Well said Peter.

Even if the Rally was “politically-motivated” “backed by opposition NDP supporters, which it obviously was not, if John Rustad sincerely believed that Liberal forestry policies were good for forest dependent communities, he would have taken advantage of this opportunity to explane why these policies are so good for the people who intrusted him to represent them in good faith. Through these actions Mr. Rustad has demonstrated that he is no more than a puppet for the Liberal party, and will always choose his party over the people he was elected and swore to represent. Typical and shameful.

The reason he wasnt there is because there was no ribbon cutting to be done...
These guys are a dime a dozen, once Rustad is gone another clown will be there to pick up the nose carry on the legacy..

MLA John Rustad no-show and excuse was very cowardly and he should either apologize to the people in his rideing or resign. At least MP Dick Harris was smart enough not to make a political statement for his no-show even tho he should have attended as well. After two terms in office and this is the brilliance of Mr Rustad no wonder he is a career backbencher. Mr Rustad your announcement that you will not be seeking re-election would probably be best, and save yourself the embarrassment of electoral defeat.

What do you mean John hasn't achieved nothing? I don't call him John (TILMA lover) Rustad for nothing. Maybe he could be known as the backbencher that gave away more than any before (what do his constituents care or even notice)... if your looking at deregulation. John has an agenda that is opportunist IMO, where he doesn't question his own ideology as it was taught to him, therefore he is not intellectually able to morally defend what he stands for. Come election time he'll have the most signs and the most commercials full of the approved and vetted talking points and people in places like Fort St James will vote him in a third time, because they are red necks after all, and the liberal party of BC is the one that represents red necks we're all supposed to remember in these parts it seems sometimes. Some might say that sums up politics in BC...

All of the above may be quite true. But aren't we also all missing the larger issue? We focus on "appurtenance" now much in the manner the previous focus was on "value-added". But what real good does it do if processing the wood in the smaller communities, or "value-adding" it here in BC, is not "profitable"?

For if it were profitable, the companies that have the facilities in place, or might build them, would still be operating, or putting in the necessary plant. What is it that we expect? That ANY company is going to operate simply to 'make work' while depleting its own finances or credit lines in the process? How long could THAT go on?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not making the argument against "appurtenance", nor against "value-added" per se. I don't have to. For both are completely moot as solutions to the problems currently besetting us until we find a way to restore and maintain overall business profitabilty FROM ACTUALLY "DOING" SOMETHING, i.e. manufacturing products that are actually needed and desired.

To do that we've got to expand our horizons beyond where we've been looking and demand action on the REAL CAUSE of the negatives of these continually repeating 'boom and bust' cycles. 'Band-aid' solutions, like restoring appurtenancy, or promoting hot-house, make-work, value-added plants simply aren't going to cut it.

John doesn't have to win an election. That is where most people have it all wrong. In our system thats not the way it works. In our system all John has to do is make sure the other parson or party loses. Its the lesser of two (or sometimes three) evils after all. There is little opportunity for the average voter to vote strategically, or to influence a party by passing on questionable candidates and selecting more virtuous candidates in the voters mind. John wins by default and the power of advertising... because of the voting system that enables him to get elected.

Socrede, that is easy... take the power away from the bankers to inflate our currency and thus deflate your savings values to nothing... and stop free trade in favor of fair trade to eliminate the loop holes that our economic cancer uses to subsidize through deregulation a competing product selling in our markets thereby negating our sovereign laws that in a real world govern the economy.

Simple as that IMO. No more need to chase the last dollar in the race to the lowest common denominator if were all governed by the same rules.

at one time the sawmills were crying when they were forced to put in chippers so they could sell chips to the pulpmills. It rapidly became a good source of income. The same is true for the little mills like Brinks. He seen an oppirtunity and has made the most of it.I think that value added projects the most of them will work out the same. Tie the logs to the communities stop selling jobs overseas. Big is not better.

Socredible should realize there are many other ways the Pronvincial govt could attract those value-added businesses. But all would rely on a guaranteed wood supply to work, which could only happen with some type of appurtenance in place.
Shipping logs and chips helter-skelter across the province is neither cost effective in this era of high fuel, nor ecologically beneficial.
Bankers will not lend to 'risky' startups in these depressed areas and ask absurd guarantees and collateral from any existing business that may wish to expand or alter, or even to keep running.
Railway decision making is now out of our hands thanks to the sale of BC Rail, and at the heart of the matter we have a federal govt which rammed the no appurtenance, pro-US Softwood Agreement down our throats.
You suggest we simply roll over and die, continue to hand over any public control of the economy, forests and our resources and STFU?
Well we're not going to.
To those of you who call us whiners, at least we're not "surrender monkeys". We'll fight to keep what's ours.

The B.C. Lieberals might intentionally want to lose this next election. (They sure are trying hard, pay raises for themselves and civil servants, refusal to attend public gatherings etc.) Intelligent people know that ruling governments actually have little if any effect on the economy. However, this has never stopped the Lieberals and their supporters from claiming to be the sole reason for the past global economy surge. Surely, this approach could also be used during down times in the economy. Living by the sword leads to dying by the sword, and given our current downturn in the economy, it would be better politically to be in a position of opposition to an N.D.P. (or any other government), where they can continue to spread their disinformation about how they were saving the province but, now are no longer in position to continue. Thus, they could weather the recession without appearing to be the cause and indeed having others to blame for the downturn. Never trust a Lieberal to show their real intentions. It is simply not in their ideology to present an honest front.

Socredible...I have to totally disagree with your post.

The local milling requirement is much more than what it seems. Current markets are difficult but if you look at the long term big picture there are many reasons to make a stand on this issue.

Mills in small town BC are doomed unless this is changed. Big mills, value added, small operations, new or old are all doomed if this appurtance requirement is not reenacted.

They are doomed regardless of markets as both investment and modernization plans will cease. They will be doomed because the ministry of forests will remove these remote communities as points of appraisals and we the taxpayors will reduce the rate of stumpage the amount which it costs to transport the timber to the next community which has a mill.

Scale of efficency and reduction of risk by consolidation of timber supplies is what is desired by the majors and this is what our government is doing for them.

When the point of appraisal is moved from remote small town BC the government will not allow anyone else to operate locally because this goes against the plan.....the plan to provide the majors maximum profits.

As bad shape as the industry is now in, just wait until the price of wood products goes back up. This is when the enormous changes to the movement of timber will actually occur.

Why is a mill that can produce 1.4 milion board feet o lumber a day not running. This is not a small town mill.Common sense is not being used ony the old boys buddy system. I say triple the carbon tax on any wood not processed in the forest district that it is harvsted from.If the lberals are serious about having to change the the way buisness is done in b.c. Then do it not talk about.

"But what real good does it do if processing the wood in the smaller communities, or "value-adding" it here in BC, is not "profitable"?.....For if it were profitable, the companies that have the facilities in place, or might build them, would still be operating."

This infers that appurtenance makes mills unprofitable, but that is obviously not the case, since BC made billions of dollars from the lumber industry while it was in place.

When a company can choose between two different, profitable ways of doing something (local milling and log exports) they will choose the one that makes them the most money. That is just what companies do, since their raison d'etre is to make profits (nothing wrong with that for the anti-NDP crowd).

If a jurisdiction wants them to choose the second most profitable option (local processing), then some compulsion is required. That is a law requiring local processing (appurtenance). Profits are still made, but perhaps less. The payoff is more employment, subject to the vagaries of the market place.

It is not a case of one profitable and one unprofitable practice, but a case of selecting between two profitable practices.

The mayor has the right idea. We have to do it ourselves. No matter which government is in, they won't do everything that we want or need them to do.

We have to have new ideas, and find ways of doing it ourselves as much as we can.

The mayor has the right idea. We have to do it ourselves. No matter which government is in, they won't do everything that we want or need them to do.

We have to have new ideas, and find ways of doing it ourselves as much as we can.

The libs don't give a rat's as_ about rural B.C.

Tough subject..Here is my take. Let the woodloters and private land timbermark owners that sell wood to other districts or export where there is a demand. These guys bring lots of revenue into the community where they are located. A major licence holder should be made to utilize what fits their business model in the local forest district and sell/export fiber they cant use. This way you get the maximum fiber utilization while keeping local mills and loggers running.
Here is the problem. The people and govt dont make the decisions. Our govt has its hands tied by the large corporations and american trade policys. If our govt acts in a manner that effects their business ing a negative way the govt will face huge law suits that we ultimatly foot the bill for..

Ammonra:- "This infers that appurtenance makes mills unprofitable, but that is obviously not the case, since BC made billions of dollars from the lumber industry while it was in place."

I can see where you and others may well think that what I wrote 'infers' that, Ammonra. That wasn't exactly what I was getting at, however.

We could re-enact appurtenancy, just as we could completely ban raw log exports, and even try to tie timber allocation to the number of 'jobs' created. Like Glen Clark attempted to do with his Jobs and Timber Accord. But if your firms aren't able to make any money will any of that really do any good?

We get into a mode of thinking that large firms are always profitable, and that the larger they become the greater their assured take. A look at the various corporate histories of forest products firms which have been considered to be leaders in their field more often than not dispells this idea, however.

Many firms definitely do NOT become more profitable with increased size. While they may be taking in more dollars, their ratio of profit to sales volume is often continually declining. They do more, but get less for it, in other words.

Such was the case with MacMillan Bloedel, once thought to be Canada's premier forest products company, as it worked its way into a size that was leading it straight into bankruptcy. (Which is quite probably where its various corporate components would have all gone regardless, even if MacMillan hadn't united with Bloedel, and later taken in Powell River Co., et al.) The advantage of 'size' is solely in access to capital ~ very often the supposed increase in efficiency is entirely an illusion.

Doman Industries, Fletcher Challenge Canada, Crown Zellerbach Canada, are other examples, amongst many, many more.

Even TimberWest, which has been living more off its 'capital' than its 'income' since it became simply a timberland holding and raw log exporting company, has fallen on hard times.

Such was the case in the USA, earlier on, where many of the forest companies people like the Weyerhaeusers invested heavily in were far from ever being money makers.

But to get back to 'appurtenancy', I think right now it's not a case of 'less profit' or 'more profit', but rather a case of 'no profit', and no further investment til that changes, or 'no profit' and they just write off the investment that's already been made, and walk away.

Usually when that second scenario takes place those (like employees buying the firm to to save their 'jobs') that try to do what others failed to end up failing too. Even with 'appurtenancy'.

The logical way to return to profitablity is to find new markets, but that's pretty hard with Bush's Ottawa lap-dog yapping and pissing them off all the time isn't it?
And with all that bugwood standing around waiting to ignite and no Americans involved we could cut the stumpage to the bone for Cdn outfits flogging it to China and maybe take advantage of that huge Russian increase on their raw logs.
Just maybe?

Socredible...I am surprised to read your posts as I think that you understand that interpreting this "message of appurtance" properly is one of great consequance.

I say "message" as this absurd otherwise unknown word has been selected and used/abused since the first deviant smirked with the notion of hiding behind it when telling us that our forest industry towns and workers are screwed.

When Dejong made the speech of "new era" policies a few years ago, he used this word which no one was supposed to understand what it meant.
Dejong was surely expecting to be pelted with rotten tomatoes but somehow ran away before anyone knew what he said.
Suffice it to say that since that bizarre press release was held, our forest ministers have been very afraid of the defensibility of what it really meant--of what it has and continues to do to our industry and especially the communities where they USED to operate.
People don't seem to worry about these things until it happens to them, their livelyhood, their community.
The meaning of this word which makes people like MLAs and MPs run and hide and Rustad and Harris are perfect examples of this.
Our outstanding premier sets up a forestry roundtable process which strictly prevents the discussion on the softwood lumber agreement and claims that the appurtence issue was a deal breaker with the US.
What an irony this has mysteriously ended up to be? We paid the US softwood coalition a billion dollars for their legal expenses against us and then our Canadian forest industry profits are buying US coalition companies with the refunds which were supposed to be illegal subsidies.
What a convenient time to blame the markets for all this fallout from what was IMO actually designed to consolidate the industry north america wide.
Any new subsidies were also supposed to be a deal breaker and our liberals have ignored or used trickery to provide this when it comes to their most favorite corporations. Does anyone in Canada believe we should subsidize international corporations? so that they invest this;Canadian profit/illegal subsidy money in the now advantaged US forest industry?To compete against canadian exports?
Our governments seem to think so.

Socredible..Isn't it just a little bit possible that our liberal government defends the softwood deal and wide open log movement/export because it suits big corporations objectives? Does it matter to the liberal government that it suits no one else, OR in fact causes much harm to everyone else?

Woodchipper wrote:- "Isn't it just a little bit possible that our liberal government defends the softwood deal and wide open log movement/export because it suits big corporations objectives? Does it matter to the liberal government that it suits no one else, OR in fact causes much harm to everyone else?"

Absolutely. I've said it many times, in the face of much criticism and supposition from others that I'm an NDP supporter, (which I'm not), that the Gordon Campbell BC Liberal government is the absolute worst government this Province has ever had. Bar none.

And to top the record of some of the previous occupants of the Premiership we've had since WAC Bennett passed from the scene takes some doing!

Gordon Campbell is not, nor ever has been any more of a 'Free-Enterpriser' than the most dyed-in-the- wool NDP socialist is. He is a 'Global Capitalist'. And there is a massive difference. (And, though some may not believe it, Gordo's policies are more in tune with those of that dyed-in-the-wool NDP socialist than anything else ~ but that's another story.)

It does not matter a whit to Campbell and his crowd that their forest policies suit no one else. For they are completely unable to see any viable alternative to those policies. And, sadly, they can say with great sincerity, when they say anything at all, that all the facts support their initial premises. And they do. Only their initial premises are entirely wrong.

This is why, in my humble opinion, the likes of John Rustad don't show up at these Rallies. They can't, or won't, accede to what's being demanded of them because they can't see how much of that would ever work.

And, with the continued inability of the people who organize those Rallies to focus on the 'Big Picture'~ a bigger picture than simply gaining 'appurtenancy', and creating 'value-added', and "capturing" some other country's markets (the effect being the same as if we were in a military war with that country), or even extending EI Benefits, they can't make any kind of viable explanation of how it can.

That's the problem. The REAL problem. We are unwilling to THINK outside of the narrow strictures imposed upon us by "inexorable economic laws" without ever questioning whether those "laws" are either "inexorable", or even "laws" at all, for that matter. Until we can, all that can be hoped for is the same type of 'band-aid' solutions we've so often witnessed in the past.

REALIST: "Intelligent people know that ruling governments actually have little if any effect on the economy."

Great news! We can keep the same government (it does not matter which one?) in charge forever if none of its economic policies can have any significant impact on the economy.

That sure makes it easier at election time to make a decision or to bother to vote at all.

Get a grip Rustad