Softwood Lumber Dispute Questions

[vinzanity]

Would the native canadians be considered an interest group that supported Canadian interests in the softwood lumber dispute? If not, what would be an example of an interest group that did support the interests of Canada?

How did the interest group advocated to both the federal and provincial governments? Details please.

It's urgent, any response is better than none at all. Thanks.

[bradco]

Did we not do our homework for monday morning?

-I would assume that Canadian lumber companies lobbied for their interests.

-I believe that some consumer groups in the states may have supported Canada's cause as softwood lumber tariffs increased the costs of american goods such as houses. However the lumber industry in the states is very good at lobbying. Zhang notes that "a small but concentrated softwood lumber industry can successfly lobby their elected officials such as Senators and demand protection from foreign competition, despite the fact that protectionism harms the economic welfare of the nation as a whole" (Zhang, From senators to the president: Solve the lumberproblem or else)

-The NDP supported Canada's cause by whining like an immature child

-the provinces: "Canadian provincial governments concerns for employment and stability of forest dependent communities, an industry attempting to secure immobile investments and reduce uncertainty objected to fundamental reforms involving a move toward a market system pricing of timer, a move at which at least would challenge the basic legitmacy of US trade actions" (Nelson and Vertinsky, The Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Disputes, 2004). However they note the difficulty for provinces to agree amongst themselves and therefore lobby more effectively. Consensus within provinces and the ability to reach a compromise with the US is also difficult. The general rule is "provinces with abundant but undeveloped resources are not interested in restrictions that stop the development of their resources, while provinces that have reached the limits of their wood supply may welcome restrictions"

-As far as natives go Nelson and Vertinsky argue "First Nations communities see it as an alternative means to press their political concerns". Thats all they argue so not sure what exactly that means about the native position. Either way it adds to the complexity of the situation and further handicaps any chance within the province for consensus.

-"How did the interest group advocated to both the federal and provincial governments?"

Not sure but I would imagine from my reading here that most lobbying would be done on the provincial level. Provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources and are quick to assert it (Hoberg and Harrison,Its not easy being green: The politics of Canada's green plan, Canadian public policy 10(2), 1994). Although the federal government obviously has control over international trade it is reluctant to lead in areas of natural resources.

sorry cant give any good definite answers. I actually have a lecture on thursday in international political economy on the Canada-US dispute. Might know more by then if its not to late.

[vinzanity]

Thanks man, so in other words, the natives are NOT considered an interest group that supported Canadian interests on the Softwood Lumber Dispute. Is that correct?

[bradco]

Thanks man, so in other words, the natives are NOT considered an interest group that supported Canadian interests on the Softwood Lumber Dispute. Is that correct?

Not sure, it would depend on whether or not the "Canadian interests" matched their own political and economic concerns. Can't say for sure.... try google.

[jbg]

Thanks man, so in other words, the natives are NOT considered an interest group that supported Canadian interests on the Softwood Lumber Dispute. Is that correct?

Why so many people considered as "groups" rather than as people needing to feed their families? Something is badly wrong with the whole premise of this question.