dispute

Thursday February 8, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday February 8, 2018

Alberta to stop importing B.C. wine

The fight over Alberta oil coming to British Columbia has now escalated into a wine war.

March 4, 2015

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley announced Tuesday that the province is banning wine from B.C. wineries effective immediately.

“This is one good step to waking B.C. up to the fact that they can’t attack our industry without a response from us,” Notley said at a legislature news conference. “The Alberta Gaming and Liquor Control Board will put an immediate halt to the import of B.C. wine into Alberta.”

She said in 2017, there were 17.2 million bottles imported — the equivalent of about 1.4 million cases — with an estimated value of $70 million per year for B.C. Wineries.

March 4, 2016

“The wine industry is very important to B.C. Not nearly as important as the energy industry is to Alberta and Canada, but important nonetheless,” said Notley.

“I’m also encouraging all Albertans: next time you’re thinking about ordering a glass of wine, think of our energy workers. Think of your neighbours. Think of our community. Think about our province, and maybe choose some terrific Alberta craft beer instead.”

June 8, 2017

Miles Prodan, president of the B.C. Wine Institute, said the estimated retail value of the wine going to Alberta is likely even higher than Notley’s estimate, around $160 million.

Alberta is the most important market for B.C. wine outside of sales within our own the province, Prodan said, adding that about 11 per cent of B.C. wine sold across the country is sold in Alberta. (Source: Hamilton Spectator) 

 

SaveSave

SaveSave

Thursday September 6, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday September 6, 2017

Blockade down in Caledonia

An Indigenous barricade that blocked a main thoroughfare in Caledonia for close to a month has been dismantled.

July 31, 2013

Ontario Provincial Police say they asked demonstrators to leave the Highway 6 bypass Monday night.

“Once we responded, they eventually dispersed … on their own,” OPP spokesperson Const. Rodney LeClair said Tuesday.

The protesters had moved their roadblock from its original location at Argyle Street South to the Highway 6 bypass earlier Monday.

LeClair said police responded that evening because a “group was gathering” and using tires and trees to block a stretch of the bypass, which runs between Greens Road and Argyle Street South.

No one was arrested or injured, he said.

May 8, 2006

The OPP reopened Hwy. 6 Tuesday afternoon after the Ministry of Transportation’s maintenance contractor cleared the road.

LeClair said he hadn’t been told if demonstrators were still occupying the area around the bypass Tuesday.

“We’re remaining in the area just to preserve the peace like we’ve said from the onset, just maintain public safety,” he said.

Protesters who support the Six Nations hereditary government, known as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, set up the barricade on Argyle Street South — Caledonia’s major thoroughfare — Aug. 10.

April 23, 2006

This spot — just south of town at the entrance of the former Douglas Creek Estates — is where a larger, more intense blockade and standoff took place in 2006 over land claims.

Indigenous people have renamed the site Kanonhstaton, “the protected place.”

This time around, demonstrators have said they were protesting the Ontario government’s transfer of a 154-hectare property known as the Burtch lands to the Six Nations Elected Band Council instead of the confederacy.

The return of the land, the former site of a correctional facility, was negotiated in exchange for the earlier barricade coming down more than 10 years ago.

April 21, 2006

On Monday, demonstrators issued a statement noting they had moved the barricade to the bypass “to unify the people of Six Nations and relieve pressure on our people and the residents of Caledonia.”

They erected a barricade on the bypass to “apply pressure on Canada to return to the negotiation table,” the statement reads.

It’s not clear what led the demonstrators to dismantle their barricade altogether or whether any issues were ironed out.

Protesters did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday. (Source: Hamilton Spectator) 

 

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday, August 17, 2017

Chapter 19 may be a NAFTA deal breaker for Canada

A lot of Canadian softwood lumber exporters will tell you Chapter 19 is an instrumental part of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

July 17, 2017

Softwood lumber is the longest and bitterest of Canada-U.S. trade disputes. Small wonder then that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has cautioned that removing Chapter 19 from the trade pact would be a deal breaker in the upcoming renewal talks between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Chapter 19 is a mechanism NAFTA members can use to review the fairness of anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The U.S. has a long history of slapping such duties on Canadian softwood lumber shipments, and Canada has taken advantage of Chapter 19 to reverse those actions.

A Chapter 19 panel decides each case according to the domestic laws of the country that imposed the duties. So a Chapter 19 panel does not override a country’s domestic laws, but serves as a check on how each country is applying its own rules.

June 7, 2017

“There is absolutely no doubt that it acts as a check on some of the more abusive, arbitrary and discriminatory actions of the regulators on both sides of the border,” said Milos Barutciski, co-head of the international trade and investment law practice at Bennett Jones LLP in Toronto.

Softwood lumber has long been a flash-point in Canada-U.S. trade relations, and Canada has turned to Chapter 19, both under the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and subsequently under NAFTA, to address what it sees as the unfair imposition of duties.

August 27, 2005

The U.S. lumber industry argues that the tariffs are necessary because provincial governments unfairly subsidize Canadian producers who log on crown land. Canadian companies argue the tariffs are improper because they pay provincial governments market rates for that timber.

“Chapter 19 has been a very important piece in every softwood lumber dispute since the original FTA was signed,” Barutciski said. (Source: Financial Post)