Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More FTA Woes For Canada  
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1246 times:

US Senator Max Baucus, wants to distribute $3 billion in soft wood lumber duties collected for Canadian lumber, to US soft wood lumber producers.

The money was supposed to be held in trust until the litigation regarding the questionable duty applied by the US was completed.

Instead, this senator sees no reason to wait for due process. Canada currently has permission from the World Trade Organisation to the right to impose retaliatory sanctions against American products after the US government refused to repeal the Byrd Amendment which allows US companies to profit from punitive tariffs collected.

The Bush administration has absolutely no intention of abiding by the Free Trade Agreement provisions. When will we end this useless free trade agreements with these bandits?

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUsatoeze From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 358 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

The Bush administration has absolutely no intention of abiding by the Free Trade Agreement provisions. When will we end this useless free trade agreements with these bandits?

No administration has be it left or right wing. It is one thing to preach free trade in Washington. It is another thing entirely to fight every industry lobby and the politicians that are bought and paid for by that lobby. You and I might disagree about whether or not Canadian mills were dumping softwoods, but I will agree with you that the tariffs collected whether they be from softwoods or in another instance steel should never go in any way to the manufacturers that benefitted from those protections. For that to happen would be a disgrace.

The Byrd amendment is disgusting.



War is a very poor political tool
User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

Just wondering, slightly off-topic here, but does the Canadian economy overall benefit more rather than at disadvantage from being close to the US and with the NAFTA despite a few ongoing issues such as this lumber issue?

I mean we always hear that Canadian economy's standing today owes much of its success to the US. Well, I'd like to ask, to what extent is this true? I'm sure American companies also benefit from the access into Canada's market, albeit a much smaller one.

What are people's opinions to this? Without the "aid" of American market and 'influence', how different would Canada be today?


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1180 times:

Perhaps this link will help: http://exportsource.ca/gol/exportsource/interface.nsf/vSSGBasic/es02634e.htm

When we look at just a few of the specifics of our trade with the U.S., we find that:

In 2003, the two-way trade in goods and services between our two countries reached C$1.8 billion a day.

Canada is the U.S.'s most important trading partner, taking in 19.2 percent of U.S. goods and services in 2003.

In 2003, Canada was the top export market for 37 U.S. states.

In 2002, Canadian business investment in the U.S. was valued at approximately C$202 billion. U.S. business investment in Canada was valued at just over C$224 billion.

We could add many more statistics, anecdotes and facts, but these numbers are enough to show how the economies of our two countries are intertwined, and to demonstrate the magnitude of the Canada-U.S. economic relationship.



User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1179 times:

Good grief, not soft wood lumber again.

The United States is a sovereign country and has the right to impose any tariffs they damn well choose on anything they want.

Canada has plenty of good points but the constant whining about how the US is ramming them up the ass on trade is getting old. Beef, lumber, etc... where does it end?

You have the entire world to trade with if you don't like what the US is doing. And if the rest of the world won't trade on favorable terms, perhaps its time to cut back on the welfare state and use that money to retrain the workforce to do something that the world actually wants from Canada.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1177 times:

B747-437B: The United States is a sovereign country and has the right to impose any tariffs they damn well choose on anything they want.

No, they don´t. Unless they got out of the WTO and all other international trade organizations. The damage that would do is very obviously not worth the - rather dubious - gains.


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1160 times:

B747-437B: The United States is a sovereign country and has the right to impose any tariffs they damn well choose on anything they want.

They signed on to the NAFTA. Their tariffs are in contradiction to the agreement.


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1146 times:

They signed on to the NAFTA. Their tariffs are in contradiction to the agreement.

So what is Canada gonna do about it? Invade? Send in the mounties using a mixture of rusting Sea Kings and burned out second hard subs? Its pretty pathetic when West Edmonton Mall has a more efficient fleet of boats than the Canadian Forces do.

Get over it already. The United States doesn't play fair and more importantly doesn't need to play fair. Might is right. Of course, Canadians prefer to gather at the nearest Timmys and moan about it rather than getting off their ass and doing something. No wonder you keep taking it in the ass.


User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1129 times:

Well Sean, when your ass is out on the street unemployed because of the US, and every small town within a 1,000 km radius is hurting badly as well, maybe you'd care. Take a drive through BC and in every town you'll see for sale signs on every other house. This isn't just some bureaucratic argument, this is a major problem affecting thousands of people and the life of a hundred towns. But I can see since it doesn't affect YOU directly, then, well, to hell with it! "Get over it already" Your compassion leaves me underwhelmed and only adds to the poor view of you that I had already.

User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4627 posts, RR: 36
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1129 times:

About the beef issue: There was a story on the news here in Calgary that said that despite the beef ban from the US beef exports are almost at par with pre-BSE levels. The report said that they're exporting a lot more beef to the EU and to lesser extent Asia.

I think it's good, we shouldn't have all our eggs in one basket.


Kris



Word
User currently offlineSKYSERVICE_330 From Canada, joined Sep 2000, 1415 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1121 times:

Invade? No, unlike our neighbour to the south that isn't really our thing, we prefer diplomacy. You know, that non-war thing?? Granted our military isn't the strongest but, because we prefer diplomacy we can afford to have it that way. The US on the other hand, well, they can't really afford to NOT have a strong military given the feelings towards them around the world. Especially when they break treaties and such and piss people off. Oh, and we dont' go to Timmys, we prefer the U.N. .. again, you know that thing in New York for diplomacy .. oh wait ... maybe you don't.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1098 times:

The Bush administration has absolutely no intention of abiding by the Free Trade Agreement provisions. When will we end this useless free trade agreements with these bandits?

Both the US and Canada largely abide by the FTA. This does not make the news -- only the minor trade disputes do.

The FTA is the BEST thing that has happened to the Cdn economy since Confederation. Exports to the US have more than doubled in 12 years. Each and every Cdn is enriched due to free trade with the US.

Only rabid anti-Americans and socialists are against free trade on ideological grounds.

The FTA is truly a win-win for both countries. Canada will truly reach its true econommic potential however when we drop all border/customs with the US and dollarize (ie, adopt the US dollar or fix the Cdn dollar to the US dollar).



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1084 times:

YYZ717- I was with you right up until the last sentence. You've just opened up the whole sovereign nation thing again. I have no problem with NAFTA, as long as everyone follows the rules, not just the ones they like.

User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1085 times:

when your ass is out on the street unemployed because of the US

How typically Canadian. Blame the US for everything, including your own unemployment problems.  Insane

Did it ever occur that perhaps these people are unemployed not because of any actions by the United States, but because they never actually bothered to develop skills that would make them marketable in a modern environment?

You complain on the other thread about not wanting your tax dollars contributing to Canada's missle defence, but you seem perfectly willing to support a welfare state for these leeches.

No wonder Canada gets the short end of trade deals with logic like that.

I have no problem with NAFTA, as long as everyone follows the rules, not just the ones they like.

Why should the United States or any other sovereign country have to follow rules that are not in their interest? Especially when they have proven time and time again that they can get away with ignoring them.

Canadians should realize that NAFTA is nothing but an indirect way for the US to subsidize the Canadian economy without providing direct aid. If Canada has a problem with NAFTA, they are always free to withdraw from it and trade with Greenland instead. I hear those polar bears are in the market for a bunch of SUVs this year....


User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1077 times:

Huh? How exactly does giving billions to US lumber producers "subsidize" the anadian economy? Have you got the slightest idea how markets and tariffs work? And are you saying the US is willfully supporting the Canadian economy, when the whole point of this thread is how they are screwing us? Make up your mind.

User currently offlineMarco From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2000, 4169 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1070 times:

Well said Sean. You present the view of an outsider (who's seen his fair share of the world). Most Canadians who are stuck in their 1 dimensional world can't comprehend what you're talking about...


Proud to be an Assyrian!
User currently offlineAirbus Lover From Malaysia, joined Apr 2000, 3248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1067 times:

Bravo, well said by Sean. But I guess we'll see many more attacks from patriotic or rather typical Canadians on what you just said.

User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1058 times:

The FTA is the BEST thing that has happened to the Cdn economy since Confederation. Exports to the US have more than doubled in 12 years. Each and every Cdn is enriched due to free trade with the US.

Only rabid neo-nazis American lapdogs would choose to ignore the fact that Canada has to fight tooth and nail for every dollar we make from US trade and that even though trade has increased since the implementation of NAFTA, the blance of trade has remained largely unchanged.

You complain on the other thread about not wanting your tax dollars contributing to Canada's missle defence, but you seem perfectly willing to support a welfare state for these leeches.

Sean, you can't seem to stay focused. We are talking NAFTA. Not submarines, Seakings or missles. Welfare state? Leeches? I am very proud of my country and the way it treats its people. It works for us. We enjoy a high standard of living, good health and prosperity. Our economy stands out amongst the G7 countries even in spite of the lack of good intentions from those controlling trade with Canada.

Why should the United States or any other sovereign country have to follow rules that are not in their interest? Especially when they have proven time and time again that they can get away with ignoring them.

This is an excellent way of illustrating that "The US will take the first opportunity to back away from agreements when it doesn't favour them so don't bother trusting them". The US has turned its back the US too. So tell me. Why should any country trust the US? Why should anyone continue to make ANY deals with the US? Why don't we all just abandon them in favour of trade with Europe, China and India?

Canadians should realize that NAFTA is nothing but an indirect way for the US to subsidize the Canadian economy without providing direct aid. If Canada has a problem with NAFTA, they are always free to withdraw from it and trade with Greenland instead. I hear those polar bears are in the market for a bunch of SUVs this year...

Again, typical response unfortunately. Americans fail to realize that trade with Canada is just as important to them as it is to us. For one thing, can you imagine the impact to the economy if California suddenly disappeared? That represents roughly the same population as Canada. How about the sudden lack of raw materials including oil, natural gas and electricity?

Huh? How exactly does giving billions to US lumber producers "subsidize" the (C)anadian economy?

Well said. And even with the subsidies flowing to US companies their economy is in the toilet. When the US choses to ignore NAFTA for protectionist purposes, they seem to hurt themselves as much as anyone else.

In my opinion, only liers and cheats are capable of dishonoring international agreements or supporting that idea, and they are not worthy of our support or trust.





User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1052 times:

Only rabid neo-nazis American lapdogs would choose to ignore the fact that Canada has to fight tooth and nail for every dollar we make from US trade and that even though trade has increased since the implementation of NAFTA, the blance of trade has remained largely unchanged.


US-Canada trade is heavily skewed in Canada's favour as we have a large trade surplus with the US. Canada-US trade is the largest bilateral trade in the world. Canada is literally booming wrt US trade.

So exactly what is it that you are whining about? Other than taking another potshot at the US for no reason other than ideology?






Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1044 times:

So exactly what is it that you are whining about? Other than taking another potshot at the US for no reason other than ideology?

This illustrates the problem with your statments YYZ717. You automatically associate the opinions of others on some specific "ideology". Well...in the words of Sigmund Freud, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

Try to spend more time concentrating on the issue rather than attacking any percieved ideological motive. It will make the discussion much more productive.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1027 times:

Try to spend more time concentrating on the issue rather than attacking any percieved ideological motive. It will make the discussion much more productive.

I am concentrating on the issue. If you look at the big picture, the FTA is a roaring success for Canada's economy. So why are you advocating scrapping it because of some minors irritants? That's akin to cutting off your arm to cure a hang nail.

The resounding success of the FTA is abundantly obvious. Only anti-Americans and socialists oppose it.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A few points on this one:

1. Softwood lumber is not a minor trade irritant. More than $3 billion in illegally collected duties now sits in the U.S. treasury, having been collected over the last 2+ years through tariffs that have been shown by every dispute settlement panel, time and time again, to be completely unjustified. The money continues to accumulate at a rate of $150 million a month. It is, by far, the biggest bilateral trade dispute in the world. If the duties don't survive the NAFTA appeals (and so far the U.S. is losing virtually every battle) the money is supposed to come back to Canada.

2. Baucus's new bill promises to distribute that illegally-collected money among the US producers who made the complaint before the dispute settlements process has been completed. That's out and out theft, and it contravenes not only U.S. law but is in violation of both WTO and NAFTA rules that the U.S. is committed to abide by. The Byrd Amendment that allows for the disbursement was itself declared illegal by the WTO more than a year ago -- but it has yet to be repealed.

3. Canada and the US signed the first FTA (morphing into NAFTA when Mexico came on board) specifically to put an end to a string of bizarre decisions by the highly-politicized trade tribunals, aka kangaroo courts, in both countries. The dispute settlement mechanism was the answer. The problem has been that Canada (and Mexico) win more than 90% of the disputes. Rather than have a hard look at how unfairly their own trade tribunals function, the US blames NAFTA/WTO/Canada/Europe/communists or the man in the moon -- whoever is the handiest target. As a result, the U.S. does everything in its power to delay the ultimate application of NAFTA (and WTO) decisions not favourable to them.

3. Here's the amazing thing that very few people understand. These NAFTA dispute settlement panels (that keep overturning anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian lumber) have only one very narrow mandate -- to determine whether or not U.S. trade rulings comply with U.S. law. In other words, these panels (the members are U.S., Canadian and Mexican trade experts) are throwing U.S. trade rulings out BECAUSE THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH U.S. LAW! Not Canadian law, not Mexican law, but U.S. law.

Bottom line here -- the U.S. willingly signed on to FTA/NAFTA and the WTO. Hell, the U.S. was the lead nation in developing the WTO. The whole idea is to conduct trade through rules-based systems that everyone agrees on. To do that everyone (including the U.S.) has to sacrifice some soveriegnty. That means you accept the decisions that go against you as well as the ones that go for you.

NAFTA, overall, has been of great benefit to both Canada and the U.S. Mexico has benefitted to a lesser extent so far. But if the U.S. continues to flout its own laws, completely undermining the foundations of the agreement, it will die. That will be bad news for all three countries. And if you think it doesn't matter to the U.S. -- remember that one of the provisions of NAFTA requires Canada to participate fully in a continental energy market, providing oil, gas and electricity at market prices. One of the rules is that Canada can't turn off the tap. If NAFTA dies, so does that agreement.




Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1015 times:

The resounding success of the FTA is abundantly obvious. Only anti-Americans and socialists oppose it.

Nobody here, as far as I can tell is opposing the NAFTA. The issue is the failure of the US to abide by the agreement.

Your "anti-American/Socialist" rant is getting very tired YYZ717. Most of us realize that it your way of avoiding the real issue. Just continue to stick your head in the sand and blame "socialism" for all the worlds woes. Why not blame the boogey man while you're at it. In your mind I'm sure either target is just as tangible....



User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1012 times:

Nobody here, as far as I can tell is opposing the NAFTA. The issue is the failure of the US to abide by the agreement.

Airplay, let me repeat your comment from the intial post:

The Bush administration has absolutely no intention of abiding by the Free Trade Agreement provisions. When will we end this useless free trade agreements with these bandits?

You are indeed advocating the scrapping of FTA/NAFTA.

The US are not bandits. They are Canada's best friend and primary economic partner. We need them. Most of our trade is fair and balanced. You need to develop a rational view of the US Airplay and cut the left-wing hyperbole.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 998 times:

The Bush administration has absolutely no intention of abiding by the Free Trade Agreement provisions. When will we end this useless free trade agreements with these bandits?

Yep...I wrote that. All I can offer is some clarification. I think the Bush administration is the source of much of the damage to the NAFTA with respect to US/Canada trade. I went a bit overboard with the suggestion of scrapping it all together without options. What we really need is someone who will honor the provisions of the agreement. Barring that...yes. Scrap it and start looking for more stable and honest trade partners.

The close proximity and large market are great reasons to have a free trade agreement with the US, but GWB is ignoring the provions of the agreement and using trade to punish us for not toeing the line in my opinion.

With respect to your backhanded "left wing" comments that you tack on the end of every post, its just childish labeling. I don't consider myself "left wing" however you seem to be associating lying and cheating a right wing attribute. So the message here may be, don't enter into business agreements with right wing extremists.


25 Yyz717 : What we really need is someone who will honor the provisions of the agreement. The FTA/NAFTA is largely honoured on both sides already. Case closed. G
26 Airplay : The FTA/NAFTA is largely honoured on both sides already. Case closed. No its not. The Case will remain open even if you choose to bury your head in th
27 Post contains links Arrow : If you want a thorough understanding of just how badly the U.S. has abused NAFTA, go to this site and download the report on Chapter 19 -- what went w
28 Yyz717 : Canada is stuck with the US as our priamry trade partner. Given their size, it's in Canada's interest to get along. That is quite a narrow-minded view
29 Airplay : "real" Canadian? and I'm not? Just how old are you? Is there a minimum age for being Canadian that I'm not aware of? Seriously though, regardless of w
30 Yyz717 : your comments are quite anti-Canadian and strongly pro-USA One day you will realize that being pro-US is not being anti-Canadian. Too many socialists
31 Airplay : One day you will realize that being pro-US is not being anti-Canadian. Too many socialists and anti-Americans take the stance that the US MUST be oppo
32 B747-437B : Why should any country trust the US? Why should anyone continue to make ANY deals with the US? Why don't we all just abandon them in favour of trade w
33 Post contains images SKYSERVICE_330 : Purely speculation but if the US tried to invade Canada don't ya think the Brits might have something to say about that?? Here lies the proof that the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
More Hypocrites Nailed For Child Porn posted Thu Oct 19 2006 17:43:16 by TedTAce
More Good News For Opie & Anthony! posted Wed Sep 20 2006 02:54:44 by Dw9115
More Bad News For Introverts posted Fri May 19 2006 18:47:49 by PROSA
"Curveball": More Damning News For Bush/CIA posted Sun Nov 20 2005 17:07:49 by Falcon84
More Biological Evidence For Homosexuality posted Tue May 10 2005 21:41:05 by TWFirst
More Bad News For Democrats... posted Wed Nov 3 2004 23:23:22 by N771AN
New Poll/Survey: More Bad News For Democrats posted Mon Oct 18 2004 13:14:32 by L-188
Would Kerry Winning Be Good For Canada? posted Mon Sep 20 2004 21:00:05 by StarAC17
More Olympic Medals For One Country posted Fri Aug 13 2004 05:53:16 by TACAA320
More Politics........but For A Change..... posted Fri Jun 4 2004 00:26:54 by NWA742