Connect with us

Business

America’s NAFTA nemesis: Canada, not Mexico

Published

on

America’s NAFTA nemesis: Canada, not Mexico

America and Canada have one of many world’s greatest commerce relationships.

President Donald Trump met for the primary time Monday with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“We’ve a really excellent commerce relationship with Canada,” Trump stated on the information convention.

Advertisement

However the U.S.-Canada commerce relationship through the years has not been as easy as you may suppose. There have been commerce wars, acts of retaliation, allegations of dumping and jobs misplaced.

“Our buying and selling relationship clearly is powerful…however the relationship has been rocky, regardless of the agreements we’ve got in place,” says Stuart Trew, an editor on the Canadian Centre for Coverage Alternate options, a analysis group in Ottawa, Canada’s capital.

Trump has typically slammed Mexico and NAFTA, the commerce settlement between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. However Canada is never talked about.

But, there have been extra NAFTA dispute claims towards Canada — nearly all by U.S. corporations — than towards Mexico. Even at the moment, Canada has stiff tariffs towards the US and the 2 sides solely lately resolved a bitter dispute over meat.

Most leaders and consultants stress that commerce ties between the 2 nations are robust and principally optimistic. However Canada and America have had loads of battles alongside the way in which.

Advertisement

Now Trump needs to renegotiate NAFTA, which might be on the highest of the agenda for his assembly with Trudeau.

1. Canada will get in additional NAFTA bother than Mexico

Listening to Trump, you may suppose Mexico is the unhealthy actor of NAFTA. However since NAFTA’s inception in 1994, there have been 39 complaints introduced towards Canada, nearly all by U.S. corporations. Identified within the business because the investor state dispute settlements, it permits corporations to resolve instances beneath a particular panel of NAFTA judges as a substitute of native courts in Mexico, Canada, or the U.S.

There’s solely been 23 complaints towards Mexico. (By comparability, corporations from each Mexico and Canada have filed a complete of 21 complaints towards the U.S.)

Advertisement

And more and more, Canada is the goal of American complaints. Since 2005, Canada has been hit with 70% of the NAFTA dispute claims, in keeping with CCPA, a Canadian analysis agency.

2. The U.S. – Canada lumber battle

NAFTA is not the one sore space. In 2002, the U.S. slapped a roughly 30% tariff on Canadian lumber, alleging that Canada was “dumping” its wooden on the U.S. market. Canada rejected the declare and argued the tariff value its lumber corporations 30,000 jobs.

“It was a really bitter level in Canadian – American relations for fairly some time,” says Tom Velk, an economics professor at McGill College in Montreal.

Advertisement

The dispute had its origins within the Eighties, when American lumber corporations stated their Canadian counterparts weren’t enjoying honest.

Whether or not Canada truly broke the principles is a matter of dispute.

Canadian officers deny that the federal government is subsidizing softwood lumber corporations in Canada. American lumber corporations nonetheless allege that it does, and a U.S. Commerce Division report discovered that Canada was offering subsidies to lumber corporations in 2004. It did not say whether or not the subsidies have been ongoing.

Based on the allegations, Canada backed lumber corporations as a result of the federal government owns lots of the lands the place the wooden comes from. That subsidy — on high of Canada’s enormous lumber provide — allowed Canada to cost its lumber beneath what U.S. corporations can cost.

The World Commerce Group finally sided with Canada, denying America’s declare and the 2 sides got here to an settlement in 2006 to finish the tariff.

Advertisement

Nonetheless, that settlement and its ensuing grace interval expired in October, and the 2 sides are again at it once more. The Obama and Trudeau administrations could not attain a compromise earlier than Obama left workplace and it stays a contentious commerce concern with U.S. lumber corporations calling as soon as once more for tariffs.

Associated: ‘With out NAFTA’ we would be out of enterprise

3. Smoot-Hawley triggers U.S. – Canada commerce warfare

Issues obtained even worse through the Nice Melancholy. In 1930, Congress wished to guard U.S. jobs from international commerce. So the U.S. slapped tariffs on all nations that shipped items to America in an effort to protect employees.

Advertisement

It was known as the Smoot-Hawley Act. Right now, it’s extensively accepted that this legislation made the Nice Melancholy worse than it was.

Canada was livid, and retaliated greater than another nation towards the U.S., sparking a commerce warfare.

“Canada was so incensed that…they raised their very own tariff on sure merchandise to match the brand new U.S. tariff,” in keeping with Doug Irwin, a Dartmouth Professor and creator of “Peddling Protectionism: Smoot-Hawley and the Nice Melancholy.”

For instance, the U.S. elevated a tariff on eggs from 8 cents to 10 cents (these are Nineteen Thirties costs, in any case). Canada retaliated by additionally rising its tariff from 3 cents to 10 cents — a threefold enhance.

Exports dwindled sharply: in 1929, the U.S. exported almost 920,000 eggs to Canada. Three years later, it solely shipped about 14,000 eggs, in keeping with Irwin.

Advertisement

Associated: Bear in mind Smoot-Hawley: America’s final main commerce warfare

4. Canada’s sky excessive tariffs on U.S. eggs, poultry, milk

Quick ahead to at the moment. Smoot-Hawley is lengthy gone, however Canada continues to cost steep tariffs on U.S. imports of eggs, rooster and milk.

For example, some tariffs on eggs are as excessive as 238% per dozen, in keeping with Canada’s Agriculture Division. Some milk imports, relying on the fats content material, are as excessive as 292%.

Advertisement

“They’re so onerous that you would be able to’t deliver it throughout. There is not any American eggs in Quebec,” says Velk.

Based on Canada’s Embassy within the U.S., actuality is way totally different. Its officers say that regardless of some stiff tariffs, Canada is likely one of the high export markets for American milk, poultry and eggs.

The U.S. does have tariffs on some items coming from all nations, however they aren’t almost as excessive as Canada’s.

Specialists say these tariffs proceed to irk some U.S. dairy and poultry farmers, a few of whom are challenged to promote into the Canadian market. However they doubt a lot will change for the reason that tariffs have been in place for many years now.

Associated: These Reagan tariffs Trump loves to speak about

Advertisement

5. COOLer heads and the way forward for NAFTA

Regardless of all these disputes, consultants stress this commerce relationship remains to be top-of-the-line on the earth.

Actually, the 2 nations are so interconnected now, when commerce disputes erupt typically American corporations will facet with Canadian corporations and towards U.S. lawmakers.

For instance, Canadian meat producers disputed a U.S. legislation that required them to label the place the cattle was born, raised and slaughtered. Canadians stated the legislation discriminated towards its meat from being bought within the U.S. and took the case to the WTO.

Advertisement

The WTO sided with Canada, and final December, Congress repealed the country-of-origin-labeling legislation. American meat producers — whose enterprise is intertwined with Canada — truly supported their counterparts in Canada, arguing the regulation was too burdensome.

As for Trump’s proposal of tearing up NAFTA, many American and Canadian consultants say that it isn’t price it to renegotiate or finish the settlement. The three nations which can be a part of the settlement are so enmeshed with one another that untangling all that integration could be detrimental to commerce and financial progress.

–Editor’s observe: This story was initially printed on August 11, 2016. We’ve since up to date it.

CNNMoney (New York) First printed February 13, 2017: 11:11 AM ET

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

After decades on the San Pedro waterfront, famous fish market signs lease for decades more

Published

on

After decades on the San Pedro waterfront, famous fish market signs lease for decades more

Owners of the San Pedro Fish Market and Restaurant, a top-grossing restaurant that once sprawled across a wooden pier in the Port of Los Angeles, have signed a 49-year lease to rebuild at their historic waterfront home.

For decades the Fish Market was part of Ports O’Call, a tourist attraction that was razed in recent years to make way for a new regional attraction called West Harbor that is now under construction.

The restaurant built a loyal following of customers who spent about $30 million a year before the pandemic on its heaping trays of shrimp, lobster and other seafood shared at spare metal tables on the weathered pier.

Members of the Ungaro family, the restaurant’s owners, planned in 2021 to move the operation to another location in the port but have now committed to staying in West Harbor as an anchor tenant.

The restaurant will stand next to the new development’s amusement park, which will include a Ferris wheel that is expected to be as much as 50% higher than the Pacific Wheel at Pacific Park amusement center on Santa Monica Pier.

Advertisement

The Fish Market currently is operating with mobile kitchens in temporary outdoor quarters in the parking lot next to its former site, where it served 450,000 diners and grossed $16 million last year, according to Chief Executive Mike Ungaro.

Before moving into its new digs, the Fish Market will relocate to another temporary space on a part of the West Harbor site that is intended to eventually hold a hotel. It will operate there for about three years, serving 1,600 people at a time, while the market’s permanent home is built.

Eventually it will be one of the largest restaurants in the United States, Ungaro said, spanning 55,000 square feet and capable of serving 3,000 diners at a time — about the same capacity as its original location. Nearly 90% of the dining space will be on an outdoor patio overlooking the waterfront.

Planned features include event spaces, private dining options and areas for podcasters and other content creators to conduct live broadcasts, Ungaro said. The market has appeared on lists of the most Instagrammed restaurants in the U.S., with posts typically showing people tucking into mammoth trays of seafood.

“They’re an institution in San Pedro,” said Eric Johnson, senior project executive for the West Harbor development. “It’s really important that we’ve been able to provide them a long-term home.”

Advertisement

San Pedro Fish Market and Restaurant will have a long-term home next to the amusement park at West Harbor.

(Studio One Eleven)

The $155-million first phase of West Harbor, which will include restaurants, bars and shops, is set to open late next year. Its developers announced in October plans to expedite construction of the next phase, which calls for the amusement park, more food tenants and an array of outdoor pickleball and padel courts. The permanent home for the Fish Market will be part of the second phase.

The Fish Market also announced that it will open a 17,000-square-foot restaurant at Old Fisherman’s Wharf in Monterey in Northern California in 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Virgin Music Group acquires Downtown Music Holdings for $775 million

Published

on

Virgin Music Group acquires Downtown Music Holdings for 5 million

Beverly Hills-based Virgin Music Group on Monday said it will acquire Downtown Music Holdings for $775 million, boosting its capabilities in the independent music industry.

Virgin Music Group, the independent-music division of Universal Music Group, said the acquisition of the New York-based publishing and royalties company will bring a “broadened and enhanced suite of services to clients,” including in areas such as physical and digital distribution, business intelligence and royalties and rights management.

“It´s an exciting time for Virgin as we continue to build a next-generation music company for independent artists and labels,” said Nat Pastor, co-CEO of Virgin Music Group, in a statement. “We aren’t just making an acquisition; this is an investment into the global independent music ecosystem and a commitment to nurture current and future creators and entrepreneurs with world-class support, services, and capabilities they require at any phase of their careers.”

Downtown Music represents more than 50 million songs and 4 million creators in at least 145 countries. Core divisions of the company, which has about 600 employees globally, include publishing, distribution, artist and label services, as well as royalties and financial services, according to its website.

Justin Kalifowitz, founder of Downtown Music Holdings, said he believes the service his company provides to clients will be strengthened by working with the Virgin Music team.

Advertisement

“This is a tremendous recognition of the importance and vitality of independent music, and the value that our company brings to its clients every day,” Kalifowitz said in a statement. “Downtown was established with the belief that artists and entrepreneurs everywhere and at every stage are entitled to the same tools and opportunities to succeed.”

The deal is expected to close in the second half of next year.

The acquisition is the latest sign of consolidation in the music industry, raising concern among some critics.

“It is vital to uphold a true choice of partners for artists and labels and ensure that negotiating power does not become unbalanced,” Gee Davy, CEO of the Assn. of Independent Music, told Variety. “Only in this way can homegrown artists and businesses access fair deals, investment and growth.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Starbucks baristas in L.A. and other cities go on strike over elusive contract

Published

on

Starbucks baristas in L.A. and other cities go on strike over elusive contract

Baristas at a handful of Starbucks around Los Angeles as well as in Chicago and Seattle went on strike Friday, kicking off a work stoppage that union officials said would include hundreds of the coffee giant’s stores by Christmas Eve.

The union, Starbucks Workers United, said the strike was necessary after they failed to reach a deal in negotiations with the company over what would be a first contract for Starbucks workers. By walking out from five locations in the Los Angeles area and other key markets, workers are hoping to pressure Starbucks during the busy holiday season, when its frappuccinos and themed drinks are in high demand.

The union said it plans to spread the work stoppages to potentially hundreds of stores over the course of the five-day action that will conclude on Christmas Eve. It is looking to extract from Starbucks a more robust wage proposal and an agreement to quickly resolve outstanding unfair labor practice charges filed by workers in recent years.

A Starbucks tucked into a strip mall on Alameda Street in Burbank that typically opens at 4:30 a.m. stayed closed Friday. At 10 a.m. a crowd of about 30 Starbucks workers, union organizers and supporters walked a picket line outside, chanting, “No contract, no coffee,” and, “Hey, Starbucks, you can’t hide, we can see your greedy side.”

Kai Krawczeniuk, 25, a shift supervisor at the Burbank store, said Starbucks “made an economic offer that was unacceptable.”

Advertisement

“It was insulting, frankly. That made us feel like we have to act, we have to show them we mean business,” Krawczeniuk said.

In a statement, the union said Starbucks had proposed an economic package earlier this month “with no new wage increases for union baristas now and a guarantee of only 1.5% in future years.”

Starbucks said about 10 of its more than 10,000 company-operated stores in the United States did not open as planned today.

“There has been no significant impact to our store operations. We are aware of disruption at a small handful of stores, but the overwhelming majority of our US stores remain open and serving customers as normal,” Starbucks spokesperson Phil Gee said in an emailed statement.

The company criticized the union, saying it had proposed an immediate 64% wage increase that “is not sustainable” and prematurely ended bargaining sessions this week.

Advertisement

“It is disappointing they didn’t return to the table given the progress we’ve made to date,” the company said in its statement.

Besides the Burbank location, four other stores in Southern California, including in Van Nuys, Santa Clarita, Highland Park and Anaheim, were also hit with strikes, said Evelyn Zepeda, organizing director in California for Workers United.

Former Burbank Mayor Konstantine Anthony, who currently is a member of the City Council, joined the Starbucks picket line Friday morning and said the company was “nickel-and-diming” workers. It was “no coincidence,” he said, that the Starbucks strike coincided with work stoppages by Amazon warehouse workers and delivery drivers in the run-up to Christmas.

“Workers have shown up at the exact moment where these two companies make their biggest profits, Christmas season,” Anthony said. “Power lies with the people, people who make the drinks, people who deliver the packages. If you want to give a good product to your customers, you need to treat the people delivering that product well.”

The new work stoppages mark a major turning point for Starbucks Workers United, which formed in 2021 and steadily has made headway in its campaign to persuade baristas at Starbucks around the U.S. to join. Hopes that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal had been high since February, when the company pledged publicly to work with the union and take a more neutral approach toward the drive to organize workers.

Advertisement

The conciliatory stance was an about-face for a company that previously had intensely resisted the campaign to organize its workers. Federal regulators found Starbucks repeatedly violated labor laws by disciplining and firing workers involved in unionizing activity, shutting down stores and stalling contract negotiations.

The National Labor Relations Board has conducted a total of 647 union elections at Starbucks stores, with 109 of them falling short, several others with challenged ballots and 528 currently with certified bargaining units, according to NLRB spokesperson Kayla Blado. In California, 66 stores have held union elections and 44 of them have had their bargaining units recognized by the labor board.

Blado said workers have filed more than 700 unfair labor charges against Starbucks, its subsidiary Siren Retail Corp., or its law firm Littler Mendelson, alleging a range of violations. The union has not filed any new charges against Starbucks since late February.

In March, the federal board ordered Starbucks to stop threatening and interrogating employees at a store in Cypress Park about union organizing efforts and to post a notice of workers rights. In September, the board ordered Starbucks to stop threatening workers with the closure of a store in Los Angeles if organizing activity continued. And in October, the board found that Starbucks’ former chief executive, Howard Schultz, violated labor law by encouraging a Long Beach employee to quit after they raised issues related to unionization in 2022.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending