Time for an export tax on oil, gas, and hydro electricity.

I have never believed that the solution to a problem in one industry is to drag in gas, oil, and electric (and the people and jobs in those areas).

Solve the problem without creating a full blown trade war. Because believe me, we would lose.

O K Mr PG, and now tell everyone how to solve the problem!!!! If one has a negative-they must offset with the positive.
The money is held on deposit in Washington?? Decision after decision leads one to assume the money will be returned. Why is it not returned???
How many Appeals are permitted??? Does not "17" seem a bit excessive??? We are not talking a paltry sum, and surely a great deal of "interest" has been accumulated on these massive deposits???
Deals with the U S seem to be a consistent losing proposition for Canada.
I do not know what MrPG is giving reference to when he says we will lose if we bring oil, gas, electricity into the mix. As far as I can tell, we are "LOSING" anyhow-so I suppose the wise approach is to keep giving and co operating-and keep losing???
Once again_ I question!!!!

Gypsy, you can question all you want. That's the point of this.

As for the solution, I don't have all the answers (neither does anyone here).

I just have the opinion that dragging in unrelated industries in to help solve the softwood problem is not the 'ultimate' answer.

Instead of the just the softwood industry 'losing', other industries would be 'losing' as well in a trade war situation.

Mr PG

If you do not have the solution then at least state why the soilution presented will not work. Selling less of a limited resource and conserving it until it gets even more expensive does not sound like a losing proposition to me.

So slow the economy down a bit. Why always spend, spend, spend. How many more TVs does one need? Do we really need those $3,000 plasma TVs?

Get with the program. Enjoy life. Do some gardeing. Grow some veggies under glass in the backyard and make Pat happy.

I say," FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE."
Why does Bush constantly proclaim "sanctions" may be in order to force countries to comply with agreements previously initiated???
If an international law is not complied with, then sanctions appear to be in order.
I am not a politician, but I believe we must take a position to retaliate against the U S. Are we too cowardly???
We appear to be only too willing to allow them to walk all over us, and perhaps stomping would be a more adequate description.
After 17 Appeals, and they appear to have no intention of settling, and I am not too confident hell will freeze over, would it not be prudent on our part to attempt to force the issue without being subjected to further appeals???
We have apparently "turned the other cheek" to the point of appearing to be cowardly, and at this point, we look lily livered and weak knee'd and "red" cheeked and we should actually be embarassed.
When has the U S proven to be too honorable when dealing with other countries. They are not too highly respected in European countries, and appear to be losing popularity worldwide.
Honorable they are not, and cowardly we are!!! I am not too proud of us.
I say, "let us stand up to be counted."
Just what are we so "afraid" of???????

To owl/gypsy, I'm sure the potentially affected employees in the other industries will sleep easier at night knowing that you're willing to gamble with their jobs and livelihoods with your simplistic solution to a complex issue.

Mr PG ...

You ARE a politician!!!!!

MR PG ...

Nothing you say here will affect policy or process one IOTA ....

Let go of your inhibitions and give us some of your ideas here ....

Nice try gypsy/owl (are you the same person?)...

And here's some news that may not have occurred to you, nothing anyone says on here will change anything. This is an anonymous public forum. Just a bunch of empty opinions.

I'm entitled to mine just as you are to yours.

So relax and let people have their own opinions, even though they may not agree with yours.

MR PG ....

No one has said you are not entitled to an opinion.....

All that was asked of you was whether you had an opinion as to what to do.

It was you who stated that the opinion that retaliate by putting duties on exports of resource materials which the USA requires is wrong.

That in effect, says that you do not like that opinion.

All you have been asked for is an opinion about what action should be taken.

As I said first, and you agreed with, nothing said here will change anything, so why are you afraid of giving us your opinion on what constructive thing you can do to cause the USA to change their stance with respect to the NAFTA and WTO rulings?

Your comment about gypsy and I being the same individual is a rather perplexing one. Have you never had two separate people agree on something with which you have not agreed with?

Wow MrPG, what a compliment. I can assure you I am not on the same page as owl when it comes to intelligence, so the answer to your implying we are the same person has made me a bit suspicious as to the degree of your intelligence. NO OFFENSE!!!!!!!!
Hey, owl, we are at times forced to accept an insult, and I seriously hope you will do so graciously. Just consider where it came from!!!!!!

The tag team strikes again!

Anyway, this will be my last post here because this is getting really old.

Owl, can I not submit that a trade war involving the other industries is not the best course of action without proposing something else?

Apparently it is not acceptable in your view, and that's fine.

And again I caution gypsy that you refrain from taking others views so personally. It is, as I stated, just an anonymous message board.

Heck, if I took things personal I would not even come on here and take any risks, so please, please, do not be concerned you could possible hurt my feelings. Just too too funny!!!!
Guess I am not the greatest Canadian. Just do not believe in kissing "butt" when dealing with the U S.
Sorry if I insulted anyone. Not my intention at all. Just wondering if there is an Einstein out there with a reasonable solution.
Living in hope-that's me. I have grand kids too that will have to live in this country on their own eventually. Kind of feel a little responsible for trying to make it a bit better than it is at present.
Hard to be the eternal optimist after 17 appeals are scoffed at!!!

This website ain't gonna last out the year. It's just the same old hacks grinding the same old axe. At least the half dozen or so "meisnerphiles" have somewhere besides the Free Press to spout their idiocy. Later.

No you can't MR PG ...

Did you not see rule 34(c)(ii) for those posting on this blog?

But seriously, all I am saying is take a stab at how you would solve it. It is a trade matter to start with. It would seem reasonable to look at a trade related solution. If you don’t want to tie it into another commodity, then keep it with lumber and make some suggestions. The USA wants to renegotiate the deal. Do you agree with that approach? If you do, what concessions beyond NAFTA should we make? If we make concessions, which other Canadian industry is going to be next?

After all, if there is a trade agreement and one of the partners to that agreement does not abide by the rules and is repeatedly told so by an independent body empowered by the very agreement which is being undermined, why would someone wish to continue to do business with an individual like that?

That is coercion and continuing under the agreement is continuation under duress. In effect, there is no agreement. The two parties obviously are not of like mind and likely never were. The USA seems to have negotiated in bad faith or out of ignorance of the weakness of their industry or the strength of ours.

The lumber situation is only one of several. The cattle issue was similar, as are other agriculture issues, as is steel.

I realize the USA is a powerful nation and uses that power to its advantage, even against supposed long time friends. That’s not rocket science. But how does a David fend against a Goliath like that? Have we done it before? Has anyone else doe it before?

OPEC managed to fight it, so perhaps the solution can be found in getting together with a few others who might be allies with us. I mean, Bush and the Saudis seem to hit it off quite well. One of their citizens masterminded 9/11 and a whole lot of other Saudis carry it out, and Bush invades Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. What a deal! Why do we not have wheelers and dealer like that talking to the USA on behalf of Canada?

Of course, if we want to just let it go, then I think it would only be fair for the politicians to cease pretending they will do something about it and tell the lumber industry that they are on their own. They are big boys, after all, and those with some business savvy seem to be surviving quite well. Let them figure it out. They have managed to do it so far.

Facts are oil and gas are at record highs, and supply can not keep up with demand. The Americans will have to buy our oil and gas with an export tax or not. They will have no choice especially after they attack Iran.

Hydro electricity after all is mostly all government owned production and would not harm private interests one bit. Sure the reseviour water might get a little high, but heck then maybe we can cut back on the coal production for a bit to off set that.

Heck maybe Alcan will start up its aluminum plant in Kitimat and create the thousands of jobs they were supposed to with our water rights. Maybe they will sell Kemano to BC Hydro? That wouldn't be such a bad thing and this is a trade policy that the BC government can take tomorrow without begging the Canadian government or effecting Ontario's coveted export industry.

I would start with a mere 1% tarrif for the principle of things. On $250 Billion a year in energy exports thats about the same dollar figure as the lumber tarrifs. It will get their attention, and if it doesn't make it 2%, or 3%, and soon you will get their attention. Its the principle and not the dollar figures that will count.

As for the tarrifs collected so far I say we will never see it returned to the forest companies. That said it should not go to the American forest companies either. That said it was a tax collected on Canadian industry and therefor is Canadian dollars.

I say give us 2 nuclear submarines that can patrol our northern ocean and secure our sovereignty and the boarders of North America and lets call it a day and end the tarrif harassment.

Time Will Tell

Sounds like a plan to put a tax on exports, but how can we do that when the US owns the pipelines (recenly are going to aquire Terasen)and will soon own BCTC. I heard a rumor the otherday that Accenture (Used to be BC Hydro) is closing the call center in PG and Nanaimo and moving it to Vancouver? Or maybe even the Bahamas?