Should Canada Strike Back?

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE]REGINA (CP) - Canada is threatening a trade war with the United States over softwood lumber as members of the federal government said they're studying which U.S. goods they could slap with tariffs.

Several cabinet members said Tuesday that Ottawa is identifying products where Canadian tariffs would cause maximum pressure on the U.S. economy and minimal damage domestically.

A government official said products already under consideration include water and California wines, but added that Canada will await a World Trade Organization verdict before proceeding.

At a brief media scrum, Prime Minister Paul Martin castigated the United States for its lumber protectionism and its decision to ignore yet another ruling by a NAFTA panel made last week.

"The American position is absolutely untenable. It's unacceptable," said Martin said, who didn't mention tariffs.

"The fact is that we won those cases and under the terms of NAFTA and under the terms of any kind of an agreement, when a panel comes down and makes a decision, that should be honoured."

One federal minister used a Canadian sports analogy to describe the federal government's willingness to retaliate against its largest and most powerful trading partner.

"I have a background from my younger days in hockey. When somebody slammed you into the boards with undue force and aggression, you took their number," Industry Minister David Emerson said.

"I think we've got to take their number."

Federal officials were distributing an editorial from the prestigious Wall Street Journal that accused the U.S. government of "bone-headed economic policy" and endorsed the Canadian position.

Emerson said Trade Minister Jim Peterson and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale have begun the process of identifying suitable U.S. targets for tariffs.

Goodale was cautious in his comments and Peterson said he could only proceed after a crucial WTO ruling expected next year. Canada has already sought approval for $4.8 billion in retaliatory measures.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew appeared to welcome the idea of tariffs and said California wines were being considered as one possible target.

"I do believe that we should do it in a way that will not go to the detriment of other Canadian interests," said Pettigrew, a former trade minister who dealt with the softwood dispute.

"We have to do it in a way that some U.S. interests will ring their senators and congressmen in Washington."

The warnings come one week after the United States announced it would ignore a decision by a NAFTA panel that found Canadian lumber exports posed no threat of injury to U.S. producers.

With more that 80 per cent of Canadian exports going to the U.S. and the countries exchanging $1 billion each day, Canada would need to tread carefully to avoid a crippling trade war.

But Goodale said the federal government is intent on making its point that U.S. Customs has illegally collected $5 billion in tariffs on Canadian softwood since 2002.

"We want to make sure that whatever option we pursue is effective in making our point . . . without at the same time shooting ourselves in the foot," he said.

"Canada has wanted to make it very clear that we are not happy with the position of the United States to simply ignore what is a clear NAFTA ruling in Canada's favour."

One particularly draconian measure has already been ruled out - imposing quotas on Canadian oil exports to punish alleged U.S. protectionism on lumber.

Emerson, who supported that idea when he was a lumber industry executive, now says it would unfairly saddle Alberta with the bulk of the economic fallout.

He said Tuesday the government is considering tariffs that won't damage the economy in a single region of the country.

"We are stronger as a country when we pull together in a unified way. If we take actions that create regional balkanization, division and friction, we're not becoming stronger as a country," Emerson said.

"(We have) to find effective tools that aren't going to create more problems at home than they solve abroad."

Canada announced earlier this year that it would impose a 15 per cent surtax on U.S. live swine, cigarettes, oysters and certain specialty fish - measures worth only an estimated $14 million.

The move came after the WTO agreed that the so-called Byrd amendment in the United States violated that country's trade obligations. The controversial law allows U.S. producers to get the duties their government imposes on foreign competitors.

Also Tuesday, Goodale dismissed reports of bursting government coffers as wildly exaggerated and rejected private-sector forecasts that the surplus for 2004-05 will total more than $8 billion.

He said the actual surplus for the last fiscal year will wind up being far closer to his initial projections - $3 billion or "a little bit less" and said this year's projections are "the most accurate prognosticators"' of what lies ahead. [/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
I think that it's about damn time that my country took a stand and put an end to the illegallity that is the Softwood Lumber Tariff. What do you people think? Do you think that Canada should respond in kind, i.e put heavy taxes on Electricity, Water, and other speciality items? I think that we should declare a full on trade-warfare. Eight times, IN A ROW, NAFTA has ruled in favour of Canada on tihs arguement; and yet the US keeps putting thousands out of jobs and costing my nation billions. Yes, Canada would likely suffer worse than the US from a trade war. But, hey, half the men of the Light Brigade died, but if they hadn't charged the Russians would have won the Crimean war. Probably a bad analogy, since it was a poem about the Light Brigade, and not the actual charge... Still.[/COLOR]

[Corey]

[size=1]Blind patriotism is a terrible thing.
You said yourself that Canada would suffer more from a trade war than the US.
There might be hundreds of thousands of jobs lost instead of just thousands.

I don't condone in the slightest what the US is doing. I find it underhanded and extremely disrespectful, but I believe Canada would be doing more disrespect to itself if they started an all-out Trade War with the US.
Their plans of enforcing tarrifs could be a very good thing and work well...

...even though they're still clear-cutting forests, but that's not a topic for this thread.[/size]

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE=Corey][size=1]Blind patriotism is a terrible thing.
You said yourself that Canada would suffer more from a trade war than the US.
There might be hundreds of thousands of jobs lost instead of just thousands.

I don't condone in the slightest what the US is doing. I find it underhanded and extremely disrespectful, but I believe Canada would be doing more disrespect to itself if they started an all-out Trade War with the US.
Their plans of enforcing tarrifs could be a very good thing and work well...

...even though they're still clear-cutting forests, but that's not a topic for this thread.[/size][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Yes, all out trade war may be a bit extreme; that's well and true. But by, say, heavily taxing Electricity or Water like the US taxes us for Softwood Lumber, I only see two things happening; the US getting cranky (Refer to my sig) and saying they don't wanna play with Canada anymore, or removing the tariff. Either way, Canada will never look at the US the same way after the robbed us blind. I've only got one thing to say to the US government; Don't even think about trying to take away the North West Passage.

How is it possible that the US can continue doing this when they lost... 8-0? Some shining light the US government is...[/COLOR]

[Corey]

[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']How is it possible that the US can continue doing this when they lost... 8-0? Some shining light the US government is...[/COLOR][/quote]

[size=1]Exactly why blind patriotism is a bad thing.
No one should have %100 faith in their government. People corrupt very easily. The US, being one of (if not [i]the[/i], I'm not too sure on this) biggest and best economies in the world thinks itself invulnerable.

No government is perfect.
The US is a great example.

EDIT: I think I read the part about the tarrifs wrong.
I thought Canada was going to be taxing the US for water and electricity they were buying.[/size]

[Sandy]

Corey is right about the corruption. Finland is to my memory the third least corrupted country [I]in the world[/I], and [I]still[/I] there is bribing, spying, hiding crucial information and all such things going on in our wee ickle government.

Politics are a cruel game, I say.

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1]Politics... a game... heh. Anyway.

Should Canada strike back? Not as drastically as you're thinking, Ilium. By starting this all out trade war, like Corey said, you lose more jobs than you would sitting back and letting the US do this. However, I do think this is a pretty large injustice to the Canadians, and so less drastic measures would be a good idea. I'm not sure what these less dramatic meastures might be, but you don't want to "shoot yourself in the foot" while trying to make the point.[/SIZE]

[r2vq]

The Great Depression was fuelled by tarrifs and "trade wars". Creating another depressions isn't the best idea.

Canada's two biggest trade partners are the United States and China. I doubt its best to create a "war" with your biggest economic partner. Think of how many business and chains would be shut down due to the destruction of free trade.

[quote name='Ilium']Don't even think about trying to take away the North West Passage.[/quote]Know your history. Canada already had to fight for a territorial rights for the waters because of a conflict with Americans.

[QUOTE=Corey]Blind patriotism is a terrible thing.
You said yourself that Canada would suffer more from a trade war than the US.
There might be hundreds of thousands of jobs lost instead of just thousands.

I don't condone in the slightest what the US is doing. I find it underhanded and extremely disrespectful, but I believe Canada would be doing more disrespect to itself if they started an all-out Trade War with the US.
Their plans of enforcing tarrifs could be a very good thing and work well...

...even though they're still clear-cutting forests, but that's not a topic for this thread.[/QUOTE]My sentiments exactly.

-ArV

[Guest Bondage boy]

america need not mess with Canada because even though the history books in america dont teach it Canada kicked our butts repeativly when we tried to take puttin bay. :animesigh

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

I share the general sentiment stated so far in regard to an all-out trade war, while it may seem like a good idea now, it would undoubtedly cause much more suffering on the Canadian side than it would on the American. I agree with you Ilium when you say tariffing specific things, that wouldn't have a major effect on Canada is the best way to go and seems most logical. What the American government has done is wrong but shooting yourself in the foot with an all-out trade war is not a good idea, given America's overall economic power. Like I said, better to stick to tariffing things that will really only affect America.[/SIZE]

[Morpheus]

Trying to convince people to buy from their own country. That's just horrible.

Seriously, if the US has made 5 billion in tariffs alone, that means that despite the tariff, people are still buying. Our government is in the hole and now is spending 50 billion on a disaster. We lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and 2 major cities were decimated. Don't come in here complaining about a huge industry being slightly downsized when there are bigger problems to worry about. We most definately wouldn't threaten Canada with such petty matters if Toronto was destroyed.

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE=Morpheus]Trying to convince people to buy from their own country. That's just horrible.

Seriously, if the US has made 5 billion in tariffs alone, that means that despite the tariff, people are still buying. Our government is in the hole and now is spending 50 billion on a disaster. We lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and 2 major cities were decimated. Don't come in here complaining about a huge industry being slightly downsized when there are bigger problems to worry about. We most definately wouldn't threaten Canada with such petty matters if Toronto was destroyed.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

The US hasn't really [I]made[/I] any money from the Tariffs, they've only made it near impossible for Canada's Lumber industry to sell to the states. By doing this, they've already cost 5 Billion to Canada, as well as thousands of jobs, and many communities have dried up and blown away without their Lumber Mills. It was done because the US Lumber industry isn't going to be able to outcompete Canada's anymore due to various reasons. To me, it seems like a vengful cop out to make up for the shortcommings of the Corporatism.

Also, this post was made pre-Katrina. And it's not 'slightly downsized'. It's practically gone. 80% of the lumber trade is with the US - now only 50% of what could be sold is being sold, and that's a [i]lot[/i] of bad for a lot of people.

Lastly: Althought I agree that picking and choosing various things would help, I don't think the impact that Canada got could ever be even close to replicated if we put a tariff on Californian wine or oil or anything like that. That's because of the massive person-per-square-kilometer rate in the US - the actual damage to communities in Canada could never be replicated in a Californian town, because their aren't many towns that live on Wine. To me, there are only two ways of going about this. One, all or nothing. Two, a tax (not a Teriff) on exported Electricity (Most of the west coast and much of the boardering US states rely on power made in Quebec and Ontario) which would make up for the 5 billion easily and not really put a dent in the US' already sinking econemy - what's 5 billion to a 3 trillion dollar debt anyway?[/COLOR]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Ilium]The US hasn't really [I]made[/I'] any money from the Tariffs, they've only made it near impossible for Canada's Lumber industry to sell to the states. By doing this, they've already cost 5 Billion to Canada, as well as thousands of jobs, and many communities have dried up and blown away without their Lumber Mills. It was done because the US Lumber industry isn't going to be able to outcompete Canada's anymore due to various reasons. To me, it seems like a vengful cop out to make up for the shortcommings of the Corporatism. [/quote]
Well excuse me. Now the US needs to protect its hundreds of thousands of jobs in the lumber industry. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, Canada losing thousands was a better trade off than the US losing Hundreds of thousands?

Your whole "let's fight fire with fire" idea won't work. Taxing and tariffing here and there will just make the US cut off things you need.

People just need to find other jobs. As mean as it sounds, that's as sugarcoated as I can make it.

[Lafleur]

[COLOR=DarkRed][QUOTE]
Well excuse me. Now the US needs to protect its hundreds of thousands of jobs in the lumber industry. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, Canada losing thousands was a better trade off than the US losing Hundreds of thousands?[/QUOTE]

First of all, no matter how you call it, it's [I]illegal[/I]. NAFTA has ruled 8-0 for Canada on this subject - the only time the US won was at the World Trade Orginisation, but literally 60% of the members of it's Jury are from the US.

Secondly, I never thought that. That's because that the Canadian lumber compition wouldn't have come close to what the Tariff's did to Canada. Canada would still sell in the US, and the US would likewise sell in Canada. Also, as I said before, the US has a much larger population to land ratio - this means that there aren't as many communities in the US who's only lifeblood is a Mill.

[QUOTE]
Your whole "let's fight fire with fire" idea won't work. Taxing and tariffing here and there will just make the US cut off things you need.
[/QUOTE]

And sitting back and letting them ream us up the preverbial *** is a considerable inprovment. [/COLOR]

[r2vq]

[quote name='Morpheus']Well excuse me. Now the US needs to protect its hundreds of thousands of jobs in the lumber industry.[/quote]
[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]First of all, no matter how you call it, it's [I]illegal[/I'].[/COLOR][/quote]Ilium is right. How can it be legal? Canada and the United States entered a free trade agreement decades ago. And yes free trade puts many jobs at risk because of importing, that's why NAFTA was protested against so much. But still, that's what Canada, the United States, and Mexico agreed to.
Neither Canada nor the United States can say free trade but continue to tarriff each other.[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']And sitting back and letting them ream us up the preverbial *** is a considerable inprovment. [/COLOR][/quote]Since United States entered the agreement they shouldn't be able to put the tarriffs on.
But since Canada entered the agreement they shouldn't "strike back" with tarriffs.
I know I said this but Tarriff wars and closed trade brought about the Great Depression. Morpheus is right, fire against fire isn't the solution. The politicians should act like adults and solve it in a better way.

-ArV

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE=r2vq]
But since Canada entered the agreement they shouldn't "strike back" with tarriffs.
I know I said this but Tarriff wars and closed trade brought about the Great Depression. Morpheus is right, fire against fire isn't the solution. The politicians should act like adults and solve it in a better way.

-ArV[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
It was in the sense that since the US is going around making NAFTA obsolete - they've basically torn up the agreement with the whole Beef and Lumber thing - than they should play by their own rules for a change. I'm just tired of seeing the Canadian government bending over to the US' every whim - be it selling out promising Canadian buisnesses (See: Tim Hortons) or giving them electricity for next to nothing - and, personally, I think the best way to do that is to tell them that not everyone plays by their rules. Even an adult will beat somone trying to rob him blind.

As for the adult thing, it's bassically one sided - Canadian politicans telling the Americans to play by the rules, and the American ones telling the Canadian ones to go shove the rules up their *** - which is ironic, since the US had a major part in writing the rules. [/COLOR]

[r2vq]

UGH. I just posted a really long reply but it didn't post. Now I have to write it again? UGH. Here's the jist of it.

[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']It was in the sense that since the US is going around making NAFTA obsolete - they've basically torn up the agreement with the whole Beef and Lumber thing - than they should play by their own rules for a change.[/COLOR][/quote]

That's a the childish way to look at it. He broke the rules so I'll break the rules. He hit me, so I'll hit him. There are other ways to do things.


[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']I'm just tired of seeing the Canadian government bending over to the US' every whim[/COLOR][/quote]

The Canadian Government flipflops on International relations all the time. Mulroney was practically an American worshipper, but Prime Ministers like Trudeau stood up for the country.

[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed'] - be it selling out promising Canadian buisnesses (See: Tim Hortons)[/COLOR][/quote]

Timmy's COO is Paul House from Hamilton. He wants to open up 500 restaurants in the United States but I don't see how that's a problem, Americans have opened up lots of franchises in Canada but they're not worried that McDonalds may become Canadian property.

[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']or giving them electricity for next to nothing - and, personally, I think the best way to do that is to tell them that not everyone plays by their rules. Even an adult will beat somone trying to rob him blind.[/COLOR][/quote]

They may defend themselves but that's a different logic than "they stole from me, I'll steal from them." Canada can defend themselves in many other ways.

[quote name='Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed']As for the adult thing, it's bassically one sided - Canadian politicans telling the Americans to play by the rules, and the American ones telling the Canadian ones to go shove the rules up their *** - which is ironic, since the US had a major part in writing the rules. [/COLOR][/quote]

Well if the method the Politicians are taking aren't working they need a new method. I just disagree with this one.

I'm not saying you're stupid for suggesting this. I'm also not saying that you should stop. You suggesting a method is a wonderful idea and a great way to further the democratic system by contributing your ideas, but in the same way me arguing against it is too.

-ArV

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE]That's a the childish way to look at it. He broke the rules so I'll break the rules. He hit me, so I'll hit him. There are other ways to do things.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
It's not so much a 'he broke the rules' thing, it's a 'he tore up the rules and made it so they don't apply' type of thing. There are many ways of looking at that.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]The Canadian Government flipflops on International relations all the time. Mulroney was practically an American worshipper, but Prime Ministers like Trudeau stood up for the country.
[/QUOTE]

I know - that's why I suggest doing this. It'd be a nice change - send a message, ya know? It's probably just wishful thinking though - the only party that even has a bit of motivation and innocation is the CAP, and they don't have a hope in hell of getting elected. And even then, it's only if everything they promise to do they do - we all know politicans don't have a great track record for keeping promises.

[QUOTE]
Timmy's COO is Paul House from Hamilton. He wants to open up 500 restaurants in the United States but I don't see how that's a problem, Americans have opened up lots of franchises in Canada but they're not worried that McDonalds may become Canadian property.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed]

Last I heard, Wendey's owns Timmy's. It was sold after Mr.Hortons death, by the share holders because Wendeys was paying them a BUNDLE, before his wife could gain controle of the company - as it were, she is still in a massive court battle to regain the company. Side note, ever since Timmy's became a members of the Wendeys empire, the coffe has sucked (It used to be the best coffe you could get for a buck), the donoughts are stale, and the service is terrible.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]
They may defend themselves but that's a different logic than "they stole from me, I'll steal from them." Canada can defend themselves in many other ways.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Your probably right. I know of several other ways that certain parties plan on retaliating - but I'm being realistic. As I said, only the CAP (Canadian Action Party) has any innovation at all right now, and the have no chance of getting power. The Librals, although better than any of the realistic alternatives, are stagnant right now - so realistically speaking this is the only possible way they could retaliate.[/COLOR]