Ed:

I think you will agree that a lot of the trade diputes are really powerful
business interests trying to use or abuse tariffs to give themselves a
market advantage. The companies, usually American, use powerful lobby
groups to force the US government into beating up on so called weaker
nations.

Canadians politician for what ever reason have done their constituants a
great disservice by playing the weak cousin in our cross border trade
negotiation and I for one think it's about time we started playing a little
hard ball in those negotiations. That shouldn't make me anti American
should it? Canada and the USA need each other more than most American's
really know and if we don't learn to repect that fact both our countries are
in a lot of trouble.

You sound like a very reasonable person so it might be a good idea for you
to explain to your fellow American's just how much trade both in goods and
technology crosses both our borders every day. If the border between
Canada and the USA where closed tomorrow both our economies would collapse
almost immediately and that's a fact.

The EU is becoming a very power economical force that will hopefully force
both our countries to start working together instead of against each other.

Jimbo


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
t...
"Jimbo" . wrote in message
...
US softwood lumber tariffs against Canada where also found unsuppotable
by
the WTO last month. However the US government was given another 100
days
to spice up their claims and try and prove Canadian softwood lumber
inports
into the USA where actually damaging the domestic producers.

I doubt Bush will overturn the tariffs no matter what the WTO says so
the
American consumers looses and Canadian's loose jobs.

I'm tempted to go look at the Canadian newspapers (I read the Toronto Star
about once a week, but not the others) to see how this is playing in
Canada.

FWIW, the argument before the WTO is almost the exact opposite of the one
Canada made over dairy imports from the US. Canada lost on the dairy
issue;
if the WTO sticks to the same reasoning, they'll probably win on the
softwood issue.

I'm curious if you guys know the issue on which the case is being decided.
Canada hasn't denied that they subsidize lumber production via
state-determined stumpage fees (well, they *did* make that argument, but
dropped it). What's at issue is a fairly arcane question of where the cost
basis is supposed to be determined for judging relative economic harm.

The WTO, being a new organization, is still working out its doctrines. In
a
sense, this case is one in which the US and Canada are testing the WTO to
make it refine its doctrines on how "harm" shall be determined. It isn't
an
issue of fair trade at all -- as you can see by checking the course of the
decisions, Canada doesn't deny that they subsidize lumber production. It's
a
case of how this tangled mess of agricultural and timber subsidies will be
dealt with, until, hopefully, the day that both subsidies and tariffs are
removed.

That day is a long way off, based on the results of Cancun.

Ed Huntress