Premier Campbell is passing the buck rather than taking action on behalf of British Columbia.

We here in BC own BC Hydro and our water rights. In addition we here in BC own our resource rights. The solution by all accounts is to leverage our public energy rights and resource rights via an export tax scheme to put pressure on the Americans for fair trade.

Campbell refusses to accept his responsibility as premier of this province in taking a lead on this issue. His passing the buck to Ottawa is in effect accepting defeat, and proclaiming that Ottawa is responsible for BC's natural resources. A position that no BC premier before has ever taken, and abdicating a right BC fought very hard for with the Westministers Act on natural resources of 1934.

The province of BC has the right to tax our natural resources, and it is our responsibility to use this right to protect our local industries from unfair trade practices by our trading partners.

The province of BC owns the crown corp of BC Hydro and it should be this venue that BC sets the standard for a token 1% export tax on resource energy to start negotiations. the further the Americans walk away from the rule of law, then the further the resource tax can be expanded based on the prior precident established with our provincial crown corp BC Hydro.

The time for this was four years ago. It is never too late, but blaiming Ottawa for enaction that the BC government should be taking is irresponsible and bordering on treason and high crimes from an elected official.

Time Will Tell

Oh sure Chadermando -- Bc should take on the Americans all by itself on behalf of all the rest of the lumber producers in the whole Country!!
Great solution -- I can't wait 'till you run for Premier! The Americans will sure know who not to fool with then !!!

While the notion that Campbell should be more proactive in dealing with the forestry issue may be an appropirate one, the suggestion that we tax a commodity which is being exported to the USA is not allowed under Article 604 which prohibits export taxes on energy unless the same tax is adopted or maintained on exports of goods to all parties and on goods destined for domestic consumption.

Thus, we have every right to increase the cost of a resource, but it cannot be a selective increase.

Article 604 reads as follows:

Article 604: Export Taxes

No Party may adopt or maintain any duty, tax or other charge on the export of any energy or basic petrochemical good to the territory of another Party, unless such duty, tax or charge is adopted or maintained on:

(a) exports of any such good to the territory of all other Parties; and

(b) any such good when destined for domestic consumption.

We may not be allowed any positive action agains the Americans, but they are allowed to out and out renege on a deal with Canada.I sure hope we never really have to take a life or death stand of any kind.
They surely must view us as a pack of stupid, no accounts, gutless wonders.
Yep-they have us pegged-for sure!!!!

Owl, I don’t see that as a problem. NAFTA is dead is it not (declared by Americans none the less, let them explain this to their voters)…. Article 604 means nothing to BC if Americans can’t respect NAFTA. NAFTA for Americans is all about free trade in energy, and that is where the leverage is.

Palomino, no you have that wrong. BC should take on the Americans on behalf of the BC forest industry. Canada has their own worries about trade access and can’t be expected to negotiate on behalf of BC. We in Canada are a federation. We will do what we can to help greater Canada, but in the meantime we need to do what is best for BC. If BC can force a compromise through bold action setting a precedence that the Americans will take notice of, then this ultimately will benefit the rest of Canada, while at the same time insulating them from retaliation. I figure not to make it a large dollar figure, but rather a precedence that can not be ignored by the Americans.

NAFTA, after all was signed by all 10 premiers before it came into law. BC is simply going to have to say to the Americans that you need our natural resources, and it will all come through free trade, or we will have no choice but to increase the natural resource export tax that includes energy. Even with lumber the Americans have no choice but to buy our lumber, because 34% of their market is too large to simply ignore. The only thing Americans understand is cheep energy and that is how things are going to have to be negotiated.

NAFTA in jeopardy, Canfor CEO says

Tuesday, August 16, 2005
by MARK NIELSEN Citizen staff

The United State's reluctance to live up to the latest ruling on the softwood lumber issue has put the very essence of the North American Free Trade Agreement at stake, says Canfor chief executive officer Jim Shepherd.
He also called on Ottawa to push the issue with the Americans.

"I very openly call upon our federal politicians to clear the air," he said Monday during a meeting with Prince George media. "Do we have a treaty or don't we have a treaty. Do we have free trade or don't we have free trade.

"At the end of the day softwood lumber industry has become very much the sideshow for what I would call the true question mark now, the NAFTA accord. And from my perspective free trade has been the intent and I call upon the Americans to honour the intent of the treaty and I call upon our fellow politicians to get that intent followed."

Shepherd's comments come after a NAFTA extraordinary challenge panel essentially dismissed last week Washington's claims that Canada's softwood exports are subsidized and thus, have damaged the U.S. lumber industry.

The panel's decision was definitive, Shepherd said.

"By the rules of NAFTA, it's over," he said. "The whole softwood lumber issue has been decided and we move forward on that basis."

International Trade Minister Jim Peterson immediately called on Washington to concede defeat and return about $5 billion in countervail and anti-dumping duties collected from Canadian companies -- more than $800 million of that total is Canfor money.

The U.S. refused, saying the ruling is not the end of the matter because it does not deal with a 2004 decision from the U.S.-based International Trade Commission. That decision supported the American case, although it's believed it and other earlier decisions have all been trumped by the NAFTA conclusion.

Shepherd is holding out little faith that seeking World Trade Organization authority to enact trade sanctions to the total of the $5 billion sitting in U.S. coffers will have much effect. A decision on that issue is expected in September.

"They haven't honoured any WTO position and said they don't intend to follow it," he said. "Our hope in Canada is through the NAFTA accord, they've signed a legal, binding treaty between two sovereign nations."

Asked if he saw any parallels with the closure of the U.S. border to Canadian beef, Shepherd said the U.S. was much quicker to act on that issue because so many more American jobs were at stake in packing plants south of the border.

In contrast, he said the effect of the duties on Canadian softwood has added up to only $1,000 a house in a growing U.S. market, which makes for a tall order in convincing the U.S. to change its ways.

"I'm not sure how the U.S. is going to support the integrity of NAFTA while supporting their own, home-grown industry and this becoming the issue," he said.

Moreover, he said Canfor has enjoyed a good 2004 despite the tarrifs thanks to the buoyant U.S. market, but Shepherd is not expecting the upswing to last much longer, noting that lumber prices have declined over the last few weeks and months.

"Now that the limelight has come off some of the lumber markets, we're going to see more clearly what these duties are doing to the industry," he said.

Ottawa needs to stress to Washington that both countries have benefited from NAFTA and so, the U.S. should live up to its obligations, Shepherd said.


©Copyright 2005 Prince George Citizen

NAFTA in jeopardy, Canfor CEO says

Tuesday, August 16, 2005
by MARK NIELSEN Citizen staff

The United State's reluctance to live up to the latest ruling on the softwood lumber issue has put the very essence of the North American Free Trade Agreement at stake, says Canfor chief executive officer Jim Shepherd.
He also called on Ottawa to push the issue with the Americans.

"I very openly call upon our federal politicians to clear the air," he said Monday during a meeting with Prince George media. "Do we have a treaty or don't we have a treaty. Do we have free trade or don't we have free trade.

"At the end of the day softwood lumber industry has become very much the sideshow for what I would call the true question mark now, the NAFTA accord. And from my perspective free trade has been the intent and I call upon the Americans to honour the intent of the treaty and I call upon our fellow politicians to get that intent followed."

Shepherd's comments come after a NAFTA extraordinary challenge panel essentially dismissed last week Washington's claims that Canada's softwood exports are subsidized and thus, have damaged the U.S. lumber industry.

The panel's decision was definitive, Shepherd said.

"By the rules of NAFTA, it's over," he said. "The whole softwood lumber issue has been decided and we move forward on that basis."

International Trade Minister Jim Peterson immediately called on Washington to concede defeat and return about $5 billion in countervail and anti-dumping duties collected from Canadian companies -- more than $800 million of that total is Canfor money.

The U.S. refused, saying the ruling is not the end of the matter because it does not deal with a 2004 decision from the U.S.-based International Trade Commission. That decision supported the American case, although it's believed it and other earlier decisions have all been trumped by the NAFTA conclusion.

Shepherd is holding out little faith that seeking World Trade Organization authority to enact trade sanctions to the total of the $5 billion sitting in U.S. coffers will have much effect. A decision on that issue is expected in September.

"They haven't honoured any WTO position and said they don't intend to follow it," he said. "Our hope in Canada is through the NAFTA accord, they've signed a legal, binding treaty between two sovereign nations."

Asked if he saw any parallels with the closure of the U.S. border to Canadian beef, Shepherd said the U.S. was much quicker to act on that issue because so many more American jobs were at stake in packing plants south of the border.

In contrast, he said the effect of the duties on Canadian softwood has added up to only $1,000 a house in a growing U.S. market, which makes for a tall order in convincing the U.S. to change its ways.

"I'm not sure how the U.S. is going to support the integrity of NAFTA while supporting their own, home-grown industry and this becoming the issue," he said.

Moreover, he said Canfor has enjoyed a good 2004 despite the tarrifs thanks to the buoyant U.S. market, but Shepherd is not expecting the upswing to last much longer, noting that lumber prices have declined over the last few weeks and months.

"Now that the limelight has come off some of the lumber markets, we're going to see more clearly what these duties are doing to the industry," he said.

Ottawa needs to stress to Washington that both countries have benefited from NAFTA and so, the U.S. should live up to its obligations, Shepherd said.

Come on Chad--quit posting the same thing twice. Once is good enough for me-and more than likely everyone else
Thanks

Palomino .... recall that a group of ranchers took on the USA and Canada through a Billings Montana court and kicked up a lot of press as well as financial concerns on both sides of the border.