This paper examines the 2006softwoodlumberagreement between the federal governments of Canada and the United States, which creates a medium-term solution for a long-running trade dispute between the two countries.
Abstract This paper explains that the origin of the dispute between the federal governments of Canada and the United States is the belief of U.S. lumber companies that lumber in some Canadian provinces, such as British Columbia, is subsidized by the lumber coming from Crown lands where its cost is cheaper than if it came from private lands. The author points out that, although Canada disputes this view, it accepted the Canada-US SoftwoodLumberAgreement of 2006, which cancels any legal actions and duties with regard to the softwoodlumber issue, as a way of resolving the trade problem and returning billions of dollars the U.S. government has claimed in duties over the past five years. The paper relates that the public interest group, the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) did not advocate one policy to government but attempted to work with the government to create a "unified" approach, which best reflects the diverse interests of its member companies.
From the Paper "Canada had a number of objectives in entering into the free trade agreements with the United States. In general, these different objectives may be grouped under the one overriding priority of the Canadian government, which was to secure open and unthreatened long-term access to the large U.S. market for Canadian exporters. This was an important issue for the Canadian government as Canadian industries in the last decades of the 20th century were growing increasingly dependent upon the United States as their primary export market."
Abstract This paper discusses the SoftwoodLumberAgreement between Canada and the United States, which aims to resolve a longstanding trade dispute between Canada and the United States. It describes the advantages and disadvantages of the agreement, as well as the interests of the provincial and federal governments. The paper also discusses the history of the dispute and the role of the Quebec Forest Industry Council.
From the Paper "This approach to lobbying the federal and provincial governments becomes understandable when we view other documents on the QFIC website, such as its statement of condemnation of the previous Liberal government in Ottawa in November 2005 for not doing enough to supply aid to the Quebec lumber industry. In this the QFIC reiterated to the federal government that the member companies of the organization were suffering under the current ongoing dispute, and that approximately US$1.2 billion in export duties charged by the United States government lay in the United States; money that the QFIC asserted was not only rightfully the money of the exporters, but that it also was desperately needed by many struggling companies in the industry in Quebec (QFIC). As an institutional interest group with a range of members, a collective memory and extensive resources (Stanbury and Moore 229), the QFIC represents a potent force in this particular area as may be seen in the Bloc Quebecois decision to support the minority federal government and insure passage of the agreement."
Abstract This paper discusses the 2006SoftwoodLumberagreement between the United States and Canada. It describes the reasons for the agreement and its implications. The paper also discusses the different interests of the Canadian federal and provincial governments in terms of this agreement and their role in implementing the agreement. It then analyzes Canada's objectives in entering into the two free trade agreements with the United States (the FTA and NAFTA) and how it relates to the SoftwoodLumberagreement. Finally the paper looks at the BC Lumbar Trade Council and its role in supporting Canadian interests in the Canada-US softwoodlumber dispute.
Table of Contents:
Overview of the SoftwoodLumberAgreement Free Trade Agreements The BC Lumbar Trade Council
From the Paper "In this analysis, the advocacy strategy of the BCLTC is not only audacious but is also reflective of the nature of the proposed softwood lumber agreement and the importance of this agreement's structure to the lumber industry in British Columbia. The fact that the organization is willing to go to the extreme step of implying that its members would scuttle the agreement if they do not get what they want in subsequent drafts is political brinkmanship of the highest order. While this power and strategy is unusual for most Canadian interest groups, it is reflective of the complex and long-running nature of this dispute in British Columbia, as well as of the provincial industry's desire for long term stability in its trade with the United States."
Abstract The paper relates that the proposed softwoodlumberagreement is designed to resolve the long standing trade dispute between Canada and the United States. The paper explains why Canada's primary objective with the proposed agreement is to liberalize trade. The paper explores whether Canada's interests are being served by this agreement. The paper looks at an important interest group, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) that supports Canada in this dispute.
Outline:
The Proposed Agreement Interest Groups
From the Paper "The proposed softwood lumber agreement is designed to finally resolve the long standing trade dispute between Canada and the United States. It has provisions that are beneficial for Canada and provisions that are beneficial for the United States."
"The major benefit for the Canadian industry is the fact that the agreement would result in the elimination of the trade barriers currently in place. For example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's website states,
"The U.S. will revoke the CVD and AD orders on Canadian softwood lumber imports and stop collecting deposits"(Anonymous www. international.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/basic-terms-en.as). This would mean that the trade barriers erected by the United States would be essentially eliminated.""
Tags: economy, trade, barriers, tariffs, duties, NAHB, policy, interest, groups
Abstract This paper discusses the 1996 Canada-US SoftwoodLumberagreement. It describes the terms of the agreement and the differing interests of the federal and provincial governments in the agreement. The paper then looks at the differing roles that the federal and provincial governments play in implementing the agreement. Next, the paper discusses Canada's objectives in entering into the two free trade agreements, the FTA and the NAFTA and discusses how the SoftwoodLumberAgreement fits into these. Finally, the paper looks at the BC Lumber Trade Council and what it represents.
From the Paper " The Council advocated to the provincial and federal governments on the basis of the lumber industry and the best interests of the forestry industry as well as of Canada. The Council advocated finding "a durable, long-term solution to the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute and respect for the rules of trade under NAFTA" (BC Lumber Trade Council 1). The Council also upholds certain aspects of the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement along with the interests of the firms in the industry that the Council represents. Advocacy on the part of the Council includes using threats to the federal government. Such threats involve the potential for embarrassment on the international scale along with local disgrace in the event that the agreement is implemented without feedback and influence from the BC Lumber Trade Council. The strategies employed in the advocacy of related to the proposed softwood lumber agreement represent the intensity of feeling surrounding the issues in the dispute. The Council's advocacy measures also are influenced by the extreme significance of the softwood lumber agreement for the lumber industry in British Columbia. The BC Lumber Trade Council also has threatened to sabotage the agreement in the event that their demands are not realized."
Abstract The paper is an economic geography discussion of the regional effects of the softwoodlumber dispute in Canada. The paper argues that British Colombia is the biggest loser economically of this resource, with the current level of taxes and tariffs. The paper notes how as British Colombia's industry declines, the industries in other provinces improve.
From the Paper "The economic development of Canada has largely been dependent on the extraction or harvesting of natural resources. Economies based on the extraction or harvesting are generally known as staples economies. In Resources Dean M. Hanink states, "Staple production, consisting of direct exploitation and initial processing of natural resources, or staples, began with the Atlantic Fisheries in the late fifteenth centuries and early sixteenth centuries, and progressed to the interior with the growth of European demand for fur. Expansion into Canada's interior occurred in response to the development of the timber industries of lumber and pulp" (Hanink 235)."
This paper discusses the Canadian-U.S.A. softwoodlumber dispute, the 2006agreement and the role of the public interest group, the British Columbia Lumber Trade Council.
Abstract This paper explains that, in the Canadian-U.S.A. softwoodlumber dispute, Washington objected to the low Canadianlumber prices; whereas, the provinces of Canada saw their role as regulating lumbering so that the mainly Crown lands on which it takes place are maintained ecologically well. The author points out that the 2006agreement removed the tariff on Canadiansoftwood, but also established export taxes that will kick into place should the price of lumber drop too low, thus preventing Canadian exporters from "dumping" or selling lumber in the United States at prices less than what goods cost to produce. The paper stresses that Canada like many Third World countries, is a raw material exporter, subjected to prices and rulings made elsewhere and with whole local or even national economies revolving around particular commodities and their related industries.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Canada's Objectives
The British Columbia Lumber Trade Council
Concluding Notes
From the Paper "Critics said that there should be no duty paid by Canadian forestry companies, in the first place, that Americans either wanted to buy lumber that they could not produce in the United States to keep up with demand, or they did not. A Duke University expert on international economic law wrote that the 2005 negotiations that have gone before the present Softwood Lumber Agreement of 2006 involved Washington being made aware of having reacted too quickly to the earlier situation. Some Americans realized that they were on 'thin ice' in terms of the position taken against Canadian producers of lumber, by suddenly charging tariffs, in view of the NAFTA."
Abstract This paper examines how the softwoodlumber dispute between Canada and the United States is an important trade dispute and how the disagreement between countries originated in the countervailing duty investigation by the US authorities in 1982/83. It looks at how The US countervailing duties on Canadiansoftwoodlumber were based on the allegedly below-market fees charged by some Canadian provinces for stumpage rights granted to Canadiansoftwoodlumber producers on Crown lands and how this marked the beginning of over two decades of allegations, investigations and imposed penalties by the United States.
From the Paper "The current lumber dispute between nations began in 1982, when lumber companies in the United States were faced with financial difficulties due to the recession. The US lumber industry petitioned the US government to impose tariffs against Canadian softwood lumber imports under the provisions of US countervailing duty law (Yin, 2004). The Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports (CFLI) filed a countervailing duty petition against softwood lumber from Canada, alleging that Canadian federal and provincial governments were subsidizing softwood lumber production by selling the right to cut timber on public lands at artificially low prices (Schwindt, 2004). The petition was taken to the US Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission (ITC) to determine if imported lumber from Canada was directly or indirectly subsidized by the Canadian government (Yin, 2004). In 1983, the International Trade Association (ITA) of the Department of Commerce concluded that the amount of subsidies was less than 0.5% and that Canadian stumpage programs did not amount to countervailable subsidies (Yin, 2004). "
Abstract This paper analyses the 2005-2006Canadian federal election in which the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper won a minority government by defeating the Liberal Party under Prime Minister Paul Martin, which had itself won a minority government just over a year before. The paper discusses how the lack of an overwhelming majority victory by any single political party in these elections means that the structure of the Canadian electoral system has a particularly significant impact upon the determination of which party will form the government and, perhaps more importantly, what policies will be implemented by that party.
Abstract This paper discusses the Softwood Lumbar Agreement between Canada and the United States. It describes the different interests of the federal and the provincial governments in the Agreement and the implication of the Agreement for the federal government of Canada. The paper discusses Canada's objectives in entering into the Free Trade Agreements with the United States. It argues that Canadian interests are not being served by the free trade agreements. Finally, the paper looks at the the Alberta SoftwoodLumber Trade Council and its representation on Canadian interests.
From the Paper "Clearly, the diverse range of the ASLTC's disagreements with the proposed agreement do not offer much room for compromise. In order to address these problems, it would seem that the entire agreement would have to be opened up and the U.S. government "forced" to accept a much longer term agreement (unlikely); that the rest of Canada should recognize Alberta's particular circumstances with a pest (unlikely); and that someone should refund the Alberta industry its $100 million in legal fees (unlikely). Clearly, this interest group reflect the general intransigence of single-issue interest groups. Moreover, the fact that it is not bothering to advocate directly to the federal government, but is instead using its influence on the provincial government of Alberta to get the province to lobby the federal government for changes reflects its narrow basis of support in one province and in one sector of a provincial industry (ASLTC)."
Abstract This paper examines the trade dispute between the United States and Canada regarding softwoodlumber. It is written as a policy position paper to the Minister of Foreign Trade and International Relations.
Abstract This paper discusses the softwoodlumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada which strained already hostile relations between the two neighbors. It examines the justification for the U.S. "protective" tariffs for guarding their own lumber industry, while there are several hundred thousand Canadian forestry workers unemployed. It looks at the negotiations between the two countries with U.S. officials unwilling to compromise and evaluates whether the Canadianlumber industry survive under these restrictions imposed by its number one importer.
From the Paper "The duties imposed adversely affect many while benefiting few. The seven million US workers employed by the housing and forest industries are virtually unaffected by the tariffs and the consumer price will only rise due to the tariffs. While the rise of housing costs in the US may be excused as a boom in the housing market, the real reason lies within its framing of more-expensive domestic lumber. Some Canadian mills have shifted from processing softwood lumber to processing specialized products, such as pallets, posts, and rails. The lower price at which the Canadian mills can supply, in comparison to US mills, has attracted the attention of the US consumer, therefore crippling a small part of the industry the duties were designed to protect."
Abstract This paper argues the thesis that the supraconstitutions of NAFTA and the WTO have not rescued Canada from a power-based trade system. It makes reference to the softwoodlumber trade dispute between Canada and the United States, showing that the power of the United States is such that the mechanisms of international trade regulation and dispute settlement largely favour the US position. In the case of NAFTA, this situation is shown to be particularly disadvantageous from the Canadian perspective given the asymmetric power differentials between the United States and Canada Mexico.
From the Paper "In 1987 Canada entered into the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA), which later grew into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. Canada's overriding reason for entering these accords was to establish a trade dispute settling system that would efficiently and justly regulate trade between the two countries. Canada's participation in these agreements - as later in its participation in the WTO - grew out of the view that as a mid-sized power Canada is better off in a "rules-based" trade system with strong dispute settlement mechanisms than in a "power based" trade system."
Abstract The paper discusses elements of international trade and focuses on anti-dumping laws and rules. The paper explains that anti-dumping laws and rules are supposed to stop products from being dumped. The Canada-US SoftwoodLumber dispute is the example used to study this topic.
From the Paper "One of the negative trade practices that international trade agreements are designed to deal with is dumping. According to Trebilcock and Howse, dumping occurs in its most typical form where foreign producers are selling goods into another country's market at prices below those which they would normally charge in their home market (Trebilcock and Howse 32). Dumping can usually be seen as a practice to harm domestic markets in another country. The idea is for the exporting country to take a short term economic hit in order to permanently cripple domestic markets in the receiving country."
Abstract This paper reviews the 1989 U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) and the costs and benefits to Canada. It discusses the purpose of the agreement and criticisms of CFTA as subjecting Canada to U.S. cultural imperialism. The author contends that the elimination of tariffs is a positive aid to the Canadian economy.
From the Paper "The Effect on Canada of the Free Trade Agreement. The Canada-U S Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) became effective on January. The primary purpose of the agreement was to create a trading zone free of prohibitive and protective tariffs between the two countries. While ..."
