| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: Canadian lumber shares surge as dispute ends |
 |
|
MSNBC.com
Canadian lumber shares surge as dispute ends
By Bernard Simon in Toronto
Financial Times
Updated: 4:42 p.m. ET April 28, 2006
Shares of Canadian timber exporters on Friday bounced on news the US would refund billions of dollars in anti-dumping and countervailing duties paid by the companies over the past four years.
The repayments are part of a deal between Washington and Ottawa to end a protracted dispute over Canadian exports of softwood lumber, used mainly for housing.
But some analysts and industry executives expressed disappointment at the settlement. Robert Duncan of MGI-Securities noted it provided for "pretty punitive duties" if lumber prices dropped and Canada's share of the US market moved above specified levels.
In addition, he said, Canadian exporters still faced the challenge of a strong currency. The Canadian dollar rose to a 28-year high against the US dollar this week.
Under the trade deal, the US will revoke the duties and refund US$4bn out of the US$5bn collected so far. The remaining US$1bn will be split between US lumber producers and funding for timber-marketing initiatives in the US.
Vancouver-based Canfor, the biggest producer, had paid a total of US$733.4m in duties by last December. Canfor shares gained 2.8 per cent in early trading in Toronto on Friday.
Tembec, whose operations are centred in Quebec and Ontario, jumped almost 10 per cent, while Abitibi Consolidated rose 3.4 per cent.
John Allan, president of the British Columbia Lumber Trade Council, said each company would have to assess the agreement through its own lens. "Agreements of this nature are rarely perfect and the complexities of the issues will always make unqualified support elusive," Mr Allan said.
Lumber is among Canada's biggest exports to the US, and the dispute has been the most important irritant in US-Canada trade relations.
Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12535328/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder if they are trying to get on Canada's good side for future trade talks about energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| I wonder if they are trying to get on Canada's good side for future trade talks about energy. |
It would make sense, but I think it is more because of the new government in Canada. I think the US wants to help Stephen Harper and to show that there are benefits to siding with the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Canada got shafted big time. Maybe it was the best we could do but it certainly is not a victory as Harper tried to proclaim when the deal was reached. We were soundly defeated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| Canada got shafted big time. Maybe it was the best we could do but it certainly is not a victory as Harper tried to proclaim when the deal was reached. We were soundly defeated. |
We are getting 4 billion dollars back, anti-dumping duties removed, and shares of lumber companies improved. If that's being "soundly defeated", all I can say is 
I gave three reasons why it is good. Care to give three reasons why this deal is bad? Or are you just saying this out of spite that the Conservatives actually got something done? This deal is still much better than no deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| Canada got shafted big time. |
Why do you say that? Are you one of those who expected (and demand) nothing less than complete and utter capitulation by the Americans on this issue?
That was an unrealistic goal.
A long standing and bitter trade dispute has been resolved- this is a good thing.
Gordon Campbell (premier of BC, the province most affected by the dispute) says he is very happy with the settlement, and that's good enough for me.
Since he is a Liberal, you can't accuse him of toeing the Conservative line on the issue.
Jack Layton is, of course, very unhappy about it.
Jack Layton will probably be very unhappy about anything you'd care to ask of him.
He'd probably be really really unhappy to be suddenly thrust into a minority NDP government and forced to actually attempt to govern the country.
Luckily for him, that's very unlikely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Alias wrote: |
| Canada got shafted big time. |
Why do you say that? Are you one of those who expected (and demand) nothing less than complete and utter capitulation by the Americans on this issue?
That was an unrealistic goal. |
Canada's position has been upheld by NAFTA tribunals and the WTO. Obviously the NAFTA agreement can be ignored at will by Washington. What was the purpose of signing it again?
| Quote: |
| A long standing and bitter trade dispute has been resolved- this is a good thing. |
By capitulating to US demands when Canada was legally in the right. It was a defeat.
It is now clear to US industry that all they have to do is hold out for a few years and Canada will give in.
| Quote: |
Gordon Campbell (premier of BC, the province most affected by the dispute) says he is very happy with the settlement, and that's good enough for me.
Since he is a Liberal, you can't accuse him of toeing the Conservative line on the issue. |
Harper blackmailed BC by threatening to cut of all financial support
for challenging the next level of appeal if they didn't aggree to the new agreement. By the way, the US has just launched the next level of appeal despite the new deal. 
Who here is actually surprised that the Conservatives were going to reach a deal with Washington rather quickly? Harper wants to cozy up to the Bush administration and was willing to cave in to get that done. Interesting that this deal is good enough for David Emerson now.
P.S- Even the editor of the right wing National Post thought it was a raw deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I will admit that I have not read any articles on the deal, but all the talking head pundits being interviewed on tv (cbc, ctv, city tv) have said that the deal was a good thing. I'd certainly be more than willing to read the National Post editorial, got a link? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
quadra87
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
edit
Last edited by quadra87 on Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
[
(1) Canada's position has been upheld by NAFTA tribunals and the WTO. Obviously the NAFTA agreement can be ignored at will by Washington. What was the purpose of signing it again?
| Quote: |
| A long standing and bitter trade dispute has been resolved- this is a good thing. |
(2) By capitulating to US demands when Canada was legally in the right. It was a defeat.
. |
numbers are mine
1. You are aware that there have quite a few rulings on this issue over the years? Some have gone Canada's way, some have gone the U.S.'s way and some have split the difference.
2. Canada was legally in the right? As far as I am aware it depends on the latest ruling. The latest ruling that I could find (April 3/2006) went for the U.S.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/04/wto-rules-for-us-in-canada-softwood.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
