Wilkins also dangled the possibility of U.S.-launched trade battles against Canada on multiple fronts, including the dairy, egg and broadcasting industries.
Industry Minister David Emerson was the most blunt-spoken in response yesterday, warning that Canadians might have to brace themselves for this war of words to turn into an all-out trade war.
"Are we going to stand together? Are we going to unite? Are we going to be stronger than the sum of our parts or are we going to be endlessly bickering among ourselves and allowing the bully to basically mop the floor with us?" he said.
Emerson, who was a forestry executive before entering federal politics in 2004, appeared particularly incensed at Wilkins' suggestions that Canada was waging this battle through emotions as opposed to negotiation.
"When we know this is a game which the Americans play where heads they win, tails we lose, I think that we have a right to get emotional," said Emerson.
"This has been going on basically for several decades and I think it's hypocritical for him to think that we haven't been negotiating. We have. There hasn't been a response from the other side and it's been a very cynical negotiation every time we sat down and talked."
Prime Minister Paul Martin endorsed Emerson's tough talk and categorically rejected Wilkins' comments to the newspaper about Canadians indulging in "emotional tirades."
"It's not emotional to state the facts and the facts are that when you sign an agreement you should live up to its terms," Martin said yesterday after his cabinet wrapped up a full-day session in Winnipeg.
Martin intends to place a protest call to U.S. President George W. Bush at some point, but he won't say when, except that the timing of the call will be organized around when it best serves Canadian interests. No attempt was made yesterday by the Prime Minister's Office to get in touch with Wilkins directly, but Martin aides say the ambassador will obviously be getting the message, even if only informally, that the government resented his comments.
Discussion of this dispute was reportedly heated around the cabinet table yesterday, with ministers divided on how best to retaliate with the U.S.
All Martin would say on that point was that the cabinet discussed "a full range" of options for the next steps in this nasty trade dispute.
He also said he intends to consult with some of the former negotiators of the NAFTA agreement — some of whom are involved in the softwood talks already — and he didn't rule out even asking for help from former prime minister Brian Mulroney, whose government brought in the free-trade agreement.
"Do I believe that it's important that we stay together (on this)? Absolutely," Martin said.
Tempers have been boiling in Canada since the United States announced earlier this month that it was rejecting a ruling by a special panel set up to referee disputes under NAFTA.
The panel ruled on Aug. 10 that the Americans had no right to levy punitive duties on Canadian softwood coming into the U.S. Despite numerous similar decisions in recent years by trade adjudicators, the U.S. has collected $5 billion in duties from Canada's lumber exporters since May 2002.
International Trade Minister Jim Peterson said yesterday that Wilkins would be better off talking to his bosses in the U.S. instead of chiding Canada for its reactions.
"The message that the ambassador should be delivering to Washington is that they should not confuse emotion with commitment and determination by Canadians to make sure the NAFTA is respected," Peterson said.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1125094213307&call_pageid=968332188774
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on August 31, 2005]
Note: http://www.thestar.com/...
Canada-U.S. Trade Dispute Intensifies With War Of Words
Posted on Tuesday, August 30 at 07:28 by jensonjContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
How much darkness is $5 bn worth?
Seriously though...if there was a Trade war would we not be in the stronger position? We can live without the chits of paper and just keep the resources for our future. They need us way more than we need them despite what the consiervatives say. That is what is so frustrating about our spineless leaders, we have what they need, we should be negotiating from strength, instead we beg for the scraps off their table, scraps I might add that are OURS in the first place.
<br />
WTO deals setback for Canada in softwood feud<br />
<br />
CTV.ca News Staff<br />
<br />
Canada's on-going battle over softwood lumber has been dealt what appears to be a serious setback.<br />
<br />
The World Trade Organization ruled Monday that the United States did comply with international law when it imposed billions of dollars of duties on Canadian lumber -- a decision the U.S. will undoubtedly see as a vindication.<br />
<br />
A U.S. trade official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Globe and Mail that the WTO panel ruled that the United States did conform to international law when, in 2004, it issued a revised finding that Canadian softwood lumber imports threatened U.S. mills.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
David Wilkins, U.S. ambassador to Canada, pledged to change his tone after complaining last week about the "emotional tirades" of Canadian politicians.<br />
<br />
"I truly believe we all have a responsibility to keep the rhetoric down and get back to the negotiating table," Mr. Wilkins told the conference in St. John's.<br />
<br />
In Washington, the U.S. trade official told The Globe that the WTO panel's "findings confirm that the . . . duties on Canadian lumber were justified to counter the threat of material injury to the U.S. industry."<br />
<br />
The official added that the WTO ruling provides "an independent basis" for keeping in place the duties, which are costing Canadian lumber companies $100-million (U.S.) a month.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
How about that?
A side note, based on a bit of research--the countervailing duties on softwood are primarily targeted at companies, not Canada per se. These companies are, by and large, U.S.-based multinationals (like Weyerhauser). They are accused by the U.S. side of being unfairly subsidized because governments like B.C. are charging way-below-market stumpage fees, and provide other incentives, tax breaks and corporate welfare to encourage employment. All this to export raw resources (and profits) at rock-bottom prices and with as little value-add and un-government-assisted employment as possible.
So, if we cancelled NAFTA and went back to WTO/GATT, it's likely we'd be the loser in this dispute, and that's because the dispute is grounded in behaviour, by foreign multinationals operating in Canada, of exactly the kind we worried would happen under NAFTA in the first place.
Here's an idea: Canada volutarily re-implements the export tax on raw logs it unilaterally cancelled a couple of years ago in exchange for a refund of the duties collected. Then at least we get that money, and put it into developing more value-added domestic production using our forestry resources, and export non-commodity products that aren't as easily subject to this kind of dispute? Maybe even (gasp) use that tax to diversify export markets for finished products instead of wasting all this money trying to get the U.S. to accept raw lumber at prices we can't make a decent living or finance the treasury from?
LOL!