade agreement. Oh yeah, and because there is an election coming before long.

Gee, I wonder if this is the Liberals new patriotic, nationalist appeal election platform? They do it every time.