[Michael Scott]

Dave, actually there is a lot of tech to be used in the lumber industry. A sawmill is no longer just a band saw and pulp mixer. I didn't just pull the tech quote out of thin air, this has been an ongoing issue in Canada for quite some time. And it actually ties in with what Rick has been saying about the excess wood that isn't being properly harvested. Canada's lack of investment in tech in the forestry industry leads to greater waste (at the most high tech lumber mills, computers select how to chop the individual logs for maximum utilization of the wood core for instance). Dave is correct in saying that this doesn't happen in Norway or Sweden mainly because they have far less resources to deal with and must therefore maximize the harvest. We have so much that it was more economical in the short term to not invest, which added to waste. However, when the rest of the world upgraded and we didn't, their wood eventually became more economical and by that time the cost of upgrading was more expensive than shutting down the mills (which has been happening). We stopped making money because of the tariffs the US slapped on us for anti-competitive practices like stumpage fees and because energy costs rose and because the US housing market collapsed - these 3 things happening in succession. Instead of retrofitting mills, we instead get a foreign company buying the stands and consolidating into a super mill that is "teched up". But don't take my word for it:

"In Eastern Canada, reductions in the Quebec timber harvest and a general lack of investment in new technology dragged performance down, the report said."
from:
http://www.kapuskasingtimes.com/Article ... &e=1647133

"While ongoing curtailments have
taken out many of the region�s high cost mills, the remaining mills still operated with above average log and sawmill costs (older sawmill technology coupled with high labour costs)"
from:
http://www.woodmarkets.com/files/09-07- ... %20_2_.pdf

Now this one is a bit older (1992) but it speaks to the state of the forestry industry at it's peak when profits were high and mills neglected to invest. When profits fell, they didn't have the money to invest and therefore failed:
"In general, wood processing plants in Canada are older and therefore less technologically sophisticated than those of our competitors in the United States, Finland and Sweden. For example, Canada�s millwork sector (doors, windows, kitchen cabinets, etc.) is less automated and less mechanized than that of the United States. Similarly, most Canadian hardwood sawmills are small operations that do not use the most up-to-date high-speed, electronically controlled equipment."
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R ... p294-e.htm

NAFTA didn't cause these issues, poor management and lack of foresight did. Thinking that the current state of cheap wood and no backlash from competitor countries would go on forever led to a malaise within the industry. When the US lobby slapped us with tarrifs over our stumpage fees our companies were ill prepared to deal with the lack of production. When this was further reduced by the rise in transport costs due to the energy spike and then hit with a massive decrease in demand when the US housing industry tanked, our mills were in a completely non-competitive position.

Oh, and without NAFTA, what makes you think that we would have been shipping any wood to the US at all? And without a trading partner, there aren't sufficient houses being built in Canada to support the industry.

Furthermore, 2x4's are a finished product. We were not shipping raw logs, but cut lumber. And we don't buy much "finished" lumber products from the US (not to say we don't buy any, just not that much) - we actually get that from China as well.

[Brent Swain]

Under NAFTA, we are not allowed to slow the export of oil to the US, even when we are running out. That hasn't happened; yet.When the supply starts to run out , NAFTA bans putting Canadian needs first, even if we are freezing in the dark. We haven't seen supplies dwindle; yet, but it will eventually happen. Unlike the Buffalo, the passenger pidgeon, and the Northern cod, supplies are not infinite.
We were barred from banning a toxic gasoline addative because it might affect the profits of the oil industry. We went ahead and were sued successfully for millions by the oil industry , under NAFTA. All taxpayers got the bill in taxes and reduced services..

[RickW]

I am sure the US Lawmakers are not even considering that oil from Canada will slacken off, with or without NAFTA. I think they take it as given that it is their oil supply and we are just caretakers.....

[Fiatlux]

Michael, I don't know where you have been, but the FTA and NAFTA have killed the Canadian manufacturing sector, where used to be thousands of businesses making just about anything, but now it is a miracle when we see something "Made in Canada".

We're now a "resource based economy", which means selling the ground from under our feet.

By the way I still own two, albeit mostly retired corporations, one in manufacturing, the other in farming, but am keeping the names going.

I have seen what the FTA and NAFTA have done to Canadian industries, not just read about it somewhere.

The main crime is monetary economics, where costs and results are expressed in imaginary figures, totally divorced from realities, controlled by a mafia like gang of "prominent businessmen", out to screw the world. In this warped system, as long as the speculators are making huge profits at the gambling casinos called "markets" everything is just fine.

The funny thing is that they're keeping the worthless US dollar, the currency of a bankrupt economy, going so they can screw the world with nothing.

Ed Deak.

[RickW]

Michael Scott wrote:

Oh, and without NAFTA, what makes you think that we would have been shipping any wood to the US at all?

Because Canadian wood has been acknowledged to be a better grade than American wood.

Oh, and 2x4's are not a finished product. That is what one would call a sleigh-of-hand. A finished product is what the 2x4 are used for. A chair is a finished product. A factory-built house that is shipped to a site is a finished product.

[Fiatlux]

Here's something from google on self sufficiency:

http://www.shanejolley.com/2007/01/prin ... omics.html

[Michael Scott]

Brent, NAFTA spells out that we must sell our oil at the same price as we sell it to Canadians. Nowhere does it say that the US gets first shot and that the flow cannot be slowed - it does say that they get EQUAL rights to the oil if the world runs dry (and that is due to the sale mechanism). We choose the prices, we choose the amount. Your statement is patently false. I will repeat my question about the additive - what additive were we stopped from banning and when? If you cannot come up with the specifics of this statement I will assume that this is merely conjecture.
Rick, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. The US lawmakers can't see beyond their noses and need someone other than China to go after to be seen to be doing something about US job losses even if they are looking the wrong way.
Ed, I will agree that NAFTA had some impact on manufacturing losses, but I will reiterate that the vast majority of the losses were due to deals with China, not Mexico and the US. If the jobs did indeed go to the US and Mexico, why are the US members blaming their job losses on NAFTA and why does Mexico complain that they didn't get the jobs they thought they would with NAFTA? The reason is because we sold out to China. I don't dispute that we have had massive manufacturing losses. If the manufacturing went the the US and Mexico then the products we have would say "Made in USA" or "Made in Mexico". I'll bet that not one person on this forum can find 10 items that say either before they find 100 items that say "Made in China or Taiwan".
Rick - 2x4's don't make chairs, doors, cabinets, or anything of that type. That is almost exclusively 1x4 or smaller pieces. Most furniture is not made out of spruce, our number 1 export in forestry. We do ship oak, cedar and maple for furniture, so you are correct in that. 2x4's shipped to the US were sent for the US housing industry. And you'll have to show me how many factory built homes were shipped here to Canada. The Canadian housing industry doesn't even use US made trusses for the most part (that's not to say that they never use them).

[RickW]

If we are going to export 2x4's, they should be in the form of factory-built houses, built here in Canada, and shipped abroad.

Same goes for petroleum products, minerals, and metals.

But NEVER the raw product, or any any intermediate step.

[RickW]

Michael Scott wrote:

However, when the rest of the world upgraded and we didn't

Have to agree with you here. Those who run the forestry businesses in this country have been allowed to be extremely lazy, and just skim the cream. The fast buck syndrome.

[Toro]

Michael Scott wrote:

Brent, NAFTA spells out that we must sell our oil at the same price as we sell it to Canadians. Nowhere does it say that the US gets first shot and that the flow cannot be slowed - it does say that they get EQUAL rights to the oil if the world runs dry (and that is due to the sale mechanism). We choose the prices, we choose the amount. Your statement is patently false. I will repeat my question about the additive - what additive were we stopped from banning and when? If you cannot come up with the specifics of this statement I will assume that this is merely conjecture.
Rick, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. The US lawmakers can't see beyond their noses and need someone other than China to go after to be seen to be doing something about US job losses even if they are looking the wrong way.
Ed, I will agree that NAFTA had some impact on manufacturing losses, but I will reiterate that the vast majority of the losses were due to deals with China, not Mexico and the US. If the jobs did indeed go to the US and Mexico, why are the US members blaming their job losses on NAFTA and why does Mexico complain that they didn't get the jobs they thought they would with NAFTA? The reason is because we sold out to China. I don't dispute that we have had massive manufacturing losses. If the manufacturing went the the US and Mexico then the products we have would say "Made in USA" or "Made in Mexico". I'll bet that not one person on this forum can find 10 items that say either before they find 100 items that say "Made in China or Taiwan".
Rick - 2x4's don't make chairs, doors, cabinets, or anything of that type. That is almost exclusively 1x4 or smaller pieces. Most furniture is not made out of spruce, our number 1 export in forestry. We do ship oak, cedar and maple for furniture, so you are correct in that. 2x4's shipped to the US were sent for the US housing industry. And you'll have to show me how many factory built homes were shipped here to Canada. The Canadian housing industry doesn't even use US made trusses for the most part (that's not to say that they never use them).

What NAFTA says is that if Canada imposes export controls on oil, then Canada cannot do so against the US, and that Canada, at a minimum, must supply the last 36-month average of exports to reserves to the American market. It does not say that America gets first crack at our oil. It also does not say that the Americans can dictate price. What it says is that the Canadians cannot discriminate on price, nor can Canada unilaterally cut off exports to the US.

http://tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/Nafta/06.energy

As for NAFTA, it has generally benefited Canada.

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~trefler/fta.pdf
http://home.uchicago.edu/%7Elcaliend/Es ... _NAFTA.pdf

[Brent Swain]

Meaning, if we are about to run out in the next couple of months, and Canadians will be freezing in the dark as a result, we still have to maintain exports at the level they have been ,and deny Canadians oil, to keep the yanks going. It says "Let the Canadians freeze , yanks come first for Canadian oil." We get the leftovers, if there are any. If not? Tough shit!
To be a supporter of NAFTA is to be a supporter of Canada becoming the 51st state. To support NAFTA is treason , plain and simple. Such people , if they want to be yanks , should simply emigrate there. Uncle Sam could use you, for cannon fodder in Iraq.

[Toro]

Brent Swain wrote:

Meaning, if we are about to run out in the next couple of months, and Canadians will be freezing in the dark as a result, we still have to maintain exports at the level they have been ,and deny Canadians oil, to keep the yanks going. It says "Let the Canadians freeze , yanks come first for Canadian oil." We get the leftovers, if there are any. If not? Tough shit!
To be a supporter of NAFTA is to be a supporter of Canada becoming the 51st state. To support NAFTA is treason , plain and simple. Such people , if they want to be yanks , should simply emigrate there. Uncle Sam could use you, for cannon fodder in Iraq.

That's not what it means. It means that if Canada has imposed export controls, it must continue to export at the same proportion of reserves than it did before. If reserves in Canada have fallen from 100 billion barrels and Canada is exporting 10 million barrels to the US, if Canada is "running out," i.e., we now have 1 billion barrels, Canada must export 100,000 barrels to the US IF Canada imposes export controls. If Canada does not impose export controls, the country does not have to export a single barrel to America. Apart from the imposition of export controls, there is nothing in the agreement that precludes Canada from selling every single drop to China and shutting out the Americans, though that will never happen.

[herbie]

Why are you mentioning wood? The whole issue was a direct violation of NAFTA by the US side. Free Trade, if they like it.
The most disgusting part of the Softwood Sellout was most of the money returned was invested in buying mills in the USA. And there's been an increase in exporting raw logs to those mills, at the direct expense of the millworkers here. By the same companies.

And we're hearing more and more about how we 'at least' get jobs cutting the export wood. They've used the historic fact that Canadians are shitty businessmen to infect us all to expect 'the least'.
You know how many people I run into that actually believe successful companies make more money by making the least profit possible?