Robert Prior ([info]robertprior) wrote,
@ 2006-10-07 07:53:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
So this is free trade...
From the Toronto Star

The [Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Agreement] was supposed to be implemented on Oct. 1 but a substantial number of lumber exporters refused to withdraw legal actions against the United States over punitive softwood duties, a key U.S. requirement for it to revoke the duties.

The Americans had demanded that more than 30 separate court actions be terminated by the deadline, forcing Ottawa last Friday to delay implementation until no later than Nov. 1.

...[Julian, a suburban Vancouver MP] said the compromise reached Friday was a last-ditch effort to implement the agreement and avoid a ruling in yet another U.S. trade court case.

The court earlier struck down the U.S. lumber industry's claim Canadian imports posed a threat of injury and was set to rule on whether the roughly US$5.3 billion in duties collected since May 2002 should be returned.

The complex, seven-year deal replaces U.S. lumber duties with a Canadian export tax that kicks in when lumber prices fall below certain levels, a move aimed at protecting American producers who allege Canadian softwood is subsidized.

Canadian exporters are also getting back about 80 per cent of the lumber duties they've paid while the U.S. government and American producers split about $1 billion (U.S.) of the money.


Court after court rules that the countervail is illegal, and yet they still get to keep 20% of it. Harper's proving as bad as Mulrooney. Sigh.

We've got to develop closer trade ties with China. Being beholden to just one country for most of our foreign trade isn't good, especially when said country keeps showing that it had no respect for rules and agreements.



(Post a new comment)


[info]evildrganymede
2006-10-07 02:01 pm UTC (link)
Tell me about it. I've lost track of how many times various international courts have come out in Canada's favour over this, and said that the US is totally wrong. And yet Harper (spineless worm that he is) has managed to shaft Canada completely by not insisting that ALL the duties that the US illegally charged are returned.

But then we know anyway that the US doesn't give a rats arse about rules or decisions that don't go in its favour. (for example, do you really think they're going to do anything now Harper's berated them about Arar? I don't, they're just going to ignore it.)

(Reply to this)


[info]icedrake
2006-10-07 09:12 pm UTC (link)
The US is our geographically nearest trading partner, has the same language, overland trading routes, and a currency that is valued higher than the CDN dollar. Even using the cheapest shipping methods, we'd have to charge Chinese buyers higher rates, and the difference in currency on its own would make the proposition less attractive to them. Top that off with the lead times any Chinese trading partner would have to deal with, and...

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]evildrganymede
2006-10-07 09:57 pm UTC (link)
Well most things seem to be made in China nowadays anyway (including books, clothing, shoes), so it's probably not much of a leap to make them our biggest trade partner...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]icedrake
2006-10-07 10:00 pm UTC (link)
Yes, but that's import, not export, if I understand it correctly. The US accounts for (last statistic I saw) over 90% of Canadian exports.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]robertprior
2006-10-08 12:11 am UTC (link)
The Chinese are short of wood and oil, to name a couple of things we ship the US that could be shipped to China. If the cost of shipping to China is in the same league as the US countervail, it makes sense to develop China as a market.

Come to that, it makes sense to sell stuff to China anyway. 90% is too many eggs in one very unpredictable basket.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jackwalker
2006-10-08 12:46 am UTC (link)
Mmmm. I think you'll find that the Chinese are not above creatively re-interpreting trade agreements to suit themselves.

That having been said - well, even as an American citizen I'd have to say you lot would be foolish to not start building good solid trade ties with the Chinese, even if it's just as a method of developing alternatives to dealing with the behemoth south of that border. Our government isn't always going to be as dishonorable as the present one. Yet even so, it's going to take quite the setback to knock us down far enough that honestly cooperating with trade partners and adhering to agreements begins to sound like a necessity once again.

Unfortunately, between peak oil, our addiction to Asian financing, and the real estate bubble, I suspect we may be in for such an economic setback before too much longer.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]robertprior
2006-10-08 01:58 pm UTC (link)
I'm not holding China up as a paragon of honesty. (Nor do I consider Canada one: our record is pretty good, but not perfect.) But as far as I can tell, the Chinese government has kept the treaties they've signed with us, while the US had flat-out ignored many of them. (For the record, I don't consider announcing unilaterally that you are changing the terms of an agreement a "creative reinterpretation" -- I consider it dishonesty.)

We desperately need alternative trade partners -- we are too dependent on a single partner, which has repeatedly shown itself unwilling to abide by agreements. It's the height of foolishness not to cultivate alternatives. China certainly isn't the only option, but at the moment they need resources (which we have) and are friendly towards us. Our leaders would be idiots not to pursue closer relations.

Sadly, I consider our present government idiots.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…