Softwood lumber deal

[normanchateau]

When Liberal Cabinet Minister David Emerson turned down the softwood lumber deal offered by the US in December, 2005, he noted that the US refused to return all of the illegal US duties and Canada would not accept such a deal. When Conservative Cabinet Minister David Emerson accepted in 2006 a similar softwood lumber deal which left a billion dollars in illegal US duties in the hands of the Americans, he rationalized it as the best deal possible. And he noted that at least we now have a deal.

So why isn't the incompetent Conservative government now touting the deal as evidence of Harper's brilliance?

Here's one reason:

http://www.topix.net/content/cp/1184535098...455563437911403

Prior to the 2006 election, Conservative supporters pointed out that Harper's conciliatory approach would get a lot more concessions from the US government. Well it didn't work on softwood lumber and it certainly didn't work on passports. What has accrued to Canada as a direct result of the approach of the new Government of Canada to George Bush?

[Charles Anthony]

Yet one more softwood lumber thread? How many more do we need???

[scribblet]

Apparantly we need more cos the CPC must be doing something right to get the oppositions knickers in a knot and rehash old news.

[normanchateau]

Apparantly we need more cos the CPC must be doing something right to get the oppositions knickers in a knot and rehash old news.

Yes, they must be doing something right. If only they'd reveal it.

[normanchateau]

Yet one more softwood lumber thread? How many more do we need???

Show me a thread stating that the US is now threatening to pull out of the softwood lumber deal...or did you even bother to read the link?

[jdobbin]

Looks like the lumber deal didn't last very long.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/07082007/3/busi...nst-canada.html

The U.S. government is accusing Canada of not living up to its end of last year's softwood lumber agreement and has launched a major challenge to the controversial deal.

U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said Tuesday that Canada had violated several parts of the 2006 agreement, which was supposed to settle the decades-old dispute between the two countries.

"It is truly regrettable that, just 10 months after the agreement entered into force, the United States has no choice but to initiate arbitration proceedings to compel Canada to live up to its [softwood Lumber Agreement] obligations relating to export volume caps, proper application of the import surge mechanism, and anti-circumvention," she said in a statement.

Edited August 8, 2007 by jdobbin

[geoffrey]

Canada has skirted rules and violated every agreement on the book. We do practice unfair trade in regards to softwood (or any lumber products). Our government artifically keeps stumpage fees low in order to preserve an over-unionised industry.

Let it die already, who needs it. The efficent producers will stick around and the ridiculous subsidy sucking Northern towns will eventually disappear like they should.

[jdobbin]

Canada has skirted rules and violated every agreement on the book. We do practice unfair trade in regards to softwood (or any lumber products). Our government artifically keeps stumpage fees low in order to preserve an over-unionised industry.

Let it die already, who needs it. The efficent producers will stick around and the ridiculous subsidy sucking Northern towns will eventually disappear like they should.

I don't know that I have seen evidence that Canada is trading unfairly. You seem certain that we have violated the agreement but I don't know that we have. We win every challenge that is thrown at us but some people still think we have broken agreements.

We'll see what Emerson does this time. Somehow I doubt he will take the line that Canada is an unfair trader.

[geoffrey]

I don't know that I have seen evidence that Canada is trading unfairly. You seem certain that we have violated the agreement but I don't know that we have. We win every challenge that is thrown at us but some people still think we have broken agreements.

We haven't won every challenge.

The WTO has consistantly ruled against us and has said the US duties and tariffs before the agreement (which have been relaxed since) were legit. They have criticised certain US practices as protectionist however. I agree.

Canada has won a few times at NAFTA hearings, but last time I checked, softwood lumber was specificially excluded from NAFTA. So those are really irrelevant in my opinion.

Here is something to read:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1115?hub=Canada

[jdobbin]

We haven't won every challenge.

The WTO has consistantly ruled against us and has said the US duties and tariffs before the agreement (which have been relaxed since) were legit. They have criticised certain US practices as protectionist however. I agree.

Canada has won a few times at NAFTA hearings, but last time I checked, softwood lumber was specificially excluded from NAFTA. So those are really irrelevant in my opinion.

Here is something to read:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1115?hub=Canada

NAFTA trumps WTO for Canada and the United States in trade. Also, the WTO has not consistently ruled against Canada on softwood lumber.

You are linking to a 2005 ruling. In March 2006, NAFTA ruled in favour of Canada as saying that any subsidy was de minimis. The U.S. did not want to take that decision to the WTO because they would not be able to place countervailing duties according to their own laws or the WTO's.

You are still certain that Canada is in the wrong and that is not some protectionism policy for the United States.

[geoffrey]

NAFTA trumps WTO for Canada and the United States in trade. Also, the WTO has not consistently ruled against Canada on softwood lumber.

NAFTA only trumps WTO in areas of NAFTA jurisdiction. Softwood lumber is not one of them, it is specifically excluded.

You are linking to a 2005 ruling. In March 2006, NAFTA ruled in favour of Canada as saying that any subsidy was de minimis. The U.S. did not want to take that decision to the WTO because they would not be able to place countervailing duties according to their own laws or the WTO's.

That's because the WTO is not binding in the US.

You are still certain that Canada is in the wrong and that is not some protectionism policy for the United States.

No, I think the US is being needlessly protectionist. However, I do acknowledge that the government of Canada artificially subsidizes Canadian lumber producers by charging them far below what private land holders in the US charge for stumpage fees.

[jdobbin]

NAFTA only trumps WTO in areas of NAFTA jurisdiction. Softwood lumber is not one of them, it is specifically excluded.

That's because the WTO is not binding in the US.

No, I think the US is being needlessly protectionist. However, I do acknowledge that the government of Canada artificially subsidizes Canadian lumber producers by charging them far below what private land holders in the US charge for stumpage fees.

However, Canada has gone to NAFTA and won every time and shown that that any subsidy is de minimus which means that under U.S. which the U.S. does comply with, they can't place massive countervailing duties on Canada.

The U.S. could have tried to delay, delay and delay but those duties would have had to be refunded at some point regardless.

I still don't know that the anyone has shown evidence that Canada is in violation of the present deal. You have knowledge that this deal has been broken by us?