Export Tax on Alberta Oil and Gas

[Kiraly]

Taxing imports would be less risky then Layton's plan but Harper's plan remains the worst of all, i.e., do nothing and hope that the friendly giant returns the 5 billion that he stole. Why is Harper afraid to take even a modest stand on this issue?

That doesn't sound like Harper's plan at all.

Would you care to provide and evidence where Harper stated this position?

[Leader Circle]

Normie,

Your socialist background, i.e. lack of work experience, is showing. GW Bush is hurting for friends right now, to a far greater extent than Reagan ever was.

You think he wouldn't be more inclined to help Harper, hmmm I never heard anyone on Harper's staff call Bush an a**hole. Harper can be trusted, unfortunately Martin's childish handling of BMD killed any chance of a professional, working relationship with GW.

Nice take on why Harper quit Reform. Care to explain what the issues were and what even *one* potential deal could have been....

Does anyone seriously believe that Stephen Harper could negotiate a deal with George Bush?  He couldn't even negotiate a deal with Preston Manning which is why Harper quit Reform and went to the National Citizens' Coalition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, as much as I would hate to admit, Norm is right about Harper. Harper & Manning could not come to terms on policy for the party. Manning was a populist kinda guy, trying to appeal to all spectrums of voters and Harper wanted to stay to the right with his conservative views on economics(his speciality). They bickered alot and at the time Harper left to go to the NCC they weren't even on good terms, I believe.

[Riverwind]

The NDP have announced they will put  an export tax on Alberta oil and gas exports to the USA in retaliation for U.S. softwood lumber tariff.

Note that the tax is on exporters (Alberta) not the importers, so I'm sure Alberta vogers will be elated to this.

This is a dumb idea - Canada does not ship enough oil to affect the world price so it would just hurt Canadian oil producers. Canada could affect the natural gas prices but it would be dumb to simply impose a tax. A better approach would impose export quotas that caused the price to rise. The higher prices would offset the losses incurred by suppliers.

The fact that imposing export quotas would violate the FTA is good because it would serve to remind Americans that they do benefit from NAFTA - the WTO would not prevent Canada from manipulating the market like that.

[tml12]

The NDP have announced they will put  an export tax on Alberta oil and gas exports to the USA in retaliation for U.S. softwood lumber tariff.

Note that the tax is on exporters (Alberta) not the importers, so I'm sure Alberta vogers will be elated to this.

This is a dumb idea - Canada does not ship enough oil to affect the world price so it would just hurt Canadian oil producers. Canada could affect the natural gas prices but it would be dumb to simply impose a tax. A better approach would impose export quotas that caused the price to rise. The higher prices would offset the losses incurred by suppliers.

The fact that imposing export quotas would violate the FTA is good because it would serve to remind Americans that they do benefit from NAFTA - the WTO would not prevent Canada from manipulating the market like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are they serious? And yeah you are right Sparhawk...

On juice and other things yes, but the NDP has got to know they are going to lose this battle...

[shoop]

Makes me wonder if Alberta might be better off keeping Landslide Annie around. (Note to Greg, not a put down, rather a pretty commonly accepted nickname for her.)

Would the Liberals be more likely to introduce son of NEP without her around? Likely, but you never know....

Are they serious?  And yeah you are right Sparhawk...

On juice and other things yes, but the NDP has got to know they are going to lose this battle...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Freshinit]

At least Layton is expressing his party's priorities rather than buying votes through composing caricatures of relatively insignificant proposals. His fiscal spending relies on heavy taxation. He sees Alberta oil as the prime sugar daddy of his long term projects; like more efficient energy usage in canadian homes.

Or better yet, Layton should be imposing import tariffs for the Americans aswell, using the Softwood lumber dispute as his justification. In which he could easily take back $5billion in lost American tariffs. He could even play around with the idea of keeping the tariffs after the $ 5 billion is gained back, since America is so dependent on oil.

[normanchateau]

A better approach would impose export quotas that caused the price to rise. The higher prices would offset the losses incurred by suppliers.

The fact that imposing export quotas would violate the FTA is good because it would serve to remind Americans that they do benefit from NAFTA - the WTO would not prevent Canada from manipulating the market like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These are certainly better ideas than the Harper approach which so far amounts to saying nothing and doing nothing and hoping for the best.

[shoop]

Again with the Harper attacks without support or evidence of any kind. Why oh why?

These are certainly better ideas than the Harper approach which so far amounts to saying nothing and doing nothing and hoping for the best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[tml12]

Again with the Harper attacks without support or evidence of any kind. Why oh why?

These are certainly better ideas than the Harper approach which so far amounts to saying nothing and doing nothing and hoping for the best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is what it is Shoop...

[normanchateau]

Again with the Harper attacks without support or evidence of any kind. Why oh why?

These are certainly better ideas than the Harper approach which so far amounts to saying nothing and doing nothing and hoping for the best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Harper is saying something and doing something about softwood lumber, please

provide the evidence.

[FTA Lawyer]

Again with the Harper attacks without support or evidence of any kind. Why oh why?

These are certainly better ideas than the Harper approach which so far amounts to saying nothing and doing nothing and hoping for the best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Harper is saying something and doing something about softwood lumber, please

provide the evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone has missed the boat here completely...the only thing to be "done" about softwood lumber is to allow the appeal processes of NAFTA and the WTO to run their course.

One of the only sane commentaries on this issue has come from former U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci. The WTO ruled in favour of the U.S., NAFTA ruled in favour of Canada...both rulings come with appeal rights / procedures. These are the treaties we have, so we have to follow the process.

We cannot demand money be paid before final rulings are made...it's that simple. And to breach NAFTA as a way to force compliance with NAFTA is stupid. At least right now we can show the tribunals that we are in compliance and the U.S. is not.

If we ever want to see duties refunded we can't put ourselves in a position where a tribunal can say...oh well, you guys are doing it too...

And besides, what makes anyone think that the U.S. will just pay whatever we say they should for oil & gas? They won't. And before they are totally screwed due to lack of supply, we'll be long since destroyed due to a lack of an economy.

Unless someone can tell me how we re-route our pipelines across the ocean to China, we'd best just do fair business with the U.S. on oil and gas.

FTA

[tml12]

Again with the Harper attacks without support or evidence of any kind. Why oh why?

These are certainly better ideas than the Harper approach which so far amounts to saying nothing and doing nothing and hoping for the best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Harper is saying something and doing something about softwood lumber, please

provide the evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just looked at James Moore's website. He looks like a good candidate but, as a former Alliance guy, I don't know if he would be attractive here in the East anymore than Harper...

[shoop]

Ahhh, I get it. You respond to a request for evidence by asking for evidence to disprove your baseless statement. Pretty weak.

How about this, I will give you two for one. Either provide evidence of your phantom poll OR support your statement on softwood lumber and i will provide what you ask.

If Harper is saying something and doing something about softwood lumber, please

provide the evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Kiraly]

Maybe Norman missed my request:

Reposted from the previous page for your convenience:

Norman:

Taxing imports would be less risky then Layton's plan but Harper's plan remains the worst of all, i.e., do nothing and hope that the friendly giant returns the 5 billion that he stole. Why is Harper afraid to take even a modest stand on this issue?

Kiraly:

That doesn't sound like Harper's plan at all.

Would you care to provide and evidence where Harper stated this position?

[sharkman]

Everyone has missed the boat here completely...the only thing to be "done" about softwood lumber is to allow the appeal processes of NAFTA and the WTO to run their course.

One of the only sane commentaries on this issue has come from former U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci.  The WTO ruled in favour of the U.S., NAFTA ruled in favour of Canada...both rulings come with appeal rights / procedures.  These are the treaties we have, so we have to follow the process.

We cannot demand money be paid before final rulings are made...it's that simple.  And to breach NAFTA as a way to force compliance with NAFTA is stupid.  At least right now we can show the tribunals that we are in compliance and the U.S. is not. 

If we ever want to see duties refunded we can't put ourselves in a position where a tribunal can say...oh well, you guys are doing it too...

And besides, what makes anyone think that the U.S. will just pay whatever we say they should for oil & gas?  They won't.  And before they are totally screwed due to lack of supply, we'll be long since destroyed due to a lack of an economy.

Unless someone can tell me how we re-route our pipelines across the ocean to China, we'd best just do fair business with the U.S. on oil and gas.

FTA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for a most revealing post. I hadn't heard that the Americans have a ruling in their favour, it's amazing how this slipped Martin's mind when he was bragging about standing up to the Americans and telling Dubya to pay the 5 billion. Our media has dropped the ball on this as well, most Canadians think the Americans are ripping us off when they are not. What's new...

[normanchateau]

Ahhh, I get it. You respond to a request for evidence by asking for evidence to disprove your baseless statement. Pretty weak.

How about this, I will give you two for one. Either provide evidence of your phantom poll OR support your statement on softwood lumber and i will provide what you ask.

If Harper is saying something and doing something about softwood lumber, please

provide the evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I responded to your question about the poll on December 2nd. If you want to look at

that response on the "phantom poll" thread, do so. If you don't want to, I will continue to assume you have no evidence.

[Kiraly]

If Harper is saying something and doing something about softwood lumber, please provide the evidence.

Are you unable to access google.com on your computer?

Harper on Softwood

HALIFAX (CP) - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says that as prime minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over softwood.

In an apparent shift from his conciliatory style in the past on Canada-U.S. relations, Harper said Wednesday that he would tell George W. Bush there are other markets for Canada's resources.

And he said he'd suggest Canada and the U.S. each appoint special high-level envoys to determine if the U.S. really wants to continue using the free trade deal and its dispute settlement mechanism.

[shoop]

Hmmm, dodging the question. Too lazy and arrogant to do the work yourself. No wonder you support the Liberals!

btw, thanks Kiraly!

I responded to your question about the poll on December 2nd.  If you want to look at

that response on the "phantom poll" thread, do so.  If you don't want to, I will continue to assume you have no evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

FTA!

As I replied to the earlier citations of the WTO INTERIM ruling, a few years before this the WTO ruled in favour of Canada.

So which ruling is it to be? The current one gained from American Pressure on the WTO or the real one.

Besides that, it does not matter what the WTO rules except as a moral support. NAFTA governs and the Americans have breached NAFTA and declared their intention to keep the breach wide open.

We have no choice but tp retaliate or to be forever what Mulroney intended us to be: a vassal of that "Kingdom."

[normanchateau]

HALIFAX (CP) - Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says that as prime minister, he'd take a hardline position with the United States and refuse to bargain over softwood.

In an apparent shift from his conciliatory style in the past on Canada-U.S. relations, Harper said Wednesday that he would tell George W. Bush there are other markets for Canada's resources.

And he said he'd suggest Canada and the U.S. each appoint special high-level envoys to determine if the U.S. really wants to continue using the free trade deal and its dispute settlement mechanism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good for Harper!

[Canuck E Stan]

Forget the oil and gas retaliation....let's turn off their lights by cutting off the power from Quebec. That will teach them.

Or we can tell them we won't build their cars or manufacture anymore of their stupid products anymore. That will teach them .

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA!

As I replied to the earlier citations of the WTO INTERIM ruling, a few years before this the WTO ruled in favour of Canada.

So which ruling is it to be? The current one gained from American Pressure on the WTO or the real one.

Besides that, it does not matter what the WTO rules except as a moral support. NAFTA governs and the Americans have breached NAFTA and declared their intention to keep the breach wide open.

We have no choice but tp retaliate or to be forever what Mulroney intended us to be: a vassal of that "Kingdom."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka,

You really missed the point...there are APPEAL PROCESSES that have not yet run their course...in NAFTA as well as the WTO. The reason for appeals is because sometimes mistakes are made by lower decision-makers.

I can't say one way or the other...all I know is that if I was on the losing side...but I had appeals left to pursue that I thought I could win, I wouldn't be paying up either.

FTA

P.S. I didn't have a chance to read the paper but I think I saw a headline today saying that the US was "slashing" its softwood duties. Far from repayment of billions, but sounds like a great first step...

[Riverwind]

You really missed the point...there are APPEAL PROCESSES that have not yet run their course...in NAFTA as well as the WTO.  The reason for appeals is because sometimes mistakes are made by lower decision-makers.

I do not believe this statement is correct - the NAFTA appeal processes have completed and the US is ignoring the ruling.

The WTO ruling is a red herring because the issue put before the WTO panel is the equivalent of going to a judge and asking if it is possible for murder to be considered self defence. in other words, The WTO panel has ruled that it is theoretically possible that canada is subsidizing its exports without looking at any of the facts to determine if a subsidy actually exists.

On other hand, the nafta panel has look at the facts and ruled with unequivocal language that no actual subsidy exists and that the duties violate the treaty.

The US is showing considerable bad faith and canada is within it rights to retaliate. the only trouble is there are no retaliation measures in nafta so canada is trying to get wto approval for trade retailiation while taking the US govt to court for violating its own laws.

the recent reduction in tariffs is a sign the US knows they have lost but they are simplying adding insult to injury by prolonging the process.

[normanchateau]

You really missed the point...there are APPEAL PROCESSES that have not yet run their course...in NAFTA as well as the WTO.  The reason for appeals is because sometimes mistakes are made by lower decision-makers.

The Government of Canada has an up-to-date, chronological website where one can follow softwood lumber developments including NAFTA, WTO, appeals, decisions, etc.

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/what-en.asp

I see no indication that there will or can be any further appeals to NAFTA. Five NAFTA panels have ruled in Canada's favour. If you have evidence of a pending or even possible further appeal to NAFTA, please provide it.

[Argus]

Here's what Layton said in the Globe and Mail:

"We favour a polite, clear, neighbourly warning that Canada is prepared to impose export duties on oil and gas exports to the United States."

He made this statement not in Ontario or Quebec but in British Columbia, a province whose northeast sector produces billions worth of oil and gas annually. What's so outrageous about this statement of a polite warning and why hasn't Harper uttered a peep about how he'd solve the illegal actions of the US in their violation of NAFTA and their illegal seizure of billions of dollars from Canadian softwood lumber producers?

Layton is at least suggesting a possible approach.

Yes, a dumb one. Either it's a toothless warning, which will only irritate them, or, if we actually tried to impliment it, well, there have been strong hints from the US that they would be more than willing to respond to our new tarrifs with new ones of their own. A nation which has a $7 billion per month surplus with the US has no business snivelling and arguing and trying to provoke them into a trade war we could only lose badly.

Harper's failure to deal with this issue is just another example of how bankrupt he is of any useful ideas or strategies.

It's called maturity. I can see how that would confuse you. You're used to blowhard politicians who are more interested in getting in the media saying self righteous things to look good than in someone who is actually interested in solving a problem. If the US administration is going to be pushed into staring down protectionist forces in the Senate it's not going to be through intimidation, since they hold all the cards. It will only be through quiet diplomacy. Of course, that doesn't work very well when you're on their Sh*t list, as Chretien and Martin are, but it might well work for Harper.]