Pay Up, Deadbeats!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
Why doesn't Canada just go the market-based fee approach, like the US has suggested? It would take away a crutch from Portman on this issue.

a) We shouldn't have to. We're not going to roll over and play dead just because its been suggested to us. Rein in your ****ing protectionist lobbies already.

b) The method of selling logging rights is something that's up to the provinces themselves.

[Ben Kenobi]

Good question. If you know anything about the lumber industry in Canada, you will see why. The stumpage tariff at least in British Columbia subsidises one part of the industry at the expense of the other. BC has two logging industries, coastal and interior. The coast harvests wood like Cedar and other hardwoods. The interior, where I am from harvests softwoods like pine, spruce, fir, etc. The problem is that the terrain on the coast makes it difficult to harvest timber, and the volumes of production on the coast are not enough for most businesses to make money.

So the provincial government came up with this idea of stumpage to ensure that coastal logging could operate, at the expense of lumber producers in the interior. Stumpage usually isn't a big issue, since the folks in the interior make a considerable amount of money. So the reality is that stumpage helps the Americans compete against Canadian softwood lumber, since it raises their costs.

[Seeker]

Why is it that our government, given a 'toolbox' of policy options, will sooooo often opt for the most boneheaded one??

Anyone wanna field this one?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Seeker
Why is it that our government, given a 'toolbox' of policy options, will sooooo often opt for the most boneheaded one??

Anyone wanna field this one?

Which policy options would those be?

[Seeker]

They've already been discussed in the thread (a little), WRT 'pressurizing' the americanos, i.e. some kind of concrete action, or at least the credible threat of concrete action, or at least the discussion of the consequences of concrete action, instead of Option B: picking up ball, going home, pouting.

[KrazyHorse]

Uh...such as threatening tariffs?

[Provost Harrison]

I'd say if they continue playing by their own rules (this just isn't a Canada-US issue), international sanctions should be imposed. See how they like that

[DanS]

Originally posted by Seeker
Why is it that our government, given a 'toolbox' of policy options, will sooooo often opt for the most boneheaded one??

Anyone wanna field this one?

I don't see where Canada has a lot of options, and no good ones besides.

As the OP states, the trade between the US and Canada is huge and mostly hassle-free. Why would Canada want to jeopardize that?

[KrazyHorse]

We don't.

But we also want a fair shake, and I'm watching the Grits actually grow a pair on this one...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't see where Canada has a lot of options, and no good ones besides.

Lowering the flow of crude would be a very effective tool - particularly now.

As the OP states, the trade between the US and Canada is huge and mostly hassle-free. Why would Canada want to jeopardize that?

Lumber is a huge industry in some parts of this country.