Mike, No, what the US Lumber industry has been after for years is for what's known as the Canadian social safety net to be substantially changed. Per employee costs are very different given the forest industry. Since the typical Canadian lumber company does not have to pay for medical insurance etc, that is a lower per employee cost.
Moreover while the stumpage fees are substantially lower in Canada, the companies operating on Crown land, similar to the US Forest Service land, have to pay for roads and any support services. The US forest service pays for this out of the higher stumpage fees it charges. Similarly in Canada reforestation is the responsibility of the private firm, while again that is funded through stumpage fees in the US. Costs are about the same in the end. However just before NAFTA went into effect, Canadian firms went through a big modernizing phase a few years back, laying off a lot of people, and updating equipment. Now these same firms are far more efficient that their American competitors. So who is being anti-competitive here? US lumber firms are just whining because while many Canadian firms reinvested in their companies, US firms just wanted to squeeze every bit of profitability from the lumber tracts. It seems that after Bush has been talking a lot about fair trade, he simply doesn't want to exhibit any. larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Corrigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:17 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: What is he doing...... > > > Yeah, that's not a good thing. That's something Buchanan > would do, not Bush. To me, this is a serious departure from > his free trade stance of the election. If Canada is > illegally dumping/subsidizing cheap lumber on the US then the > tariff is justified. If they are subsidizing the lumber > industry and it's not illegal, then the tariff should be > repealed. We do our own share of subsidizing here and it's > plain wrong no matter who does it. It is contrary to free > trade and open markets let alone competition. We lose any > moral high ground because we subsidize many of our > corporations, industries (shipping, steel, etc.), and agriculture. > > Thanks for the post! > > Michael Corrigan > Programmer > Endora Digital Solutions > 1900 Highland Avenue, Suite 200 > Lombard, IL 60148 > 630-627-5055 ext.-136 > 630/627-5255 Fax > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michael Ross > To: CF-Community > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 2:04 PM > Subject: What is he doing...... > > > Way to go Bush, rack up another stupid move........ > > http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1016797518288&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188 492&call_pagepath=News/News&col=968793972154 linemonster ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
