Stephen Harper: Canada's Next Prime Minister?

[mirror]

Well, that's a switch.

Harper's finally catching on to all the Liberal dirty tricks. You know, say a lot and walk with no stick! Politics as practiced today in Canada is all smoke and mirrors boys and girls. The most important talent for someone aspiring to become prime minister is to be an effective actor.

Harper critical of U.S. ambassador's comments

[Big Blue Machine]

Communication isn't the problem, it's just that Bush and the Republicans are too stupid and stubborn to realize that we are right. They are too protectionist and should take it like a man.

[Argus]

Communication isn't the problem, it's just that Bush and the Republicans are too stupid and stubborn to realize that we are right. They are too protectionist and should take it like a man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't be naive. Bush is not stupid. The people in the White House are not stupid. Of course they know we're right. So what? There are votes to be had in Oregon and money to be made from the lumber industry. So what if Canada is ticked off.

They're not stupid. They're just more interested in their own well-being than the well-being of their country. A trait they share with an unfortunate number of Canadian politicians, including the present and previous prime ministers.

[August1991]

Communication isn't the problem, it's just that Bush and the Republicans are too stupid and stubborn to realize that we are right. They are too protectionist and should take it like a man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't be naive. Bush is not stupid. The people in the White House are not stupid. Of course they know we're right. So what? There are votes to be had in Oregon and money to be made from the lumber industry. So what if Canada is ticked off.

They're not stupid. They're just more interested in their own well-being than the well-being of their country. A trait they share with an unfortunate number of Canadian politicians, including the present and previous prime ministers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent post, Argus.

The steel tariffs arguably "bought" Bush the 2004 election. Ohio Governor's statement

[scribblet]

Well, that's a switch.

Harper's finally catching on to all the Liberal dirty tricks. You know, say a lot and walk with no stick! Politics as practiced today in Canada is all smoke and mirrors boys and girls. The most important talent for someone aspiring to become prime minister is to be an effective actor.

Harper critical of U.S. ambassador's comments

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whats wrong with Harper speaking out for Canadians, its about time, Martin isn't doing much about it.

[Canuck E Stan]

Martin will, "when the time is right"

Just about election time would be my guess.

[scribblet]

Martin will, "when the time is right"

Just about election time would be my guess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Riverwind]

Martin will, "when the time is right"

FYI: there is another softwood related ruling from the WTO expected in the next couple months. Canadians expect the WTO to rule in favour of Canada, however, it makes sense to wait until that ruling is know before committing to any specific strategy.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

FYI: there is another softwood related ruling from the WTO expected in the next couple months. Canadians expect the WTO to rule in favour of Canada, however, it makes sense to wait until that ruling is know before committing to any specific strategy.

Evidently 'rulings' are moot and the WTO, NAFTA and GATT have been rendered pretty much worthless. Like the UN.

[Riverwind]

Evidently 'rulings' are moot and the WTO, NAFTA and GATT have been rendered pretty much worthless. Like the UN.

You are correct, however, it makes it easier to claim the moral high ground if wait until after the meaningless tribunal rules...

[Canuck E Stan]

This might be a stupid question, in regards to the billions that the Americans owe the Canadian softwood people. Could the Canadian government not have imposed some sort of tariff on the Canadian lumber group instead of the Americans? My thinking is, then the costs of lumber for this group would be higher going into the U.S. Could that have been possible? I know nothing of how these tariffs work. Clue me in if you know. Thanks.

[August1991]

This might be a stupid question, in regards to the billions that the Americans owe the Canadian softwood people. Could the Canadian government not have imposed some sort of tariff on the Canadian lumber group instead of the Americans? My thinking  is, then the costs of lumber for this group would be higher going into the U.S. Could that have been possible? I know nothing of how these tariffs work. Clue me in if you know. Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not a stupid question at all. And you are exactly right.

The Canadian government could have (in theory) imposed an "export" tariff and collected the tariff revenue instead.

Another "solution" would have been for Canadian producers to form a cartel and raise their selling price. They would have kept the money instead.

----

To my knowledge, the $5 billion collected so far is still held in escrow. By rights, most of it should go to American consumers.

The perception in Canada is that this case is closed and the US has violated NAFTA. That is not the American viewpoint and technically, they are right.

[Canuck E Stan]

Thanks August,now I know. Is there a reason this method wasn't used? And has Canada ever used the export tax on anything in the past? Thanks again.

[I Miss Trudeau]

By rights, most of it should go to American consumers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BS. Most of it show go to the Canadian softwood industry which has been decimated by illegal tariffs.

But hey, why not encourage further tariffs by giving away money to US citizens as "compensation" for their government attempting to destroy a Canadian industry.

[August1991]

Well, I think that an export tariff would have violated NAFTA although it would not have been the Americans who would have complained, it would have been Canadian producers. (The Canadian government couldn't refund the tariff revenue to the producers because that would have defeated the whole purpose.)

Forming a Canadian cartel, raising the export price and restricting exports would be a better way. Then the $5 billion would stay in the Canadian producers' pockets and they wouldn't complain. But forming a cartel of lumbermen may not be easy.

When the American government refers to a "negotiated" settlement, I think they have the cartel solution in mind.

Keep in mind too that in all these scenarios, American consumers (new homebuyers) are getting royally screwed (pardon the language).

I have a suspicion that the federal Liberals do not want a negotiated settlement (a cartel) because they prefer to have this issue in the public eye. It's a vote winner for them. But my suspicion might be considered as partisan by others.

[mirror]

--

[Guest eureka]

The Americans have violated NAFTA. That is what the rulings of the Dispute Resolution are all about.

They have also violated the WTO Agreements but theydo not have the force of law since NAFTA supersedes the.

If the WTO can and does make a ruling then Canada is in the driver's seat since there will be penalties imposed on the US. And serious ones. Crossing that agreement leaves Canada in company with all the major industrial countries and not standing alone.

[Riverwind]

Thanks August,now I know. Is there a reason this method wasn't used? And has Canada ever used the export tax on anything in the past? Thanks again.

I don't think August's analysis is reasonable:

Softwood is a commodity with prices set by the marketplace so the tariff was not added to the price of the lumber and paid for by the consumer like the GST. What actually happened is Canadian companies were forced to reduce their prices to the point where their price plus the tax would equal current market price for lumber. In other words, the tariff took revenues that would have gone to the Canadian companies therefore it is reasonable that the money go back to company.

August will argue that the price of lumber went up and, therefore, some of the lost revenue of is not real since the market price would have been lower without the tariff: this is only partially true since the increase in price due to tariffs was much less that then tariffs. For example the price (relative numbers not actual) rose from 100 to 105 but the tariffs meant Canadian producers could only sell lumber for 80 - the net result is the Canadian lumber producers lost 20.

The other critical weakness in August's argument is he forgets that the Canadian lumber only makes up about 30% of the US marketplace which means that the vast majority of the extra monies paid by US consumers went to US producers who could sell at a higher price. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest that the American consumers should be entitled to any compensation from the tariffs for the higher prices unless the US producers are also expected to return their extra profits. Since that is not likely to happen the only fair way to deal with the tariffs is to return it to the Canadian companies who paid them.

Furthermore, the Canadian and provincial governments refused to negotiate an export tariff this time around because they believed (correctly, I might add) that Canada would win all cases at all trade tribunals and the US would be forced to drop the duties and return the monies collected. This was a perfectly reasonable strategy at the time because no one could have predicted the US administration would so blatantly repudiate the trade agreements that we have in place.

That puts us in the situation where we must either withdraw from NAFTA (or at least state that Canada will no longer recognize any tribunal ruling that go against Canada) or engage in some sort of retaliation. Failing to do so would just set Canada up for more abuse at the hands of protectionist US senators.

[August1991]

Softwood is a commodity with prices set by the marketplace so the tariff was not added to the price of the lumber and paid for by the consumer like the GST. What actually happened is Canadian companies were forced to reduce their prices to the point where their price plus the tax would equal current market price for lumber. In other words, the tariff took revenues that would have gone to the Canadian companies therefore it is reasonable that the money go back to company.

Sparhawk, if that were the case, then US producers, would have nothing to gain from the tariff. (Incidentally, you are wrong about GST.)

August will argue that the price of lumber went up and, therefore, some of the lost revenue of is not real since the market price would have been lower without the tariff: this is only partially true since the increase in price due to tariffs was much less that then tariffs. For example the price (relative numbers not actual) rose from 100 to 105 but the tariffs meant Canadian producers could only sell lumber for 80 - the net result is the Canadian lumber producers lost 20.

Here, your argument makes more sense. Both US consumers and Canadian producers paid the tariff.

The other critical weakness in August's argument is he forgets that the Canadian lumber only makes up about 30% of the US marketplace which means that the vast majority of the extra monies paid by US consumers went to US producers who could sell at a higher price.

Exactly. Anything above a non-tariff market price is paid by US consumers. Some of these "extra monies" go to US producers and some of it goes to the US government.

I think focussing on the $5 billion misses the point. Another way to view this is to imagine a very high tariff. So high, that it amounts to a blockade of Canadian lumber. The tariff revenues would be nil and there would be no $5 billion accumulated.

The irony is that the NDP is suggesting such a blockade of our oil exports to protest an existing mini-blockade of our lumber.

----

If you don't believe me, there have been numerous studies on this. Here's one:

The petitions now before the ITC would add approximately $2,000 to $4,000 to the cost of a new home, which according to U.S. Census statistics, could exclude 1.2 million American families from the housing market, CITAC says.

The impact for large-scale construction projects, which use 10 to 1,000 times the amount of lumber as a new home, would be enormous. Additional costs could add up to millions for commercial real estate developers.

It is estimated that a 78 percent duty on imports of Canadian lumber would reduce the level of imports by 34 percent. Such a duty would raise the price of lumber by 33.2 percent, compared to the price under conditions of free trade, according to anti-tariff groups. Economists predict that the price increase would cause U.S. consumption of softwood lumber to fall by 5.6 percent. U.S. softwood lumber production would increase by 13.3 percent.

Somne Web Site

This policy of the US government hurts a small group of Canadian producers but it is far worse for the US economy. Bill Clinton had the good sense and political ability to steer clear of these lobbyists. Bush Jnr. apparently doesn't.

[hiti]

Yes, Paul Martin is doing something. Ottowa sues US in lumber trade war

[Argus]

The Americans have violated NAFTA. That is what the rulings of the Dispute Resolution are all about.

They have also violated the WTO Agreements but theydo not have the force of law since NAFTA supersedes the.

If the WTO can and does make a ruling then Canada is in the driver's seat since there will be penalties imposed on the US. And serious ones.

And what would those penalties be, hmmm?

[Guest eureka]

Just take a look at the retaliatory actions taken by Europe in the similar case of steel. America backed off in a hurry.

[Riverwind]

Just take a look at the retaliatory actions taken by Europe in the similar case of steel. America backed off in a hurry.

Unfortunately, rumor says the WTO is going to rule against Canada.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/

It is impossible to know the significance since it is a confidential report. If the rumors are true then Canada will not be able to launch WTO-sanctioned trade action. This would put us in a situation where quota negotiation is the only option unless the US insists on giving the 5 billion to US lumber companies. If that happens then Canada is entitled to apply 5 billion worth of duties based on previous WTO rulings on the Bryd amendment.

[PocketRocket]

The softwood quagmire, which began in 2001, revolves around expensive duties placed on Canadian softwood lumber exports to the U.S.

Softwood quagmire.

Iraq quagmire.

What the hell is QUAGMIRE, the new buzz word for the decade???

[Guest Warwick Green]

The softwood quagmire, which began in 2001, revolves around expensive duties placed on Canadian softwood lumber exports to the U.S.

Softwood quagmire.

Iraq quagmire.

What the hell is QUAGMIRE, the new buzz word for the decade???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Iraq is a quagmire. Softwood lumber is one guy not wanting to play by the rules.