U.S. senators seeking 45 per cent duty on Canadian softwood

KrazyHorse · January 30, 2003, 21:01

Submitted without comment.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/30/softwood030130

Asher · January 30, 2003, 21:11

Is there a duty on Viagra?

Boris Godunov · January 30, 2003, 21:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Is there a duty on Viagra?

A duty on Canadian hardwood, you mean?

KrazyHorse · January 30, 2003, 21:15

Why don't they just carpet-bomb every forest in Canada and be done with it?

KrazyHorse · January 30, 2003, 21:16

Well-played, Boris. Jolly good show.

Asher · January 30, 2003, 21:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
A duty on Canadian hardwood, you mean?

Yes, actually.

Drake Tungsten · January 30, 2003, 21:25

DanS · January 30, 2003, 21:36

What a sh!tty article. It didn't even say who the Senators were, where they were from, and their party affiliation.

DinoDoc · January 30, 2003, 21:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
What a sh!tty article.

It's the hallmark of Canadian journalism.

notyoueither · January 30, 2003, 21:57

What do you expect? That is the organisation which helped lead the charge against one of our past PMs. They floated story after story about a scandal based on a book that was based on lies. Finally, the RCMP investigated and guess what? The politician successfully sued the government of Canada for the botched job they did. Turned out there never was any evidence of wrong doing by the PM.

notyoueither · January 30, 2003, 22:00

btw, here's a better article from a different source.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

ravagon · January 30, 2003, 22:11

Quote:

"I can only conclude that he had no intelligence that this action was coming forward from the U.S. Congress," he said.

I'm sure this isn't the first time that the phrases "no intelligence" and "US congress" have come together.

Lawrence of Arabia · January 30, 2003, 22:44

Stupid stupid protectionism.

Ben Kenobi · January 30, 2003, 22:49

The funniest part is that the US complains when Canadian mills get their operating costs down and still remain competitive despite a 24% tariff.

In any case, this keeps my dad busy, upgrading antiquated American mills to near-Canadian standards.

DanS · January 30, 2003, 22:55

"Most of them die on the (order) paper," he said from Montreal. "There's nothing we should really worry about except if we take it seriously. Then it will have achieved its purpose."

This is true. This language can be tucked into other bills, though.

KrazyHorse · January 30, 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
What do you expect? That is the organisation which helped lead the charge against one of our past PMs. They floated story after story about a scandal based on a book that was based on lies. Finally, the RCMP investigated and guess what? The politician successfully sued the government of Canada for the botched job they did. Turned out there never was any evidence of wrong doing by the PM.

F*cker deserved it. They should have just made up stuff to say about him. Johnny Cretin's ten times the PM that the Irish thief was.

KrazyHorse · January 30, 2003, 23:34

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
What a sh!tty article. It didn't even say who the Senators were, where they were from, and their party affiliation.

Dan, they always report the name and party affiliation of Canadian politicians when they feature in stories, but not always for American politicos. If the focus is on what it means to us then they usually won't (especially in a short article like the one I linked). If the focus is on the American political dynamic, they will. CNN usually does the same thing for foreign political stories too...

Jon Miller · January 31, 2003, 00:06

bad move for the US

Jon Miller

Ramo · January 31, 2003, 00:12

Dirty protectionists

Urban Ranger · January 31, 2003, 00:12

Not the first time the US pushes protectionism.

notyoueither · January 31, 2003, 00:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

F*cker deserved it. They should have just made up stuff to say about him.

Uhhhmmm... That's what they did.

Imran Siddiqui · January 31, 2003, 11:44

Quote:

Dan, they always report the name and party affiliation of Canadian politicians when they feature in stories, but not always for American politicos. If the focus is on what it means to us then they usually won't (especially in a short article like the one I linked). If the focus is on the American political dynamic, they will. CNN usually does the same thing for foreign political stories too...

But without that information how can you judge anything? I mean, you can't evaluate the chances of passage without knowing who's backing it.

KrazyHorse · January 31, 2003, 11:48

You're really thinking like an American here, Imran. Pretend this story was about Canada imposing duties on American oranges. What you'd get would be the outrageous proposal, then reaction from US sources, and based on that the possibilities of passage and what it means to US...

Ozz · January 31, 2003, 11:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Pretend this story was about Canada imposing duties on American oranges.

Sounds like a plan, slap a tariff on and start buying
oranges from CUBA. We could cut a deal for sending
our snowbirds to fidel's island too.

Imran Siddiqui · January 31, 2003, 11:59

Quote:

Pretend this story was about Canada imposing duties on American oranges. What you'd get would be the outrageous proposal, then reaction from US sources, and based on that the possibilities of passage and what it means to US...

Not if it was a few members of the legislature on the opposition side. If the government proposed it, then yes. That's why you need to know who proposed it.

KrazyHorse · January 31, 2003, 11:59

I'm starting to get frigging tired of this. I'm with the CA on this one (!)

Pull out of negotiations right now and tell them to f*ck off. Their lumber industry will die before ours at this rate, and there's no way the WTO would approve 45% tarriffs.

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 12:20

Can I add yet one more point of view - that of the American consumer????

Housing prices in much of the US are currently through the roof (pardon the expression) abd housing affordability is a real problem. While materials are only a small part of the cost of housing, every little bit helps (or hurts) So in addition to pssing off our canadian neighbors (at a time when we need to build world alliances) higher tariffs would hurt American consumers and the American housing industry. We sometimes forget that the purpose of trade is not to benefit the producing industries, but to benefit consumers.