Why the soft wood lumber deal was done behind closed doors?

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
Why the soft wood lumber deal was done behind closed doors? This razes the questions if this deal was in favour of Canadians or not. Especially when the Americans have collected some $5B from the softwood going south and the settlement was approximately $4B.

To forfeit $1B money that belongs to the soft wood industry is hardly a deal. This is a deal with a slap in the face to the Canadian soft wood business between two trusted peoples, and in the name of business friendship is in the bag. Hypocrisy or what? The Harper group has to face accountability on the truth whether or not, the reason why the deal on soft wood was done behind closed doors in order to eliminate the slow down of debate, or just shove it down their throats like it or not, as long as I get a pat in the back from Bush, is the portability of what Harper is thinking.

Harper campaigned on ethics and open Government, looking at the softwood lumber settlement done behind closed doors is hardly open Government.
The closing out of the media is hardly open Government.
The Emerson recruitment was not ethical; in fact it was a complete contradiction of what a politician said the night before, and what this politician did the day after.
I like the Neo Con spin the first 100 days have been successful, who is fooling who here smell of unethical slimy propaganda.
 

quinton

Electoral Member
Jan 20, 2006
115
0
16
RE: Why the soft wood lumber deal was done behind closed doo

Here's my opinion on the matter:
www . greenerpolitics.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=576

You will see that I am more concerned about the industry's environmental practices including clearcutting untouched forests than I am about whether or not huge corporations get their money back from the USA.
 

nelk

Electoral Member
May 18, 2005
108
0
16
atlantic canada
Re: Why the soft wood lumber deal was done behind closed doo

To debate this softwood issue someone should start asking these question:
Why are the Americans unhappy if Canada exports lumber to them?
Specially at this obvious low price; dont they like a bargain?
Are Americans just bullies or are the Canadians just bend on bargain basement prices?
Who benefits and for what?

I am a woodlot owner;
the stumpage fees are not enough to provide
a economic basis to sustainable environmental sensible forestry!
Plain and simple.

It is said that in Sweden, a comperable forest nation, each 100 ha (240 acre) forestlot will produce an average annual monetary yield of the equivalent of one man year.
That is the cost to employ and outfit 1 trained forest worker for a year wages, labour costs and supplies etc and come out even, including a portion for landowner.

Foestry as we know it here, has produced inferior tree stands and lower income yields.
The landowner is forced to do clearcutting; the worst scenario,and in 50 or so years another crop of inferior trees can be had.
With those long return cycles no woodlot owner can start and successfully maintain good forest practise; unless you have your
forest for nonmonetary considerations.

Even up to a few decades ago, the large, perceived indefinite spread of different tree cover across Canada has been seen as
an enemy. Some thing in the way of progress, attacked with guts and sweat to be eradicated and made into farmland for all these settlers etc.
In other words a nuisance , quite valueless!

If, yes if we had a wise Government with foresight, this apparent
oversupply would have been locked away to a large, much larger extend.
But goldrush mentality has prevented that.

And you know ,less is more unless the unbridled profiteering of this
ugly part of brutal capitalism has free reign.
The drive to exploit this resource has shaped the thinking of politicians; and with very little value added, an ongoing struggle to feed this habit.

On the other hand, looking at the map of forested land in USA it is
obvious that less forest, albeit with better growth potential in most areas exist, compered to Canada.

It seems to me that the many lumber interests in USA like the market just better without dumping of (too) cheap lumber from the big north.
Quiet frankly I fully agree with them.

Inviting big players to have (almost)free run of our Crownlands lowers our chances to meet at a price level whereby forestry can be managed sustainable and offering decent employment and returns.

If you have seen treefeller machine clearcutting hundreds of acres in a matter of a few days, you feel sick even if you get the stumpage fees.
You will not see a healthy forest in a lifetime in the same spot.

Environmental restrictions are laughable;
come to Nova Scotia , ahh, any forested part in Canada and you can see for yourself.

I had foresters from Europe commenting on the size of trees being hauled on our highways as "Bonsai sticks"; of course the real big ones have been taken by our lumberbarons of yesterday.
And nobody seems to grow them no more. :roll:
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Re: Why the soft wood lumber deal was done behind closed doo

Lumber deal? What lumber deal??


Ontario softwood industry seeks to reopen tariff debate
Last Updated Tue, 16 May 2006 14:10:01 EDT
CBC News

Two Ontario lumber associations want to reopen the debate on softwood lumber tariffs, just weeks after the federal government reached a tentative settlement with the United States.


The two groups, the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association and the Ontario Forest Industries Association, told the Canadian Press on Tuesday that they intend to go to court to force a final ruling on lumber duties under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

They hope to revive an earlier NAFTA panel that ruled in favour of the Canadian lumber industry. The findings of that panel were never finalized, leaving the earlier decision in limbo.

* FROM APRIL 26, 2006: Canada, U.S. reach framework agreement on softwood lumber

"The two federal governments have conspired to prevent Canadian private industry from finalizing a decision of a NAFTA panel for which we fought for four long years," Jamie Lim, president of the Forest Industries Association, told CP.

The earlier "decision should be [made] final and recognized," Lim said. "The United States does not want it recognized and, regrettably, the government of Canada has gone along."

Lim said he is filing the actions in the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals.

David Milton, president of the lumber makers' association, said Ottawa and Washington are violating their obligations under NAFTA.

"There is no such thing as the suspension of a proceeding in NAFTA," Milton said.

The two spokesmen said the Canadian lumber industry must continue to pay about $40 million a month in countervailing duties even though the two countries announced an agreement on April 27 that should have ended the tariffs.

They acknowledged that Canada and the United States have a tentative agreement on softwood lumber tariffs.

But they said they intended to pursue the litigation anyway.

"As long as there is no signed and final agreement, there is no agreement," Milton said. "We must protect our rights as much as the Americans are protecting theirs."
 

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
Re: Why the soft wood lumber deal was done behind closed doo

#juan said:
Lumber deal? What lumber deal??


Ontario softwood industry seeks to reopen tariff debate
Last Updated Tue, 16 May 2006 14:10:01 EDT
CBC News

Two Ontario lumber associations want to reopen the debate on softwood lumber tariffs, just weeks after the federal government reached a tentative settlement with the United States.


The two groups, the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers Association and the Ontario Forest Industries Association, told the Canadian Press on Tuesday that they intend to go to court to force a final ruling on lumber duties under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

They hope to revive an earlier NAFTA panel that ruled in favour of the Canadian lumber industry. The findings of that panel were never finalized, leaving the earlier decision in limbo.

* FROM APRIL 26, 2006: Canada, U.S. reach framework agreement on softwood lumber

"The two federal governments have conspired to prevent Canadian private industry from finalizing a decision of a NAFTA panel for which we fought for four long years," Jamie Lim, president of the Forest Industries Association, told CP.

The earlier "decision should be [made] final and recognized," Lim said. "The United States does not want it recognized and, regrettably, the government of Canada has gone along."

Lim said he is filing the actions in the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals.

David Milton, president of the lumber makers' association, said Ottawa and Washington are violating their obligations under NAFTA.

"There is no such thing as the suspension of a proceeding in NAFTA," Milton said.

The two spokesmen said the Canadian lumber industry must continue to pay about $40 million a month in countervailing duties even though the two countries announced an agreement on April 27 that should have ended the tariffs.

They acknowledged that Canada and the United States have a tentative agreement on softwood lumber tariffs.

But they said they intended to pursue the litigation anyway.

"As long as there is no signed and final agreement, there is no agreement," Milton said. "We must protect our rights as much as the Americans are protecting theirs."

Juan it is to bad when Mulroney negotiated NAFTA he was not able to really understand the total ramifications of these for ever cumbersome and confusing business dealings with the big brother having the upper hand, jump said the American administration and the new hungry Conservatives in Canada responded nervously and quickly with the pathetic question How far do you want me to jump? When it is your wood to have to lose money to sell it to your best costumer, trust Socrates the Greek you will not be around long if that is how you operate in business. You do not forgive $1B just so you can be nice. $1B C invested here in Canada can do allot of good for the Canadian economy, unfortunately Harper doesn’t see it this way.