Saturday, April 29, 2006

Jack Layton, Defender of Free Trade


The Moustachioed Socialist swoops in to defend the free market in response to the softwood lumber deal!
We had something called the free trade deal...with the U.S. and this completely violates it. It essentially says that the Americans can break the rules and when they're caught - caught many times by the tribunal under NAFTA - they don't have to pay up the full amount that they took inappropriately, so a billion dollars is still sitting on the table. And it means that other industries are going to look at the Canadian situation and say 'Maybe we should do the same. After all, it looks as though we can get away with it.'


Layton's also got a beef with the 34 percent market share restriction.
This is directly contrary to what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons yesterday where he said very clearly, 'No tarrifs, no quotas.' Well, the agreement clearly has both tariffs and quotas.


Harper better watch his back!
Interestingly enough, these are tarriffs that now the Canadian government is going to charge, which means of course they'll have to come through the House of Commons as a tax measure, so we'll see what happens when that is brought forward.


Dun dun dun...

Actually, I'm curious too. Here's hoping that the opposition isn't just talking tough on this one.

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Knock on Wood

'Twas no mere rumour. The Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons today to announce that a deal had been reached with the Americans on the longstanding trade dispute over softwood lumber. According to the PM's website:

The United States has agreed to Canada’s key conditions including:
  • Stable and predictable access to the U.S. market: there will be no quotas and no tariffs at current prices;
  • Repayment of duties: at least four billion dollars will be paid out to Canadian producers;
  • Provincial flexibility: there will be different compliance options in response to varying operating conditions across Canada; and
  • Certainty: the deal runs for a minimum of seven years with options for renewal at a later date.


Surprisingly, the PM also announced that the deal had the support of the provincial governments of British Colubia, Quebec and Ontario. Earlier in the week, Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources, David Ramsay, said that his government was "very upset with the deal that's there." Perhaps the third bullet point about provincial flexibility was enough to placate him. Regardless, the three major lumber-producing provinces were basically the only ones who could have gotten the deal scuttled at this point. Chalk one up for Stephen Harper.

There is surely some cause for celebration. The softwood lumber dispute has been a sour note in an otherwise good working relationship. With this out of the way, relations between the two countries should become more cordial, as befits the friendship that our countries share. Also, the mere fact that there is a deal now - any deal - will save a lot of grief for the Canadian lumber industry since they lose out the longer the argument simmers. On top of that, with the trend suggesting that the loonie will continue to rise against the dollar, the collected duties currently being held by the U.S. will end up being worth less the longer it takes to get them back.

That being said, there are plenty of reasons to complain. Canada may be getting $4 billion in duties returned, but that leaves $1 billion in the U.S., an amount which will likely end up going mostly to American softwood producers. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it can be said that a good compromise leaves everybody angry. On the other hand, the first bullet point is a real concern. "There will be no quotas and no tariffs at current prices." What happens if prices change? The details are still murky, but it sounds like CTV got it right when they reported earlier this week that the deal would hold Canada to 34% of the American market. That is roughly what Canada's market share is right now, implying that a quota (or tarriffs) would end up in effect when current market conditions change.

It's free trade, as long as there are no free markets.

I argued before that Canada should not start a trade war over softwood (as Jack Layton suggested during the election campaign) on the grounds that Canada would ultimately lose that battle. But it seems that the government has confused withholding retaliation with capitulating. Canada has lost a few decisions at non-binding WTO tribunals, but has consistently won under legally binding NAFTA tribunals. Canada should have continued along that process, and if necessary, temporarily granting loans to the softwood industry to keep them afloat as the dispute persisted. Accepting anything less than free trade sets a bad precedent.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Softwood lumber breakthrough?

From CTV:

Sources told CTV News on Monday that outlines of an agreement were hammered out by both sides following round-the-clock discussions. As part of an agreement:

  • Canadian lumber firms would be held to a 34 per cent share of softwood lumber in the U.S. market. It's roughly the share that Canada currently holds.
  • The U.S. would return 78 per cent of the $5 billion it collected in softwood duties beginning in 2002.

The remaining 22 per cent will go to the U.S. lumber industry to help defray the costs of their legal challenges. It is not immediately clear, however, how that portion will be distributed, or what form it will take.


If I was a part of the Canadian softwood lumber industry, I would be ecstatic if a deal has in fact been struck after all these years. It's not an outright victory, but it is better than a stalement.

However, as someone who has no direct stake in this particular dispute, I am not so enthused. Why are we accepting export quotas under NAFTA? It's hardly
free trade if you ask me... And having to compensate the American softwood industry for waging their protectionist war is just a kick in the teeth.

Then again, this latest story may just turn out to be a false alarm. The plot sounds familiar...

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Brief thoughts on the first Question Period of the 39th paliament

Impressions from about 50 minutes of watching CPAC:
  • There was a lot of talk when the Speaker was elected earlier this week about making Question Period seem less like a circus. The much heralded return to civility lasted about 5 minutes by my count. There's just something about jeering while others are speaking that is simply irresistable to MPs of all stripes.
  • Stephen Harper is pretty funny sometimes.
  • Paul Martin is nowhere near the camera ...or a microphone. That's the way it should be.
  • Two Conservative MPs got seats on the opposite end of the floor. That must suck.
  • Independent MP Andre Arthur hasn't ripped into the CRTC yet. Or maybe I didn't watch long enough.
  • I didn't know that Jim Prentice is bilingual. Impressive.
  • Liberal defector David Emerson got hammered hard by Liberal MP Hedy Fry. On the second volley, the Prime Minister had to stand up to defend him. Emerson is probably going to be taking a beating on a daily basis...
  • It is not good that the Minister of Public Works is not able to answer questions in the House.
  • I really like the CPAC commercials with Tom Green.

free html hit counter