Now if that same commitment to not export raw logs were applied to the rest of the province, perhaps a mill would reopen here and there.

Positive stuff and that's a good thing,but don't let up!
Keep pushing and keep hollering,because if you don't,politicians have a nasty habit of forgetting about you real fast!
You will notice there wasn't much getting done until the heat was applied?
There ARE solutions,but they are not something that the average joe can control.
The government and those we elect to represent us, CAN do something, so keep the heat on!
Remember that nice guy's finish last,and it is time for communities to come together and stand up!
Good job Mackenzie,Fort St.James,and all involved!

Wow, good news from Pat Bell. A log house building course for MacKenzie. That should really make a dent in the laid off situation for the local residents. Then we can fly them out and back to Fort McMurray so they can spend their new paycheques in Alberta. Are these flights to Fort McMurray going to be financed with the Federal money the province received? Let's take a few bucks away from the Olympics and look after us northerners for a change. Same ol, same ol from puppet Pat. Some things never change I guess. Cheers.

Pat Bell. He led the charge to keep the mills running in Mackenzie however they eventually closed anyways. The economic forces were too powerful for him to do anything about. Now I am not an economist or a forestry expert but by declaring that raw logs will not go south, could that influence a potential mill buyer's decision to purchase said mill?

I say "Go Pat Bell Go" At least he is standing up for something, showing his support. If the logs stay where they are there is at least a chance when the market turns around... If the logs are bought without the Mills attached it's over, its too late to fight for something that is no longer yours. Get the 2004 legislation back, the logs can't leave the small towns...
Fort needs get on the Mackenzie wagon and be just as loud!
Has anyone see Mr. Rustad?

John Rustad is apparently in Victoria right now...not that it makes much difference.
Rich Coleman verbally stated yesterday at the "round table" in Vanderhoof, that he would not sign off on any agreement that did not tie the timber to the Pope & Talbot mill in the Fort.
I would assume that would apply to Mackenzie too.
I wonder why Coleman wouldn't get out to these ralleys and communities in trouble and speak?
We are hearing here in FSJ that there are some new palyers on the mill deal, and they are supposed to be good ones.
Same ones that are looking a Mackenzie apparently.
Fingers and toes crossed for a deal that would put everyone back to work soon!

The squeaky wheel gets the oil.Finally.The econmics have not changed but Maybe the papers have crossed enought desks enought times and your people have contacted my people to set up a meeting with those people to have a meeting is over and real work can be done to get the real people back work or atleast start using common sense.It drives me crazy that so many people are scared or not willing to do anything until everyone is watching.this info regarding p&t has been known for a year.Tie the wood to the local mills and run then or loss you right to log.This is a unpopular to the companies but % generations of mill and loggers in ft.st.james feel better.Just a note in 2006 a loaded logging truck left ft.st james every 30 to 40 seconds.How much money is the Cambell government going to collect in carbon tax.Now if that wood was processed in the fort how much money would the government going loss if it shipped out by train as finished product.

What stupid comments by Simpson and Bell- have they any ethics??????????????/
For Making such stupid and undeliverable comments they must resign now.

Come on folks give Campbell and his talking heads a break, they have more important issues. They need billions for the olympics and 250 million to put a retractable roof on BC place. So folks don't be so selfish, sacrifice a little for 604, for 604, for 604.

bell rutlege bond hang your heads in shame, you three do not deserve to walk in the north. Get out and stay out!!!!!!

I am extemely uset at both these MLA's for make stupid statements to a work up crowd.

1. Firstly Mr. Simpson you can not seize anyone assets- this is Canada not Russia. Do not make statements you could not deliver on.

2. Secondly this will really incourage investment in BC- I wouldn't touch the forestry industry in BC with silly statements many like this.

3. Raw logs account for approx. 3% of the total AAC in BC- and mostly from the south coast. Export to the US are away down this year due to the housing crisis-most of the numbers being quoted are from 07 or earlier. Lastly yes I agree that logs will not be exported from here do to economics. The break even point in the Kamloops/One hundred Mile/Williams Lake area to export logs is roughly $350-400 US per MBF.(the wood is selling for $350US per MBF- in other words at or near the break even point) I could not imagine the cost from here. (Alot more than the wood is worth)

Hey dogs,I think what we are asking is if they don't tie the quota wood to our idle manufacturing plants in the Fort and Mackenzie. These plants could be closed by whoever purchases them and export the raw logs to one of their super mills elsewhere in the province. That would certainly be higher than 3% more like 100%. Isn't it ironic that Fort and Mackenzie sit at the bottom of the 2 largest forest districts as far as timber volume and we can't keep a mill running, economics perhaps but, I think politics.

So what- export within BC- that is exporting- wood shouldn't be tied to a mill- the rest of the world doesn't- bad economics. The woods and mills need to be separate operations. Lets not go back to the 70's or 80's. No politics with the current crisis- what a red herring - perhaps NDP. The Crisis is due to:

1. US housing crisis- down from a capacity of 2.1 million to somewhere around 700,000 to 900,000.

2. Low Log and Lumber prices.

3. High Canadian dollar.

4. 15 % Tariff

Hey I am an exporter haven't logged a stick this year and maybe not next due to this crisis- no politics involved.

I agree lost it all.
Too much politics and the kissing of corporate asses by the Campbell clan.

"Hey dogs,I think what we are asking is if they don't tie the quota wood to our idle manufacturing plants in the Fort and Mackenzie. These plants could be closed by whoever purchases them and export the raw logs to one of their super mills elsewhere in the province. That would certainly be higher than 3% more like 100%. Isn't it ironic that Fort and Mackenzie sit at the bottom of the 2 largest forest districts as far as timber volume and we can't keep a mill running, economics perhaps but, I think politics"

Tough one. On one hand, it would be nice to see the wood milled near the communities it was logged in. No question it would be more beneficial to those areas in the short-term.

In the long-term, however, I'm not sure that strategy does much to improve the overall strength of the industry in the Province. It introduces a totally artifical component that "could" result in a business not realizing the efficiencies that it could if it were operated elsewehere. This could eventually result in a future reduction in profits, taxes and the willingness to continue investing in the operations. That could have significant long-term impacts on the viability of the industry.

Of course the other issue is that the wood that "comes home" for processing would no longer be processed somewhere else, meaning some other community would take the hit. In effect, all you are really doing is shifting the problem to a different area, except that now you've also ensured that the company is probably making less money as well. Long-term, I don't see it as an optimal solution. Given the current state of the industry and the prediction for the future, I don't think we need to be putiing more barriers in place.

I think dogs does make a very good point. The current problem is pretty much all external factors, much like MPB will be. To keep this thing ticking into the future, we need MUCH more radical reform in the industry than simply looking at the physical location where wood is allowed to be cut.

I'm confused by whatyou mean by efficiencies NMG worrying whether some big multinational may pack it's bags and operate elsewhere,with that way of thinking the province could give the wood away to the big company to realize it's efficiencies. Oh wait a minute we did that in Mackenzie for Canfor already. I'm not sure dogs what you mean by bad economics, perhaps government should not answer to big business as Mr Campbell has handed out enough corporate welfare [as above example]  and look after what is best for the province and the people of BC. Business can figure out their own economics.

As usual the NDP had some idea about spending tax money that we don't have. Always the same fall back answer from the NDP.

"I'm confused by what you mean by efficiencies NMG worrying whether some big multinational may pack it's bags and operate elsewhere,with that way of thinking the province could give the wood away to the big company to realize it's efficiencies"

When I talk about efficiences, I mean that the business may achieve better operating results by having production in one area as opposed to another. There could be numerous reasons for this. Perhaps the mill is newer with more modern equipment so it is more efficient with less waste. Perhaps it's closer to major transportation networks, meaning lower costs to get the goods to market. Maybe the workforce has a higher than average skill level, resulting in a higher quality product. Perhaps business taxes are less in a particular jurisdiction.

In short, it really has nothing to do with being scared of them packing up. It has more to do with recognizing that there may be very valid reasons (from a business and profitability perspective) as to why a business may want to operate in a particular area or manner. At the end of the day, healthy businesses are good for employees, the taxpayer, the economy and the industry. Putting barriers in place that can interfere with the ability of a business to take advantage of these factors can be counterproductive, which in turn could end up harming employees, instead of helping them.

That doesn't mean that a balance can't be acheived that will meet the objectives of all stakeholders . . .

Well now, lets just think about this for a minute. We have towns like Mackenzie and Fort St. James already established. They have all the facilities they need to attract and retain the people that live there. And, by and large, they seem to be pretty 'liveable' communities ~ must be, or their residents would've moved elsewhere.

Now there was a fair bit expended to get these towns to where they now are today. And the industries that were located in them must have seemed viable over the long term, with a resource base large enough to sustain them, or the investment that was made would never have been made.

But now we're being told that these places are no longer viable, that we should close up those industries permanently, abandon a good part of the investment in housing, and infrastructure, and the businesses there that cater to these towns daily needs, and relocate manufacturing elsewhere. Somewhere, we are told, where 'costs' will be lower.

Something here just doesn't quite add up. The 'people' in those towns are not going to have 'lower costs' when they abandon what they have there, and have to move elsewhere. Nor are the businesses located there that cater to their needs.

As far as the mills go, is it going to be cheaper to tear down what already exists, and peddle it for scrap, only to have to re-create a 'larger' and 'more efficient' version somewhere else?

Will that 'larger' and 'more efficient' plant cover the 'costs' of what's been lost when these communities, or a large part of them, are abandoned?

Will it pay the 'wages' of those who've been displaced, who no longer are 'needed' in the production of the product directly, or in servicing the needs of those who do? And if it can't? Are we then not loading someone, somewhere, up with greater 'costs' than those that currently exist? How are we going to 'liquidate' those 'costs'?

"Now there was a fair bit expended to get these towns to where they now are today. And the industries that were located in them must have seemed viable over the long term, with a resource base large enough to sustain them, or the investment that was made would never have been made"

True, but what is that "long-term"? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 150 years? Forever? In addition, has there been any change in the nature of the industry, the workforce, the technology, etc, from when these businesses were established in these towns, that would contribute to a change in the long-term outlook? Of course there has been. That doesn't mean that these towns are no longer viable, but it also doesn't mean that if it worked in 1970, it will work in 2016.

Are you suggesting that communities do not change, grow and/or shrink with time? That once they are "established" they will be there forever, doing the exact same things they always have? That the industries of yesterday, by default, will be there tomorrow?

All I've heard recently, IMHO, basically amounts to "bunkering down" and "weathering a storm". Sure we could do that for the next year or two (and perhaps we should), but what would it accomplish for the long-term health of the industry? Is anyone talking about TRUE industry reform? Is anyone being honest in talking about how that type of reform will impact communities that are solely dependant on forestry? Are we actually preparing or are we just looking for some short-term solutions in the hope that in 2 years everything will be "back to normal"?

I would suggest that things will NEVER be "back to normal". The sooner we come to that realization, the sooner we can start moving ahead and getting prepared for the future. Yeah that change is going to impact allot of people in that transition period, but you can't run and hide from the fact that it's hapenning all around us. Just my opinion of course :)

Sorry gang, I'm not for government buy outs of non profitable mills. The age of the 'supermill' is upon us and all the small guys will be forced out. It's not government it business. They do what makes the most money and to hell with the communities that are stuck in the past. Who in their right mind would set up a secondary industry in middle of nowhere and expect to turn a profit?
The skilled work force has to move to where the jobs are, hell my dad moved from Vancouver to Vanderhoof to follow the work with a family of nine (45 years ago). People have to adjust to the new realities.
I just love it when the NDP spouts off about big bad business - thier my way or the hiway attitude towards investors will scare them off in no time.

Well, I'm not for government buy-outs of non-profitable mills either. Or even of profitable ones, for that matter. And certainly things DO change over time, as NMG said above.

But what is it we really want? Do we want to 'moonscape' the whole Province, even the areas not affected by the MPB, in one gigantic push to better our 'global' competitiveness by selling lumber, or logs, into some export market cheaper than anyone else can?

What's that really going to accomplish? Is that going to make us all 'rich'? Or some of us? Or really, any of us? Sure, there may be a 'few' who will pile up the dough. But what of the rest of us? And will that 'dough' they've piled up really have held its value as 'purchasing power'?

Will making what's 'plentiful' now, still, into something that's 'scarce', so its price rises, really be of any benefit to us or anyone else that needs it?

When we ship all this 'real wealth' out of our Province, assuming we have established the 'economies of scale' with super-mills and ever faster logging to capture those foreign markets, have we received back for it an equivalent amount of alternate 'real wealth' from those we're exporting to?

If we have, then should we not have been able to buy ALL OWN PRODUCTION for export over any given fiscal period with the TOTAL amount of INCOMES distributed as wages, salaries, and dividends over that same period? After all, the only sane reason for 'production', of lumber or anything else, is to enable 'consumption' is it not? 'Money' just facilitates the process, does it not?

Not that we'd WANT to buy All our own production, of course. We'd never be able to use that much lumber, or pulp and paper, OSB, etc. here ourselves. But 'monetarily' speaking shouldn't WE BE ABLE TO?

Suppose we CAN'T? What if the "price values" (or total 'costs' incurred) of all those products are higher than the "distributed incomes" through wages, salaries, and profits (dividends), over the same period? The collective 'incomes' which are supposed to be able to fully liquidate them?

If they are, (and they are!), then how, pray tell, can we ever hope to PAY for all the IMPORTED products we'd sooner have. The ones that we receive in exchange for our exports?


The simple FACT of the matter is that our so-called global free trade is NOT an international trade designed to primarily result in a free exchange of every country's relative surpluses, no matter how cheaply they appear on the world markets. Which, by the way, is the ONLY way ANY international trade makes any sense. To allow for the diversification of consumption. For us to receive products we don't easily, or at all, grow or make here. That ISN'T what we've got right now.

Or does anyone think just having 'money', in the abscence of anything "real" to buy with it, makes someone 'rich'?

Right now it IS a trade PRIMARILY in quest of international credits, not alternate 'goods' ~ little bits of paper with some figures written on them with a Euro, or Pound, or Yen, or US or other foreign Dollar, or some other 'monetary' sign in front (or behind) them.

Now if we're NOT using ALL these foreign credits to purchase foreign imports, does it not beg the question, "Why do we have to import some other country's 'MONEY' to live?"

Shouldn't we be able to buy ALL our own production, or its exchange in 'goods' through export, with the money we receive in the course of making it? Do we still want to 'moonscape' BC trying to make "facts" fit fallacious "figures"?

Wouldn't it be a wiser to have proper "figures" that fit the physical realities of actual "facts" first? Before we make scarce, to our, and the world's, lasting detriment, something that can sustain our 'real' needs for generations yet to come in bountiful abundance.