[unimaginative2]

You may be right about it being the best deal we're going to get, but this whole affair is certainly not our fault. We sell our products into the American market because we signed a free trade agreement at tremendous cost to ourselves in order to gain unfettered access to that market. If we don't fight for our rights under the agreement, it was pretty much a waste, wasn't?

 

[afransen TO]

And indeed, settling this in a way that gives us anything less that free access to the American market with all the duties returned sets an extremely dangerous precedent: that NAFTA isn't worth the paper it's written on. Not to mention that $500 million of those duties will be going to American lumber firms, undoubtedly to make up the warchest for their inevitable attempt to reimpose duties exactly 24 months hence. What kind of moron would give their opponents, who have no legal case, $500 million of their own money to pay lawyers to drag out a dispute against you?

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

that NAFTA isn't worth the paper it's written on.

IIRC, the softwood dispute is one of the few trade issues with NAFTA, as most cross border trade works quite well.

It's fully within Canada's rights to cancel the NAFTA Treaty. However I doubt any Canadian political party would advocate that, as the results would likely be disasterous, at least in the short term.

 

[unimaginative2]

IIRC, the softwood dispute is one of the few trade issues with NAFTA, as most cross border trade works quite well.

So, we have free trade in every area where the Americans want it. The whole point of free trade is that there are no obstructions in any sector, even when the bigger country might have a disadvantage.

 

[andreapalladio]

God knows I can't stand Harper, but I can't think of anyone less credible on economic issues than Bob Rae.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

So, we have free trade in every area where the Americans want it. The whole point of free trade is that there are no obstructions in any sector, even when the bigger country might have a disadvantage.

We have free trade in every area that Canadians want it, except for lumber. Lumber is hardly the largest % of our trade with the USA, and mostly affects American owned lumber companies operating in Canada. Sure their Canadian employees might get shafted, and that's unfortunate, but as we were still able to sell competitively into the States during the tarrifs, IMO our lumber industry is safe.

What do you propose...tear up NAFTA? Then what? You'll have every sector of the US-dependant Canadian economy in mass panic.

 

[afransen TO]

Renegotiate?

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

God knows I can't stand Harper, but I can't think of anyone less credible on economic issues than Bob Rae.

I am wondering what chances Harper has of gaining a majority in the next election. IMO, if Chreiten had been running against Harper in the last election, Harper would have lost, as Chreiten was a definite teflon PM.

 

[unimaginative2]

We have free trade in every area that Canadians want it, except for lumber.

The whole point of free trade is that there are no exceptions. Lumber is one of our biggest exports. It is the biggest export for several provinces.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

The whole point of free trade is that there are no exceptions.

Look, I 100% agree with this thinking. So, what's your proposed solution to this matter? We can go to the courts again and see what happens. We can wait for GWB to leave office and hope for a Canuck-friendly prez. We can leave it to the industry to sue and sort out their own mess. We can tear up NAFTA. What is your solution? There may come a time that we will want to use the precident of lumber against the USA, such as when they start demanding bulk water sales (and they can, immediately after Canadians start selling bulk water to themselves or elsewhere), so we can say, well you wouldn't take our lumber, so now you can't take the water.

 

[unimaginative2]

Go to the courts, and then, if the Americans keep obstructing, point out to all the other countries around the world that an FTA with the Americans isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Of course, when the previous government tried the latter approach, the usual shrill Canadian defenders of all things American (including most newspaper columnists) whipped up a frenzy of Canadian self-hatred.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

How large are Canada's lumber exports to the USA? What's the value we're talking about? How does this compare to the total amount of Canadian exports to the USA?

I suspect this matter is affecting a small percentage of our total trade with the USA. Of course, you could argue that even a small case must be fought, as it sets precedent and brings the entire agreement into question, which is true...but if we look just at Canadian lumber exports, what are we talking about for $?

 

[unimaginative2]

Softwood lumber is one of Canada's largest exports to the United States, with 21.5 billion board feet of lumber shipped in 2005 alone. Those exports were worth $8.5 billion and they continue to comprise an important element of the largest trading relationship in the world.

This trade matters to both Canadians and Americans. Canada’s forestry sector employs approximately 280,000 Canadians, and roughly 300 communities are dependent upon the forestry sector. U.S. lumber producers cannot meet domestic demand for softwood lumber: consequently, Canada now supplies over a third of the United States' consumption of this product. The U.S. housing and other industries, which employ over 7 million American workers, have come to rely upon unfettered access to this quality product.

From the Government of Canada

 

[esplanade guy]

Entitlement

Can someone explain to me how a guy can leave his country 30 odd years ago, never have any experience in politics, then all of a sudden come back and expect to become our Prime Minister. Talk about the arrogance of entitlement! Incredible!>:

 

[bizorky]

Re: Entitlement

Well, I don't know about "entitlement," but I would have to agree that his absence and lack of day to day feel for the country should be something of concern. I find Ignatieff's pronouncements on recognizing Quebec constitutionally as a "nation" ill-informed, stupid, demeaning, empty and a recipe for constitutional disaster.