Softwood dispute taints all U.S. trade: Charest

[Spazito]

Fearing 'contamination' of the entire Canada-U.S. trade relationship, the premiers are urging Prime Minister Paul Martin to take the issue up with U.S. President George Bush.

snip

Federal and provincial officials accused the United States of reneging on the 11-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement, with an outraged Ottawa renewing threats to slap billions of dollars of sanctions on American goods if Washington doesn't recant, reported The Globe and Mail.

One senior Canadian government official called the U.S. dismissal of the NAFTA ruling a "slap in the face."

snip

"It's time for the Americans to say they're going to live up to their legal obligations and return the dollars that they've illegally been taking from Canadians," Campbell said at the meeting.

more, much more

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1123868371563_119277571/?hub=Canada

[justinsb]

1. I think it's time for counterveiling trade sanctions

against US products, they've ignored 3 rulings now.

[iverglas]

2. wouldn't it be nice ...

... if our "American cousins" had a clue what we're talking about? Some of them might even care, then ...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/08/13/softwood-nafta050813.html

Canada's international trade minister has called his U.S. counterpart to demand the Americans return the $5 billion in duties they've collected in the softwood lumber dispute.

Jim Peterson warned U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman that the future of the North America Free Trade Agreement is in peril if the United States doesn't respect a ruling handed down by a NAFTA panel on Wednesday.

The duties were and are ILLEGAL. And their effect on some sectors of the Canadian economy has been devastating -- PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOODS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY.

Any of our cousins who might care a little, and want to be informed about the situation, could read this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/

Canada's protracted dispute with the United States over softwood lumber is estimated to have cost lumber producers billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

The dispute has been simmering for years, but boiled over in May 2002 when the United States imposed duties of 27 per cent on Canadian softwood lumber, arguing that Canada unfairly subsidized producers of spruce, pine and fir lumber.

... In August 2001, the Bush administration backed a U.S. forest industry bid to hit Canadian lumber with billions of dollars in duties. Two months later, the duty was increased further when the government imposed an anti-dumping duty on top of the original duty. Dumping is a term used to describe the sale of goods to another country at less than what they cost to produce.

... A NAFTA decision on August 13, 2003 was considered a partial victory for the Canadian side. A panel ruled that, while the Canadian lumber industry is subsidized, the 18 per cent tariff imposed on softwood lumber by the United States is too high. ... The NAFTA report said the U.S. made a mistake in calculating its duties based on U.S. prices, and by not taking Canadian market conditions into consideration. ... Two weeks later, a WTO panel concluded that ... provincial stumpage programs provide a "financial benefit" to Canadian producers. But, the panel made it clear that the benefit is not enough to be a subsidy, and does not justify current U.S. duties.

On Aug. 10, 2005, an “extraordinary challenge panel” under NAFTA dismissed American claims that the earlier NAFTA decision in favour of Canada violated trade rules.

This isn't some International Criminal Court unilaterally trying punish U.S. five-star generals for war crimes. This is a BILATERAL AGREEMENT that the U.S. VOLUNTARILY signed, and the dispute settlement procedures of which it voluntarily agreed to. First, it has persistently violated the agreement that it voluntarily entered into -- and now it is persistently refusing to abide by the decisions that it voluntarily agreed to abide by.

The U.S. benefits from NAFTA. But the U.S. continues to refuse to comply with NAFTA whenever corporate interests in the U.S. whine.

If anyone needs an explanation for why the U.S. is so widely reviled outside its borders, this will provide a small example to assist.

In 2003, labour organizations on both sides of the border even attempted to promote a negotiated settlement that involved Canada giving way to some of the US's demands:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/fore-e/witn-e/payne-e.htm
http://www.canadianlabour.ca/index.php/january_03/Softwood_Lumber_Disp
... although bullied capitulation might be a better characterization than "negotiated settlement".

The Canadian signatories to the statement include the Canadian Labour Congress, IWA Canada and CEP. The American signatories are the AFL-CIO, International Machinists and PACE, one of the original signatories to the US petition that launched the trade action against Canada.

... not that all US labour organizations have exhibited such solidarity:
http://www.carpentersunionbc.com/Pages/canadiansoftwood.html
(reactions of Canadian carpenters' union members to the "international" union's decision to lobby the US govt for duties on Cdn softwood)

It's really as simple as: nobody loves a bully.

[Demeter]

3. Please Canada, Go For Your Rights Under Law

Put more pressure on this rotten regime, so that it crumbles and fall.

[mom cat]

4. You forgot something...the empire is above the law....n/t

[wli]

5. uh-oh, Bushler is going to invade Canada?

No one who can write a line of kernel code living in the Eastern Hemisphere will ever be able to step foot in the Western Hemisphere again (DMCA issues).