Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!acton
From: acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Eastern Myopia
Message-ID: <888@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Dec-84 22:43:12 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.888
Posted: Fri Dec 14 22:43:12 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 21:43:06 EST
References: <854@ubc-cs.UUCP> <653@watcgl.UUCP> <874@ubc-cs.UUCP> <10346@watmath.UUCP>
Reply-To: acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 54
Summary: 


In article <10346@watmath.UUCP> wjafyfe@watmath.UUCP (Andy Fyfe) writes:

>When you talk about exporting lumber, what, beyond cutting down the
>trees, is being done in BC? 

I guess you fail to see the distinction between lumber and trees. Lumber is 
the finished product that has been run through a sawmill and perhaps a 
planner mill. This would consist of things like 2x4s (I guess it is OK to 
use imperial measurements now that it appears mandatory metrification 
is being scrapped) posts, beams and that sort of thing. In some instances 
it might also include plywood. From this point of view it is just as much 
a finished product as steel. In both cases further work is needed to turn the 
semi-finished product into something useful like car bodies or house frames. 
Since BC lumber exports are primarily softwoods, like douglas fir and hemlock,
they are more likely destined for construction use then furniture building so 
I don't imagine they would be returning as finished products. Other types of 
wood such as red and yellow cedar could possibly return as finished products
if the raw logs had been exported. BC does export raw logs and there is much 
controversy and discussion on how much of our timber should be exported in this 
fashion. 

>Are
>you sure exporting lumber is in BC's LONG term interest?  (I live in a
>part of the country where you have to look hard to find a real forest!)
(and trees. By BC standards the stuff that passes for trees in the rest of
Canada would be considered scrub :-) )

The point you raise is a very important one and the province is engaged 
in a lot of discussion (not always friendly either) on what should be done. 
No doubt you have heard of the controversy surrounding South Moresby and
Meares Islands. Should these stands of virginal timber be logged or 
should the areas remain as ecological reserves? Other questions being 
discussed concern whose responsibility is it to replant logged areas,
the governments or the forest companies? Likewise, whose responsibility
is it to finance and engage in sliviculture research? How should stumpage be
calculated and at what rate should we be logging?

>What did BC (or anyone else) have to give up to protect the steel
>industry?  (The US response was to those counties that export cheaper,
>government subsidized steel, something Canada doesn't do.)

Supporting total free trade I can think of lots of things that were given
up; the extra money to by the more expensive product, non-Canadian steel,
freedom of choice and maybe even jobs. How many construction projects would
have proceed if the materials had been cheaper? The artificially high price
of Canadian steel affects the industries concerned with the manufacture of 
tractors, farm machinery and cars and makes them more uncompetitive then
they need be. Notice how all these sectors of the economy also have quotas and 
tariffs placed on the foreign competition. How can these industries compete
effectively in the real world if they are handcuffed right off the start 
by having to use a raw materials that are over priced?
 
  Donald Acton