Martin's hardline on softwood

[Leafless]

Prime Minister Paul Martin's stance on softwood lumber in New York scolded U.S. officials over what he called a "breech of faith".

I thought this we primarily a Western issue but after a meeting with buisness leaders in Montreal Mr. Martin said " It was saying to the American people this is just not a fight with Canada. What's really happening here is that special interests in in the United States are in conflict with American national interest.

I really don't know how right Mr.Martin is all of this this especially when the basic argument revolves around 'stumpage rights on public land'.

This means the right to harvest or cut trees on public land as compared to paying for stumpage rights on private land.

In Canada 70%-90% of softwood harvest comes from public land.--Nobody ever ask me as a Canadian citizen if it was okay for our federal government to 'GIVE AWAY' stumpage rights to a commercial buisness.

I think personally it is foolish to risk American -Canadian relations over such a small amount concerning our total trade with the U.S.

I think the U.S. has a legitimate complaint and I think it does amount to subsidizing the Canadian softwood lumber industry. I also think American national interest lie with their own private softwood lumber producers and not Canada's.

http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh85.htm

Comments.

[Canuck E Stan]

But isn't the issue involving the fact that the US has not accepted the NAFTA resolution to the dispute and has gone on to WTO. Shouldn't the US accept the NAFTA resolution first, abided by their resolution,pay back what is owed and then go to WTO. The Americans are putting NAFTA at risk by not accepting their ruling.

[I miss Reagan]

I disagree Leafless. Certain US officials are being protectionist at the behest of some powerful lumber companies. This is very harmful to the integrity of NAFTA. It's about time PM grew a spine and stood up for Canadian interests. I'm the first to stand up for the US and Canada's usual self-righteous attitude towards Americans, but in this case it's the Americans that are playing unfair.

[ceemes]

I think personally it is foolish to risk American -Canadian relations over such a small amount concerning our total trade with the U.S.

Are you nuts? Have you the slightest clus as to how much the Softwood industry contributes to the Canadian economy? Not just here in BC, but also in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec? Strongly suggest you do a little research on the industry.

[Leafless]

Canuck E Stan

Well, the NAFTA resolution is one thing and the American lumber industry is another thing.

The forest land ownership and tenure system is different as private land ownership in Canada is 10% vs. the U.S. at 73% and account for 80-85 % of the U.S. supply of industrial round wood.

The lumber industry as far as stumpage could be seen as socialistic since in Canada the stumpage rate is set by government which is to low and does not realisticly reflect a more democratic commercial process as seen in the U.S.

All in all I think the federal government should back off on this one but your point is one recognized by some Canadians.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/08/13/lumber_ruling030813

[Riverwind]

The lumber industry as far as stumpage could be seen as socialistic since in Canada the stumpage rate is set by government which is to low and does not realisticly reflect a more democratic commercial process as seen in the U.S.

Stumpage is only part of the costs of harvesting timber. In the US, the US gov't pays for the roads that the logging companies use to harvest wood. In addition, it is more expensive to meet Canadian environmental regulations. That is why the trade panels always come back with a ruling that says 'in theory, stumpage is a subsidy but when you look at the complete regulatory picture there is no net benefit enjoyed by Canadian companies'.

The only subsidy that exists is the restruction on raw log exports. This reduces the cost of timber in Canada since there are fewer buyers. However, the US restricts log exports as well so they can't really complain.

[Leafless]

Ceemes:

What I do know Ceemes is there is $1.2 Billion dollar per day trade between Canada and the U.S.

Canada exports $6-Billion dollars per year worth of lumber to the U.S.

OTHER CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS to the U.S. amount to $39.6 Billion per year.

I ask you-Have you got the slightest clue what it would cost Canada in an all out trade war and if this Canadian aggression has the potential to cause permanent damage to Canada-U.S. relations?

[ceemes]

Ceemes:

What I do know Ceemes is there is $1.2 Billion dollar per day trade between Canada and the U.S.

Canada exports $6-Billion dollars per year worth of lumber to the U.S.

OTHER CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS to the U.S. amount to $39.6 Billion per year.

I ask you-Have you got the slightest clue what it would cost Canada in an all out trade war and if this Canadian aggression has the potential to cause permanent damage to Canada-U.S. relations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canadian aggression? Sorry, but I think the term you are groping for is retaliation, not aggression. The first strikes came from south of the 49th, not north. And I firmly believe its about bloody time Canadian politicos found their 'nads when it comes to dealing with the US.

And I am well aware of the potential cost of an all out trade war with the US entails, indeed my very livelihood depends of Canada/US trade. However, that does not mean I believe that Canada and Canadians should roll over and expose their bellies like some whimpering cur everytime Uncle Sugar decided to roger us up the backside trade-wise.

I for one firmly believe that it was one of Canada's biggest mistakes to become so reliant and entangled with US trade and openly advocate finding other markets for our goods and services.

Luckily both China and India's economies are coming on strong and have a marked appitite for our exports. And given the size of those two markets alone, they could in a few years times become more important to Canada then the US. Think about it, the US market is some 260 Million souls, whereas the combined market of both China and India are in the excess of 3 Billion souls. From a market stand point, capturing 1% of the combined China/India market is more valuable then capturing 10% of the US market.

[Leafless]

ceemes:

You know as well as I do due to demographics, politics, investor confidence, our high dollar Canadian trade opportunities elsewhere in the world are practically non-existent.

Dealing with China could be risky and India only certain unfinished products are appealing.

The U.S. has a lot of money invested in Canada and they have created the economy we enjoy to-day.

I for one would much rather enjoy present relations with the U.S. than to disturb our traditonal relations with our good friend and neighbour.

I hear a lot of anti-U.S. sentiment coming from the media much related to Canadian immigration and Quebec and this line of rational spreads to issue's such as the softwood lumber issue which I think presently is totally out of proportion relating to it's importance.

The softwood lumber issue is a minor issue and should be treated as such.

[Montgomery Burns]

Dear PM Paul Martin:

This dispute could be over in a matter of minutes, not months, if you would pick up the phone and soothe relations with President Bush. Your party can't call the Bushies "morons", the "coalition of the idiots", and have a party member go on the state-run TV network and gleefully stomp on a George Bush doll like a crazed meth addict--and then be surprised when the objects of your childish taunts play hardball with you. Why did you run to the Wall Street Journal? Why did you go public? Quit being so damn reflexively anti-Bush/American! I don't know who is in the right regarding the softwood lumber dispute; NAFTA says Canada is in the right and the WTO says the US is in the right. But because the WTO is part of the contemptible UN, I tend to believe that the NAFTA judgement is the correct one. But if you picked up the phone, this could be over quickly.

Also, IMO, the #1 duty of the govt is to protect its citizens from possible enemies. Your party has failed miserably in that regard. Also, there are enough non-combat related deaths in the best of times, but it is worse when the military has shoddy equipment. It is in the best interest for Canada to warm relations with the USA, work with them in protecting North America, "take advantage" of the USA's willingness to put up the technology and most of the costs, and build up the Canadian military to a respectful power that can defend its vast borders. No one is asking for a military build-up like the USA or the UK. However, something akin to Australia would be a start. Indeed, with our larger population and vaster borders, we should be stronger than Australia. If Canada didn't "buck" the US so much--if they worked with the US on defense--then I doubt that any sane person would be foolish enough to attack Canada.

Attack a country with a no-pushover defense and said country has cordial relations with its next-door neighbor--the US? Not gonna happen.

Also, dump the wasteful socialist daycare program, the junk science Kyoto accord (New Zealand, the UK and others are bailing out of it), and dump the ultra leftwing state-run CBC.

And cut my taxes!

PERMANANTLY!

[mcqueen625]

Good one Montgomery. Cnada has far more to lose than does trhe United States. I would love to know what energy Martin is talking about when he says they will sell it elsewhere besides the U.S. For starters if he tries to tell Alberta who to sell THEIR oil to he may find that Alberta can afford to pack it in with Canada at any time, while on the other hand if they did pack it in Ottawa would have no money to give away to their friend's in the Advertising agencies of Quebec and Ontario., let alone pay for any of the other jalf baked initiatives this Liberal government has found to waste taxpayer's dollars. Let's start by looking at the failed Gun Registry that I believe has already surpassed $2 Billion, and when it was announced it was supposed to cost $2 Million and then be self-sufficient. This fiasco will never be self-sufficient and they knew that going in, but chose to ignore that fact to satisfy a bunch of urban reactionist's in Quebec. Besides the fact that this Registry has not prevented one criminal from committing murder, simply because these crimes are usually committed with unregistered weapons, and usually with hand-guns which have been restricted in Canada since 1934.

[Yaro]

Actually leafless, no you have no point here. Your understanding of the principles of NAFTA is clearly poor.

NAFTA in principle is an agreement to merge Canada and the US as economic entities; Canada in effect cannot apply any measure to American importers that it does not apply to its own and visa versa.

The notion of stumpage fees is irrelevant and not even a directly applicable topic of discussion. Canada has an asset (lumber) which it uses in a natural way (low stumpage fees being natural considering the nature of our resource).

This dispute could be over in a matter of minutes, not months, if you would pick up the phone and soothe relations with President Bush. Your party can't call the Bushies "morons", the "coalition of the idiots", and have a party member go on the state-run TV network and gleefully stomp on a George Bush doll like a crazed meth addict--and then be surprised when the objects of your childish taunts play hardball with you. Why did you run to the Wall Street Journal? Why did you go public? Quit being so damn reflexively anti-Bush/American! I don't know who is in the right regarding the softwood lumber dispute; NAFTA says Canada is in the right and the WTO says the US is in the right. But because the WTO is part of the contemptible UN, I tend to believe that the NAFTA judgement is the correct one. But if you picked up the phone, this could be over quickly.

Honestly why do you post? You clearly have absolutely no knowledge of the issues and contribute virtually nothing. You don't know who’s right and who’s wrong? Ok let me make this simple, we are right in a very clear and absolute sense. The WTO would only have jurisdiction in the absence of an agreement such as NAFTA.

I would also like to add that you are clearly incredibly ignorant of the vitriol which has been spewed by American law makers at Canada when they have felt it was to there benefit. No Canadian government ever has been even a small fraction as insulting or aggressive to the US as they are to us.

Also, IMO, the #1 duty of the govt is to protect its citizens from possible enemies. Your party has failed miserably in that regard. Also, there are enough non-combat related deaths in the best of times, but it is worse when the military has shoddy equipment. It is in the best interest for Canada to warm relations with the USA, work with them in protecting North America, "take advantage" of the USA's willingness to put up the technology and most of the costs, and build up the Canadian military to a respectful power that can defend its vast borders. No one is asking for a military build-up like the USA or the UK. However, something akin to Australia would be a start. Indeed, with our larger population and vaster borders, we should be stronger than Australia. If Canada didn't "buck" the US so much--if they worked with the US on defense--then I doubt that any sane person would be foolish enough to attack Canada.

Once again an appalling lack of knowledge. There is virtually no security or military expert in the world which does not gain direct financial benefit from supporting the outdated and pointless US war machine that believes that we would be safer by cooperating with the US.

Only one country on earth has actively threatened our borders over the last 100 years, care to guess who that is? There is no credible (even in an odd fantasy land like yours) threat to Canada, starting an arms race or moving away from diplomatic methodologies is a far greater threat to Canada then whatever our relationship might be with a quickly declining near bankrupt hyper power. In fact by taking the sycophantic UK/Australia route we only encourage the kind of psychotic behavior we are currently seeing out of the US.

What I do know Ceemes is there is $1.2 Billion dollar per day trade between Canada and the U.S.

Canada exports $6-Billion dollars per year worth of lumber to the U.S.

OTHER CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS to the U.S. amount to $39.6 Billion per year.

I ask you-Have you got the slightest clue what it would cost Canada in an all out trade war and if this Canadian aggression has the potential to cause permanent damage to Canada-U.S. relations?

Trade in and of itself is meaningless, if you think its meaningful then I suggest you articulate well why you think it is because I can assure you I have debated the point with far better versed individuals then yourself.

You know as well as I do due to demographics, politics, investor confidence, our high dollar Canadian trade opportunities elsewhere in the world are practically non-existent.

Canadian trade opportunities in the rest of the world are non-existent? Do you have any actual working knowledge at all on this topic? Canada is ideally situated to trade with China and India, not to mention Japan. We have the highest natural resource value per capita of any country on earth. This is just plain an assine statement with no factual foundation whatsoever.

Dealing with China could be risky and India only certain unfinished products are appealing.

Really? Because the EU, Japan, and the US all have no trouble dealing with these countries and indeed seem to enjoy it quote a bit.

The U.S. has a lot of money invested in Canada and they have created the economy we enjoy to-day.

The U.S. has nothing invested in Canada; individual Americans who have already begun the exodus which will continue for decades have a great deal invested in Canada. Those interests are irrelevant to anything but market and political stability, both of which Canada has in spades.

I for one would much rather enjoy present relations with the U.S. than to disturb our traditonal relations with our good friend and neighbour.

What exactly do you base the "good neighbor" notion on? I hear this all the time but I rarely hear exactly why they are a good neighbor.

I hear a lot of anti-U.S. sentiment coming from the media much related to Canadian immigration and Quebec and this line of rational spreads to issue's such as the softwood lumber issue which I think presently is totally out of proportion relating to it's importance.

Well I think we have established that your opinions are based on decidedly lacking knowledge base so you will have to excuse me if (after careful consideration) I discard them with a light chuckle.

Good one Montgomery. Cnada has far more to lose than does trhe United States.

Canada is in a far stronger position then the US is in, we have something they need in natural resources they have nothing that we need and do not already possess. There is simply no reasonable way to suggest that post transitionary pains that are coming regardless due to a rising dollar Canada would be significantly worse off not trading with the US.

would love to know what energy Martin is talking about when he says they will sell it elsewhere besides the U.S. For starters if he tries to tell Alberta who to sell THEIR oil to he may find that Alberta can afford to pack it in with Canada at any time, while on the other hand if they did pack it in Ottawa would have no money to give away to their friend's in the Advertising agencies of Quebec and Ontario.

I am beginning to think that there may come a time when it becomes necessary for Canada to have its own civil war. Our inbreed hicks are starting to get out of hand.

let alone pay for any of the other jalf baked initiatives this Liberal government has found to waste taxpayer's dollars. Let's start by looking at the failed Gun Registry that I believe has already surpassed $2 Billion, and when it was announced it was supposed to cost $2 Million and then be self-sufficient. This fiasco will never be self-sufficient and they knew that going in, but chose to ignore that fact to satisfy a bunch of urban reactionist's in Quebec. Besides the fact that this Registry has not prevented one criminal from committing murder, simply because these crimes are usually committed with unregistered weapons, and usually with hand-guns which have been restricted in Canada since 1934.

Blah blah blah, I have no real basis for my criticism of the government so I will just use a few minor (yes I said it MINOR) incidents of mismanagement to make broadly based and unsupported accusations at a government that has been about as fiscally conservative as any on earth over the last 15 years.

And once again, I am truly startled that so many people will so quickly side against there own nation. If people truly want to be American, then why not simply become American? This Anti-Canadian bias puzzling to say the least.

[Leafless]

Yaro:

The U.S. is applying tariff's whether you like it or not and more to the point 'expert' --what are you going to do about it?

For anyone to assert trade is meaningless does not belong on this board.

Your not from Quebec --are you?

The whole point Yaro is the tariff should be forgotten on Canada's part, NAFTA involves a lot more in trade outside of logs that represent a small percentage of Canada's trade with the U.S.