WSJ: America's Bad Trade Example (Canada, lumber and NAFTA)

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 7, 2005 | Editorial (full text)

[OESY]

"If Canada and the U.S., as close as they are, can't have an agreement that is respected, what does that say about the future of the rules-based international trading system?" That's the question posed to us by Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday at the Journal's New York office almost as soon as he sat down.

Mr. Martin was in town to speak to the Economic Club of New York. At the top of his list of priorities to put on the record, he told us, is Canada's deep dissatisfaction with the U.S. refusal to comply with multiple rulings that U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber violate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

Mr. Martin's case was bolstered on Wednesday when a fourth Nafta panel ruled the tariffs illegal. Americans have a stake here too, since the duties add about $1,000 to the cost of a new home and affect thousands of jobs in industries that depend on lower-cost Canadian lumber.

"We keep getting panel decisions and they keep being ignored," the Prime Minister said. "The decision has been made and it should be honored." President Bush's vision of a strong North America depends upon the integrated market being allowed to work. That's as much in the interest of Americans as Canadians.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Canada's deep dissatisfaction with the U.S. refusal to comply with multiple rulings that U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber violate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

A. I thought you said these trade agreements limit the power of our government. They didn't stop the government from imposing these lumber tariffs. So you were wrong?