quote:

---

Trade sanctions against U.S. in works
Retaliatory action to Byrd Amendment applies $14-million on handful of imports

By STEVEN CHASE
Tuesday, March 29, 2005

[...]

The Canadian government is planning, as early as this week, to slap a 15-per-cent surtax on a handful of U.S. imports. The move is intended to admonish Washington for not repealing the much-hated Byrd Amendment and would extract an estimated $14-million in proceeds over a 12-month period.

The Byrd Amendment allows Washington to funnel to American businesses any cash that is earned from U.S. duties levied on foreign business competitors. The World Trade Organization has ruled Byrd illegal under global commercial rules and called for Washington to scrap it, but Congress has turned a deaf ear.

[...]

Other countries are expected to impose their own sanctions on U.S. goods over the next few weeks and months.

Last November, the WTO gave the final green light for Canada and seven other jurisdictions, including the 25-member European Union, Mexico, Japan, India and Brazil, to impose sanctions totalling $150-million (U.S.) on the United States for its refusal to scrap Byrd.

[...]

Last December, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, said Ottawa and other world capitals may have to slap sanctions on the United States, as they threatened, before the U.S. Congress is persuaded to repeal Byrd.

President George W. Bush wants to scrap Byrd but Congress is more reluctant, Mr. Cellucci said. "I suspect that it will take the imposition of sanctions by Canada and other countries to get the Congress to act -- and I think eventually they will act."

Canada was authorized by the WTO to apply about $14-million in sanctions on U.S. goods due to the Byrd law. This amount reflects much of the duties Washington extracted from Canadian importers in 2004 and redistributed to U.S. rivals.

Should Washington ever funnel to U.S. producers the $4-billion (U.S.) in softwood duties it has so far collected from Canadian firms, Ottawa will be authorized by the WTO to slap much larger sanctions on U.S. goods.

[...]

---

 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Cool! 'Bout time someone stood up to us. Glad it went through all the proper international channels, too, so we can't hypocritically cry foul.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
What annoys me about the amendment is that these are levies made by the U.S. in retaliation for improper trade practices in other countries. This is a situation where we have the undisputed moral high ground, and we piss it away by disbursing the funds in an improper manner.

Still, on the whole, the U.S gets shafted by developed trade partners more than it does the shafting.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
 
I think you would have a hard time convincing Canadian beef farmers of that.

Or softwood lumber companies.

Or any Canadian citizen who does not live in a hole in the ground with no human contact.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Canada is one of the few that doesn't screw us on a continuing basis.
 

---

Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
 
Yay. 15%...my wallet hurts allready.
 

---

Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
 
In the relationship between Canada and the US, the US is the one who does the "screwing" usually.
(Get your mind out of the gutter!)
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
And yet we keep sending the oil and water south. In fact, when Bush talks about decreasing reliance on "foreign" oil sources, he acts as though he considers Canada's oil (we are one of America's top oil suppliers and have one of the biggest reserves in the world) a "domestic" source.

It's pretty condescending.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
The legend up in Norman Wells, NWT, is that when the US Army tapped into the oil reserves up there and built a pipeline down south, they did it without the consent of the Canadian government. A contract was signed a couple of years later. I have found no evidence of this, but still, that makes for interesting folk lore.

From here.

quote:

---

Pearl Harbor, a Japanese threat to Alaska, and a critical shortage of tankers on the Pacific changed all that in 1942. Anxious to secure a local supply of oil, not requiring tanker shipment, for use in construction of the Alaska Defence Highway, for use in Air Transport Command fields on the route to Russia, and for possible military operations in the Alaska Theatre, the United States Army under agreement, with the Canadian Government and Imperial Oil embarked on the "Canol Project".

---

quote:

---

... he considers Canada's oil (we are one of America's top oil suppliers and have one of the biggest reserves in the world) a "domestic" source.

---

You should be worried. Very worried.



--j_k
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
You'd think Canada would be grateful for the ALCAN highway. I guess the statute of limitations on gratitude ran out.

Still, it's nice that some people will stand up to us. However I can understand why the US would want to be defensive on trade, we get screwed over so often (regardless of what other nations say, it happens).
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
... You are kidding about the ALCAN highway, right?
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
What, they don't like it?
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I think you'll find that "they" is the wrong adjective; BtL is Canadian iirc.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
I'm pretty sure Australia doesn't screw the US either.

Sure didn't help our farmers when they couldn't sell lamb over there.
 

---

Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
 

quote:

---

(Get your mind out of the gutter!)

---

But Canada is on top
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
And here I didn't know we even made anything tangible anymore. You learn something new every day.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
It's not that I've got a problem with the ALCAN highway, per se. It's just, well, it was 60 years ago and during the second world war. The world has changed a lot since then, surely you can think of a better example? And, while America did pay for it, Canada waved import duties, sales taxes, income taxes, immigrration regulations and provided construction materials along the route. It's not like we were just "gimme gimme gimme" for the whole thing. The US, on the other hand, has collected to the tune of 4+ billion dollars on softwood lumber alone, you'll pardon us for being a little bitter.
 

---