I don't think there are many people who would disagree with you.

There is one point that I do not understand, though. In the early days under NAFTA, some US companies sued Canada claiming millions of dollars because of trade restrictions. At least one company won an exorbitant amount, which seamed completely out of line to the supposed damage caused. I can't remember the details, although I am sure many readers can recall it.

The point I do not understand is why the Lumber producers, or Canada or BC have not aggressively pursued this avenue and sued for past and present damages and lost income and profits. An action for $20 Billion or so would get their attention, I think, and if successful would bring the issue to a pretty quick resolution. I know one lumber company was talking about it. What happened?

Does anyone have any information on this issue?

"Does anyone have any information on this issue?"

They want Nafta to work badly, so they'll say patience(one of the Three Amigos), and let the system do it's job.

But contrary to this, Americanization practices protectionism. Although in the interim, duties have been applied to some American products. These are miniscule compared to the dollars owed.

"Our information is that Canadian negotiators are linking a proposed export tax on softwood to an American proposal to de facto eliminate our system of public ownership and control of the forests."

http://cep1133.blogspot.com/2005/03/secret-softwood-deal-wont-work.html

You would have to see "trade inequities," to see that they are trying to stand up to the small countries like Canada, whose "equal trading stature is almost on par" while they see that China being somewhat larger, has a bigger fist swing when it comes to settling for the inequites that protectionism resides in American interest. They see China's potential while they sluff off their free trading partners?

So what they do for one they do for the other?

"The Government of Canada announced today that it will retaliate against the United States in light of its failure to comply with the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling on the Byrd Amendment. Following extensive consultations with domestic stakeholders, Canada will impose a 15 percent surtax on U.S. live swine, cigarettes, oysters and certain specialty fish, starting May 1, 2005."

http://www.news.gc.ca/cfmx/CCP/view/en/index.cfm?articleid=135609


I think we have them running now?


Also link supplied on name.

The Americans keep calling for an export tax.

Lets give them an export tax on all hydro electricity exports equivilent to Alcans hydro export profits. 400%?

IMO It would end the softwood lumber tarifs, graciate the BC Liberals in the two North Coast ridings they lost, provide an economic stimulous for the North Coast region that desperately needs it, and most importantly it would assert BC's soveriegn rights to our water shed resources.

Better late then never IMO. Or are we all ready a wholly owned subsidiary of the US and nobody has had the courage to tell us yet.

I'm sure we could get some answers from our Power Corp puppet masters who negotiated NAFTA if we were French or voted for Power Corp controlled parties like the Liberals and former PC party of Mulroney.

Time Will Tell

Forum I think we have them laughing now.

They being the Americans, Power Corp, large forest companies with forest tenures, and Gordon Campbell himself.

Forum I think we have them laughing now.

They being the Americans, Power Corp, large forest companies with forest tenures, and Gordon Campbell himself.

Ammonra the reason why is because lumber was left out of the NAFTA agreement because Power Corp wanted the deal and they do not have an interest in Canada's largest employer.

We are naked and have no cloths on.

Here is a chart worth considering.

http://duende.uoregon.edu/~hsu/blogfiles/tradeflows124.gif

You sort of get the jest of what I am saying, and of course, I have to repeat links(on name) as they imply or relate to topic at hand.

Aside from your topic Ben and in regards to the truckers

What the truckers are experiencing, have some correlation "to events" as we had dealt with them.

What were the resolutons?

Talk to Northwood CEP about Clac Contractors?

You may find similarites?

Enough information has been linked from our source to help the independants out. Oh! and hopefully they won't ever vote liberal again?:)

Big business, has no sympathy for small business.

They are caught in the middle:)and a social conscience all of a sudden means something?

There is a skill testing question one could ask of any independant? How did they feel when the HEU was squeezed?

Ammonra, the law suite you are talking about was a gasoline additive that had been band for use in Canada. The fine I believe was like 20 million if my memory serve me correctly. I certainly agree that we should put some tariffs on the exports suggested by Ben.
And by the way Forum Observer would you please stop preaching to us. Short and sweet is much nicer.

NAFTA feeds the Ontario economic engine much to the chagrin of the neoconservatives in the US congress. Strangely enough the USA who are in the Cat"Byrd" seat in all machinations of the NAFTA agreement whether it be with us or Mexico seem to see themselves as the wounded party. They neither understand or care that their protectionist practices fly in the face of "free" trade.

Our lack of progress in waking up the americans to the softwood lumber inequities can be attributed to two things...One, the Elephant can't hear the mouse and two the current federal government will not risk endangering the economy of the province that keeps them in power.

Ben is very right in that the "So What" attitude is pervasive in the current "we own the sandbox and the toys and we want yours as well" government in the States. Nothing will happen until the american people are made aware of the inequity. Unfortunately with the current "bent" of american news/information dissemination nothing "fair and or balamced" will reach the american populace.

"And by the way Forum Observer would you please stop preaching to us. Short and sweet is much nicer. "

If I do that, then I have to take out the sources in which I quote. No sense doing that, and saying something short?

Then it would be a "subjective opinion" without fuel for consideration?:)

"Nothing will happen until the american people are made aware of the inequity. Unfortunately with the current "bent" of american news/information dissemination nothing "fair and or balamced" will reach the american populace. "

And that's why this "medium" works very well.