gcsw Posted September 29, 2006 Report Posted September 29, 2006 Do you guys think Canada really got the better of the deal? How do you think its serving our Canadian interests. Also who do you think are the interest groups that played a major part in supporting Canadian interests throughout the dispute? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted September 29, 2006 Report Posted September 29, 2006 The softwood lumber deal is bad news for Canadians. It has set a dangerous precedent, which will have a multitude of applications that are as of this moment unseen by the public. Quote
Riverwind Posted September 29, 2006 Report Posted September 29, 2006 The softwood lumber deal is bad news for Canadians. It has set a dangerous precedent, which will have a multitude of applications that are as of this moment unseen by the public.The precedent cuts two ways. It means Canada would be in a position to ignore rulings that go against it on issues like culture, water, banking or health care. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
gcsw Posted September 29, 2006 Author Report Posted September 29, 2006 But what were Canada's objectives in entering the free trade agreement? Were they met? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted September 29, 2006 Report Posted September 29, 2006 In theory. But the reality is that even when Canada wins it loses! How many rulings went against the Americans since the advent of the so-called free trade agreement? Now what was the result of those diplomatic victories? The problem here is that the Americans a extremely protectionist in reality, but they advocate free trade for their goods. The Americans have been free traders since their revolution, in fact that was one of the main points to their battle! Only British ships could sail into London and sell their goods, which meant that everybody who wanted access to that market had to ship their goods on British vessels. While taxation had some bearing on the issues of the day the reality was trade. The Americans have always been very astute in this regard. They are no different today than they were then, and we need to look very carefully into how they conduct business before we jump on board. Damn the British for the creation of the corporation! That single legislative effort has altered the course of history in a way that was not possible before the advent of limited liability. The Americans have gone to school on this angle and created the greatest capitalistic society the world has ever seen. Having said that, its all about them.....Don't ever believe that there is any benefit to any individual outside of the United States because there just isn't. With that in mind, they make fine neighbors! They will go to bat for you and cover your behinds just as long as there is something in it for them. They are forgiving and kind, yet absolutely ruthless in business. They are a bright bunch of hardworking risk taking people who have earned their place through individual efforts. Much can be learned from them. Quote
bradco Posted September 30, 2006 Report Posted September 30, 2006 I think whats more important then did we get the better of the deal is whether or not we got the best deal we were going to. Lets face it the US has the military and economic power to back up their bullying. Winning NAFTA rulings means we have a chip to bargain with, it doesnt mean we are going to get our way. We got 80% of the tariffs back and a secure and stable market in the US. Thats the best deal we could possibly get and we should be happy with it and move on. We wont get anything else out of the states so it is best to take this. If we were to say no they would continue with collecting tariffs, I'm sure the US government wouldnt mind collecting a few billion more from our producers. In the long run we would eventually take a negoiated settlement and would lose even more tariffs to the US. The worst thing we could do is follow Taliban Jacks idea of starting a trade war with the Americans. The relative costs of closure of trade are much higher for Canada than for the US. Thats the ultimate bargaining chip and it beats out NAFTA rulings every time. Everything considered I think the settlement is decent but I am not sure of any Canadian companies views towards the share of the US market they get. If anyone has information on this that would be great. Quote
August1991 Posted September 30, 2006 Report Posted September 30, 2006 We have had numerous threads on the softwood lumber dispute. IME, most posters prefer not to understand the technicalities of the dispute and instead choose to understand it through their own prejudices and preconceived ideas. In English Canada, more often than not, the prejudice is that the Americans are big bullies who throw their weight around and get what they want. In such a view, the leitmotiv of this dispute is Little Canada defending itself against the Big US. This theme is strongly rooted in the English-Canadian pysche and facts won't dislodge it. Some Canadian politicians play on it. Yet, anyone with any understanding of the politics of international trade knows the softwood lumber dispute doesn't fit this theme at all. If I had to pick a metaphor, it would be a US mafia gang (US lumber producers) that wanted to protect its turf. It used the US government as a shield to keep a Canadian mafia gang (Canadian lumber producers) out of its territory. Harper and Emerson just brokered a deal between the two mafia gangs whereby they agreed to share the turf. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted September 30, 2006 Report Posted September 30, 2006 I like your analogy August! I don't wholeheartedly agree with you, but you do turn a nice phrase. Quote
gcsw Posted September 30, 2006 Author Report Posted September 30, 2006 So what exactly were Canada's objectives in entering the Free Trade Agreement? Quote
Wilber Posted September 30, 2006 Report Posted September 30, 2006 So what exactly were Canada's objectives in entering the Free Trade Agreement? Free trade with some exceptions. Some of those exceptions were at Canada's insistence. Softwood lumber was one of the things excluded but I don't know who's idea it was. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Riverwind Posted September 30, 2006 Report Posted September 30, 2006 Free trade with some exceptions. Some of those exceptions were at Canada's insistence. Softwood lumber was one of the things excluded but I don't know who's idea it was.The US. That is one of the reasons why it is probably better in the long run for the US to ignore the NAFTA panel's attempt to extend NAFTA to trade was specifically excluded. Canada will likely need that precendent in the future when it comes to culture, water or healthcare. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
August1991 Posted September 30, 2006 Report Posted September 30, 2006 So what exactly were Canada's objectives in entering the Free Trade Agreement?Free trade with some exceptions. Some of those exceptions were at Canada's insistence. Softwood lumber was one of the things excluded but I don't know who's idea it was. The free trade agreement intended to remove barriers and to provide a better way to negotiate the removal of barriers. It is wrong to say that the FTA excluded softwood lumber. At the time of the original FTA, Canada and the US had a softwood lumber deal in place (somewhat similar to the one brokered by Emerson) and this was included into the FTA. The 1986 MOU, that had been grandfathered in the CUSFTA, provided for the elimination or reduction of the export tax on softwood lumber as a result of changes in provincial forest-management regimes, particularly increased stumpage rights, and other forest-management charges. Link Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.