# Canada looks to Europe in anticipation of Obama protectionism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2008, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800 "2008-10-20T21:40:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/21 "2008-10-22T03:01:54Z")
Getting back to the original topic for a moment I’m going to be cynical and suggest that the only reason Harper reached out to Europe is because it looks good on television. He just won an election and he wants to look like he has a place on the world stage despite the tenuous hold his party has on the government. So what does he do? He decides to promise feel-good negotiations with Europe. No deals have been made yet, just the promise of talk. And did I mention it looks good on television? Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t NAFTA allow the US to take a billion dollars from Canada because the US doesn’t like our forestry practices? And people in the US think the Obama administration wants to renegotiate that?! ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/22 "2008-10-22T03:12:28Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t NAFTA allow the US to take a billion dollars from Canada because the US doesn’t like our forestry practices? You’re wrong. It was more than a billion dollars, and it was in violation of NAFTA. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/23 "2008-10-22T14:02:48Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t NAFTA allow the US to take a billion dollars from Canada because the US doesn’t like our forestry practices? And people in the US think the Obama administration wants to renegotiate that?! You’re under the impression that without NAFTA, the US would not be able to levy duties on Canadian products? That’s amusing. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/24 "2008-10-22T17:58:03Z")
Regarding the softwood lumber issue: > [@](#): > > On November 24, 2005, The U.S.Commerce Department announced it would comply with a separate NAFTA panel’s order to cut a 16 percent duty on Canadian softwood lumber imports for now. Even though the Bush Administration still strongly disagrees with the repeated NAFTA rulings in Canada’s favor, it says it will comply. and > [@](#): > > A tentative deal was reached in July, in which Canada got $4 billion of the $5.3 billion it lost because of the penalties with no additional tariffs to be imposed. (From [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Canada_softwood_lumber_dispute) article.) You could argue that because of NAFTA, the US was not allowed to run rampant over a Canadian industry (in spite of trying really, really hard). The playing field between the US and Canada might never be level, but it seems that NAFTA is helping us. The US is ten times the size of Canada; I honestly don’t know why Canada having a more level playing field is a problem for the US. NAFTA allows the US access to some of the things we have that they want (oil, energy, maple syrup, etc). I have to think that Obama is just playing to his crowd when he says he’d renegotiate it, with no intention of actually doing so. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/25 "2008-10-22T18:19:43Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I’m quite worried about U.S. protectionism rising under an Obama administration, for several reasons: > > 1. If Obama wins, The Employee Free Choice Act will pass next year. **This means an end to the secret ballot in union drives** , and the largest expansion of union power since the Wagner Act in 1935. You can expect the size of the union workforce to double. And they’re not free traders. This isn’t true. The EFCA removes the option for the employer to institute a secret ballot election before recognizing the union if more than 50% of the employees have already signed authorization forms (the card check). It also requires the NLRB to certify that coercion not be found in the card-check process. If more than 30% but less than 50% have submitted their signatures, the secret ballot would still be an option for the employer to institute prior to recognizing the union. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/26 "2008-10-22T19:31:47Z")
With regard to the union issue, why is Obama against secret ballots? One only has to look at Britain in the 1970s and 80s to see why secret ballots are required. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/27 "2008-10-23T01:58:36Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > This isn’t true. The EFCA removes the option for the employer to institute a secret ballot election before recognizing the union if more than 50% of the employees have already signed authorization forms (the card check). It also requires the NLRB to certify that coercion not be found in the card-check process. If more than 30% but less than 50% have submitted their signatures, the secret ballot would still be an option for the employer to institute prior to recognizing the union. So ‘secret ballot’ comes into play only if the union can’t get a majority of employees to sign cards publicly. Color me underwhelmed. As for certifying that coercion didn’t take place… Hey, the easiest way to do that is to keep the secret ballot, so I think the prevention of coercion is rather far down on the list of priorities for card check advocates. I have yet to hear a good argument for doing away with secret ballots, other than the obvious one, which is that secret ballots prevent the unions from targeting individuals for persuasion, and that card-check means that employees with be subject to, if not outright force and threats, at least the disapproval of their peers if they refuse to sign. The coercion involved may not be Tony Soprano putting a gun to your head - it might just be the dirty looks and being socially ostracized from your peer group at work. This will pressure plenty of people into signing who otherwise might vote the other way if it didn’t have ramifications. The obvious argument for card check is that it makes it far more likely that unions will be formed. Big labor loves card check. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/28 "2008-10-23T15:28:14Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > So ‘secret ballot’ comes into play only if the union can’t get a majority of employees to sign cards publicly. Color me underwhelmed. > > As for certifying that coercion didn’t take place… Hey, the easiest way to do that is to keep the secret ballot, so I think the prevention of coercion is rather far down on the list of priorities for card check advocates. > > I have yet to hear a good argument for doing away with secret ballots, other than the obvious one, which is that secret ballots prevent the unions from targeting individuals for persuasion, and that card-check means that employees with be subject to, if not outright force and threats, at least the disapproval of their peers if they refuse to sign. The coercion involved may not be Tony Soprano putting a gun to your head - it might just be the dirty looks and being socially ostracized from your peer group at work. This will pressure plenty of people into signing who otherwise might vote the other way if it didn’t have ramifications. > > The obvious argument for card check is that it makes it far more likely that unions will be formed. Big labor loves card check. If you’re underwhelmed or not, it doesn’t really matter. Those are the facts. The secret ballot is a measure that the employers can take (not the employees) to challenge their employees on whether or not to recognize their union. Stop the fake outrage about how this hampers workers rights and/or privacy. As far as the good it does - It removes a barrier to unionization. Unions aren’t big bad scary organizations. They protect workers rights. Your scenario of a minority of workers (it would have by definition to coerce a majority to sign the cards) intimidating a majority of workers is plainly ridiculous. How can 10-20% of the workers coerce an additional 30-40% of workers by making them feel ostracized? Think about that for a second. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/29 "2008-10-23T16:00:01Z")
OK Canada: hope you are ready to hire an army of consultants: you will have to certify that your sawmills are ISO-9002 compliant, and compliant to ISO-14001, and get TUV, BSI, etc. to approve your quality standards. and if your milled lumber is off by 0.001 MM, expect the wholeshipment to be rejected. Welcome to the EU! ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/30 "2008-10-23T16:35:38Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > OK Canada: hope you are ready to hire an army of consultants: > you will have to certify that your sawmills are ISO-9002 compliant, and compliant to ISO-14001, and get TUV, BSI, etc. to approve your quality standards. > and if your milled lumber is off by 0.001 MM, expect the wholeshipment to be rejected. > Welcome to the EU! 1. ISO 9002 doesn’t exist anymore. Hasn’t for five years. 2. Lumber will much more likely be certified to a forestry standard, not a quality or environmental standard. 3. What makes you think Europe requires that sort of thing more than North America? At least make sure your jokes are plausible. Canada hosts the technical committee for ISO 9001, in fact (TC 176.) We’re good at that kind of stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/31 "2008-10-23T17:39:37Z")
Maybe we’ll finish metricating, then. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2008, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800/32 "2008-10-23T18:45:19Z")
God, this landscape designer hopes so (should I plan that in metric or imperial? Do those bricks come in metric or imperial? Will the installer have to translate my whole metric plan because he only works in imperial because that’s the common measurement for actual hands-on work? GAH!) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-looks-to-europe-in-anticipation-of-obama-protectionism/468800.md?page=1)