"Of course you know, this means war!!!"

[Cloud Cover]

Have to wonder if the US will actually do this, and will we respond as suggested?

                                                                                                                         


C B C . C A  N e w s  -  F u l l  S t o r y :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Softwood dispute could prompt trade war: B.C. minister
Last Updated Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:41:59 EST
VANCOUVER - B.C.'s forests minister has blasted the latest U.S. move in the softwood lumber fight, warning that it could lead to an all-out trade war.

Montana Senator Max Baucus plans to introduce a bill as early as Tuesday that will allow U.S. lumber companies to keep an estimated $3.6 billion in duties paid on Canadian imports.

B.C. Forests Minister Mike de Jong said Monday that if Baucus's bill passes, Canada will be forced to retaliate.

He said he has talked with his federal counterparts about countermoves, including possibly stopping energy exports to the United States.

"You can't steal $4 billion from a country and not expect that there would be repercussions," he said.

RELATED 
* Coverage from CBC British Columbia> 

"The U.S. and their legislators should think very carefully before embracing what is to my mind an indefensible and irrational proposition."

The U.S. said Canadian provinces subsidized lumber exports, and imposed a 27 per cent duty in 2002.

The World Trade Organization and a ruling under the North American Free Trade Agreement both concluded that U.S. complaints about Canadian lumber imports are not valid.

FROM AUG. 31, 2004: NAFTA rejects U.S. softwood claims

Thousands of jobs and millions of dollars have been lost because of the duties.

Baucus introduced the bill because he feels Canada won't negotiate about the lumber dispute, an aide said.

Written by CBC News Online staff

Copyright ©2004 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved 

 

[Infanteer]

What we Canadians are failing to recognize is that we are asymmetrically vulnerable to the US in terms of economics; a trade war would be worse for us then it would for them.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Well, we can't let $3 billion slip away, unless of course they call it a shared continental defence "tarrif". Hmmm .... now there's a way to persuade the government to pull its weight in defence issues .... a punitive border tax.

 

[Infanteer]

I'd hate to see us decide to get pushy and watch the gains of things like NAFTA and the Autopact slip away.  It would sure suck to have $3 billion turn into $30 billion because we decided to measure dicks with the elephant.

 

[HollywoodHitman]

Infanteer,

I'd tend to agree with you to a certain extent. The problem I have with the US is simply that they will enter into an agreement so long as it suits their needs at that particular time. The result of which is that there is noone willing to stand up to the US when they violate an agreement which is signed and considered in good faith. The trade organizations have ruled that the US tariffs are illegal, therefore they're in violation.

As you mentioned, the costs could outweigh the tariffs imposed by the US to date, but I don't see much of an alternative other than to stop all exports of power and water, none of which they seem to pay for on time or at all anyway........Tough call.

 

[Infanteer]

The trade organizations have ruled that the US tariffs are illegal, therefore they're in violation.

Exactly.  I am in no way saying that they are in the right.  Coming from a forestry town in Northern BC, I've seen first hand what the Softwood Lumber Dispute is doing.  But it doesn't mean we can be rash - we have to continue to use the system which has shown us to be in the right (the moral highground).

As well, we must be careful not to paint the whole Softwood dispute as a monolithic US attack on Canada's economy.  There is a very strong lobby that supports our case in Washington being led by the American Homeowners Association, who doesn't appreciate the sudden extreme rise in the cost of building a house.

We wouldn't consider launching a military strike on the US over a territorial issue, why consider a trade war when the preponderance is the same?  Diplomacy is the key when dealing with our brother in which, whether we like it or not, we are joined at the hip with.  It may work with Brazil but to poke a stick in the eye of the Americans is foolhardy.  Remember that term "asymmetrically vulnerable" - it means "eye for an eye" will not work.

 

[Spr.Earl]

If the U.S. did go ahead and give the money to U.S. Lumber Co. we may as well tear up NAFTA as it would be a worthless piece of paper then.
As for a trade war,yes we would hurt but it would make our business's get off their bum's and find trade elsewere.
We can't keep relying on the U.S.,we must find other markets because if the U.S. economy fall's so does ours as we have seen in the past, but if we diversify more,the pain would not be as bad.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

What we Canadians are failing to recognize is that we are asymmetrically vulnerable to the US in terms of economics; a trade war would be worse for us then it would for them.

Infanteer, you said it all right there ...

 

[Infanteer]

We can't keep relying on the U.S.,we must find other markets because if the U.S. economy fall's so does ours as we have seen in the past, but if we diversify more,the pain would not be as bad.

We should also try and get off our dependency of sunlight, because one day the sun is going to fizzle out and destroy the planet.  Some things are easier said than (impossibly) done.

Trudeau said those very same words in the '70s.   His attempt (which included dropping our NATO responsibilities) is mocked as "Trudeau's Pirouette".   No matter how hard he tried to wean us from our Southern neighbour, in the end, he found himself right back where he started - only worse for wear because we looked like big morons for holding our noses up.

In reality, the economics of the proposal is silly - "Why buy something that's 1/2 hour's drive away when I can get it shipped from overseas?".   Geography will outweigh ideology on this one 99 out of 100 times.

There are some fundamental truths that have to be acknowledged when living next to the elephant.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

There are some fundamental truths that have to be acknowledged when living next to the elephant.

Not the least of which is that when you cling to an inherently less productive economic system, your relative standard of living will continue to fall (and your dependence will thereby increase) ...

 

[muskrat89]

I'm not up to speed like I should be with the lumber dispute, but I think we are not without sin. I grew up in potato country where most of the farmers drove big ol Lincolns, and went south every winter. Meanwhile they were subsidized at every turn - crops too good, creating a surplus, crops poor, creating a shortage. I remember small farming operations in my home town screaming about the marketing boards setting quotas and price ceilings, etc...  are there any true and untouched free-market economies left anywhere?

Funny thing about NAFTA is I hear Canadians gripe about it, I hear Americans gripe about it. I think benefits and shortfalls are industry-specific, as opposed to favouring one country over another.....

In my own industry, the steel lobbies talked Bush's government into imposing steel tariffs - that benefitted the steel mills, but almost killed every industry downstream, all the way to the consumer.. go figure....

 

[lfejoel25]

I'd hate to see us decide to get pushy and watch the gains of things like NAFTA and the Autopact slip away. It would sure suck to have $3 billion turn into $30 billion because we decided to measure dicks with the elephant.

i really do see the point all you guys make.  but i just think that if you let one slide, you can be guaranteed it'll happen again.

 

[Infanteer]

Read my post above, I never said let it slide.   I said we should continue to use the approriate channels, because ultimately America will not sacrifice its own gains from NAFTA (which are immense) over the Softwood Lumber dispute.

To launch a trade war to tell the US that "we're pissed an we aren't going to take it" would be foolhardy in both short and long run figures.

 

[lfejoel25]

yeah

 

[Heatwave]

All you guys and gals do is sit around and bit*h and complain!  Me, I am taking action :rage:  I've made a phone call to the Liberals, and they told me that they will take care of it.  They are assigning some lady named "Carolyn Parrish" to look after this big mess.  I'm sure everything will be fine now.  :dontpanic:  LOL

Cheers and Chimo!

 

[HollywoodHitman]

She starts handling it, bombs will be raining down on Ottawa..........Some might even be from the US :dontpanic:

 

[pbi]

I am with Infanteer on this one. While the US is our biggest single trading partner, we are also the single biggest trading partner of the US ("Europe", despite the EU, etc. is not a single trading partner....). As well, IIRC, we are by far their biggest supplier of both energy (all forms) and water. Therefore, we are not without leverage. As well, we are very clearing entering a phase in which our Govt wishes to make amends where it can with the S (and wisely so, after the recent debacle presided over by The Backwards Helmet..)

I agree that we should try wit and skill (where we traditionally at least match the US) as opposed to brawn (where we never have and probably never will match them...) As has been observed, we Canadians wrongly view the US as a single,  monolithic, flag-waving entity. It is not. It is a collection of organizations, bodies, groups and individuals each seeking their own interests, somtimes in common, sometimes not. All Us politicians realize this fact. We need to see that and work with it, rather than mutter silly (and suicidal...) threats. Cheers.

 

[JBP]

I am 60/40 split.
Infanteer, I'd have to say I agree with the others 60% and 40% with you. You see, if you just give in to them now and try to "work it out later", you know it won't happen. That's like what's happened with our Armed Forces... Gee, we don't need tanks because we'll never use them! Har har!.... What happens if that time comes? What happens if we let them take 3 billion? In the long run I think it'd cost US (Canada) more then if we fought it now and stuck to our guns for once in our countries life! If we actually do play hardball, there are MANY MANY other countries around the world who would LOVE to trade with Canada like that and get ahold of the produce we send to the US. We give them our best stuff!!! Grade A beef, lumber etc etc etc...

It's very hard to make a real decision on this, I suppose we'll have to hope the politicians we voted in will do what's best for Canada...

:

Lol.... We'll see...

PS> Anyone remember when the US was fishing in BC waters and we told them not to so they took our fishing boats and mailed parts of them too us or something like that? They've played hardball with us many times...
What's fair is fair!
???

 

[Infanteer]

You're arguement to immolate Canada for the sake of showing them that "Fair is Fair" shows that you obviously never read any of my posts.

 

[JBP]

You're arguement to immolate Canada for the sake of showing them that "Fair is Fair" shows that you obviously never read any of my posts.

No, I do understand what your point was in your posts. You did specifically say fight them on the issue, but properly and through "proper channels" because in the end the US wouldn't want to loose everything they do gain from NAFTA+our trade agreements.

Problem, obviously we have tried working through regular channels and that isn't working. We've even been proved "right" as above posts+info have stated yet the USA still pressures the issue illegally per thier own trade agreements with us. If we keep going through "proper channels" we'll keep getting the proper proverbial shaft in the ass or "short end of the stick"... But I understand you fear we'd get no stick at all or have no ass left if we do put up a fight right?

It's either we commit and grab our ankles and take it like a good bitch, or, we stick up for ourselves and in the end it might hurt but my god. Can our country even claim to have pride/decency if we just do what ever they want continually, always? It seems that every time our country deals with the US in trade issues we have to bring "soap on a rope" for insurance incase Buba gets nasty! Might as well not bother if according to you we can't win or there's no point in putting up a fight?

I'm not saying your opinion on the issue is wrong Infanteer, it's probably the best measure to take. But we've been taking that/those types of measures, where does the line get drawn? Never I suppose if we just "bend over" and not worry about it...