| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "CANADA SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT": |
|
|
Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement, 2007.
An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages to Canada of the Softwood Lumber Agreement between Canada and the United States.
1,553 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 16 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the Softwood Lumber Agreement 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."
| |
|
The Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement of 2006, 2007.
This paper examines the 2006 softwood lumber agreement 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.
2,460 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 16 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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 Softwood Lumber Agreement of 2006, which cancels any legal actions and duties with regard to the softwood lumber 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."
| |
|
The Canada-US Softwood Lumber Dispute, 2007.
An analysis of the terms and implications of the Canada-US Softwood Lumber agreement.
2,489 words (approx. 10.0 pages), 12 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the 1996 Canada-US Softwood Lumber agreement. 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 Softwood Lumber Agreement 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."
| |
|
Canada-US Softwood Lumber, 2007.
An analysis of the reasons for and implications of the 2006 Softwood Lumber agreement between the US and Canada.
2,447 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 17 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the 2006 Softwood Lumber agreement 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 Softwood Lumber agreement. Finally the paper looks at the BC Lumbar Trade Council and its role in supporting Canadian interests in the Canada-US softwood lumber dispute.
Table of Contents:
Overview of the Softwood Lumber Agreement
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."
| |
|
The 2006 Canadian-U.S.A. Softwood Lumber Agreement, 2007.
This paper discusses the Canadian-U.S.A. softwood lumber dispute, the 2006 agreement and the role of the public interest group, the British Columbia Lumber Trade Council.
3,250 words (approx. 13.0 pages), 8 sources, APA, $ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in the Canadian-U.S.A. softwood lumber dispute, Washington objected to the low Canadian lumber 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 2006 agreement removed the tariff on Canadian softwood, 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."
| |
|
The Canada-U.S. Softwood Lumber Trade Dispute, 2002.
An outline of the current dispute and who is affected by the protective duties.
844 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the softwood lumber 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 Canadian lumber 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."
| |
|
The Softwood Lumber Dispute, 2005.
A discussion of the Softwood Lumber dispute in Canada.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 7 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper is an economic geography discussion of the regional effects of the softwood lumber 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)."
| |
|
Softwood Lumber Dispute, 2007.
This paper examines the US-Canadian softwood lumber dispute in a Canadian context.
1,978 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper relates that the proposed softwood lumber agreement 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.""
| |
|
Softwood Lumber and Free Trade, 2007.
An analysis of the the Softwood Lumbar Agreement and free trade agreements between Canada and the United States.
2,485 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 18 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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 Softwood Lumber 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)."
| |
|
Softwood Lumber, 2002.
A presentation of the softward lumber dispute between America and Canada, written as a policy declaration.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 10 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the trade dispute between the United States and Canada regarding softwood lumber. It is written as a policy position paper to the Minister of Foreign Trade and International Relations.
| |
|
Protectionism/Intervention in Canada, 2005.
This paper discusses the policy of protectionism that still exists in Canada.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 1 source, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses that despite free trade and the shift towards globalization, Canadian governments still engage in protectionism that was once a general policy. This paper refers to the softwood lumber dispute, plus other areas in which Ottawa has intervened. The writer offers a theoretical discussion and then mentions Canada's long experience in dealing with Washington and knowledge of what to expect of American business culture.
From the Paper
"Canada has long relied on protectionism to guard advantage vis-a-vis a much stronger American economy to the south. However, free trade and the general phenomenon of globalization have greatly interfered with this standard approach to guarding a weaker Canadian economy. The goal of protectionism seems, forever, one of stopping lost Canadian investment and notably, employment, in an economy whose manufacturing and industrial bases cannot absorb all dependent labour, and without sufficient consumers in a low population to generate quick new markets."
| |
|
International Trade, 2006.
This paper examines the anti-dumping and the Canadian-US softwood lumber dispute.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 4 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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 Softwood Lumber 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."
| |
|
Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), 2004.
This paper discusses the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), a free trade agreement between the United States and the countries of Central America.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper chronicles the efforts of the Bush Administration to pass the CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement. The author explains of its benefits. The paper delineates the problems of this legislation.
From the Paper
" On January ..., President Bush announced that the United States would explore a free trade agreement with the countries of Central America. The President said his Administration would work closely with Congress towards this goal. The President added that the purpose of this initiative was to strengthen the economic ties the United States already had with these nations and to reinforce their progress toward economic political and social reform. The Central American Free Trade Agreement CAFTA is a proposed agreement between the United States and Guatemala, ..."
| |
|
North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994.
This paper discusses the North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA: Compromise and conciliation in Clinton's victory in Congress on trade agreement vote, background, debate, role of Ross Perot, political significance and pork barrel concessions.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 13 sources, $ 95.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Negotiation is an act of compromise. The mere agreement to discuss an issue via the process of negotiation represents a willingness to consider non-aggressive solutions. In the realm of politics, negotiation and compromise are the meat-and-potatoes of daily life. So it has been for the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA - during the past few months. NAFTA posed, for the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of the United States government, respectively, an important socio-economic issue in which the two parties found themselves lined up on opposite sides. Negotiation, in the public forum and in classic behind-the-scenes backroom maneuvering, was the key tool that allowed President Bill Clinton his NAFTA victory in the House of Representatives - by compromising on enough minor elements of the proposal to enable a ... "
| |
|
The North American Free Trade Agreement, 2004.
A history of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
3,170 words (approx. 12.7 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was was introduced in 1994. It examines how, before and after its introduction, there were many concerns that it would be harmful and not helpful and how, despite these concerns, it was introduced. It looks at how, almost ten years later, it appears that the NAFTA has been a big success. While there are also some negatives, the benefits are so great that the few problems are minor. It considers NAFTA to show where it came from, what it achieves, and what benefits it has provided.
Outline
First Stages of the North American Free Trade Agreement
An Overview of the North American Free Trade Agreement
A Brief History of the North American Free Trade Agreement
The Successes of the North American Free Trade Agreement
Economic Benefits
Manufacturers
Agriculture
Benefits for all Businesses
Global Trading
Environment
Labor
Consumers
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The NAFTA began in 1990 when President George Bush announced that one of the government?s goals was to establish a free trade zone for the Americas. At this time, free trade agreements had been created in other parts of the world for some time. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was created in 1960 and had been working on creating a European free trade zone since then. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was created in 1967 and had been working on creating free trade zones across Asia since then. In 1990, this was giving European and Asian countries an advantage that America did not have. This resulted in Bush?s plan to create a North American trade zone."
|
|
|
