I know this is a controvercial subject but Canadian soft wood companies can provide cheap abundant soft wood lumber for US consumption. US lumber producers think that the Canadian Government is subsidizing Canadian softwood prduction which is not true. Even with that the US government is slapping high tarrifs on Candadian softwood. Initially 19% then another 11% What ever happened to free trade!!!!! This is causing shut downs of many sawmills and then the shipping by rail will also drop of cutting into CPs revenue thus causing layoffs and such. Why is US softwood production so expensive? I know US home builders are mad about this and it will cause higher prices for homes. What will be the overall effect on Canadian railroading?
Right! Expect about 30,000 folks to be without work. That comes in at about 100,000 families and kids. Sounds like economic terrorism to me. The reasons the US lumber is so high is a. they don't have a lot of wood left, b. the quality is very poor, and c. they have this "middle man", between the trees and the lumber company, who does nothing to add value to the product but tacks on his significant "costs". We leave out this step. As is always the case, the "American" way is the only way and they're not going to open up to a better idea. Two things can stop these duties. The American public has to revolt and/or we have to sell ALL our production overseas. China needs it real bad an can take all we can produce. If we can get it there at a reasonable cost. To keep this forum on topic I suggest a train under the Bering Strait.
You guys act like many Americans aren't out of work already.The rail industry is not doing as good as expected right now.And as always closer to the holidays things slow down a bit.But yes I agree that we need to do like other countries do, bring the jobs back home.It is just big business looking to save a buck and putting the people who buy the product out of a job.It doesn't make sense to starve the hand that feeds you..... [ 02 November 2001: Message edited by: Ed Pinkley#2 ]</p>
For me the issues are so clouded, and each side claims they are the injured party, that I wish I could see an independent evaluation of the situation. What will happen is that Canada will take the US to the world courts and lodge an action against the US government; they have done this in the past and won every case. The problem with this solution is that the tarriffs stay on until a judgement is rendered, years from now. The issues are thusly: 1) The Canadian government owns the land on which the companies remove the logs, so in Canada it is cheaper for the companies to access logs because they didn't have to pay for the land. 2) In the USA, the companies have to pay for the land to harvest forests, hence a higher price. However, if they have owned the land for a long time, it is mostly paid for. 3) What is free trade? Can governments in one country determine the practises in another country? 4) Given the reality of geography and population density, it is only logical that Canada has more wood. Is it really in the interest of Americans to hamper access to this market? For example, it is estimated it nows cost Americans an extra $1500 to build a new house because of increased costs at the border to import lumber into the USA. My take is that the two countries are joined at the hip economically. It is only in the interest of both countries to have trade move freely about. It is expected that each country will have its own unique advantages, but these should be respected and used to advance the economic interest of both parties, rather than battle each other when a treaty expires. For example, if Canada is strong in wood export, and America has reduced the area that can be culled for quality wood, why not use that land in America for another economic benefit to the US, and continue to receive lumber at cheap rates; thus both sides benefit. As you can imagine, with a drought in our Prairie provinces affecting wheat, and reduced lumber exports, the traffic on CN and CP has been drastically affected. I know for many railfans and modelers, the politics of railroading is considered a negative in the hobby. I find the political side of railroading to be fascinating, and an interesting way to learn international politics, as well as internal political machinations of one's own country. For example, the Great Northern arose from a dispute between Canadian interests and American interests. Another example, it is my belief that the Amtrack from Seattle to Vancouver, BC will be increased in number of runs as many reluctant to fly will instead choose to take the train, especially those Americans going on the Alaskan Cruises, leaving from Vancouver, BC. Internally, anyone familiar with CN and CP are intimately aware how much those railroads defined the character of Canada, and the evolution of population centers across Canada in response to the building of the two lines, and the competition and politics between the two. Its too bad politics is such an emotional issue as it would be fun to hear more of the politics behind railroad practises and decisions. Alas, that is not to be.
I'm with Rick! Let's bring back steamers and fix up our tracks so we have some place to run all this revenue. I think I read that Canada was the first to practice re-forestation to prevent loseing the forest like us money grubbin' Americans have. Boo on terrifs, bring our manufacturing back home and become stable again!
