3 ms·
This is part of a long, drawn out disagreement (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_softwood_lumber_dispute https://en.wikipedia
by ska 5y ago
This is part of a long, drawn out disagreement (e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_softwood_lumber_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_s...)
- peeters 5y agoIt's worth noting the WTO has repeatedly ruled in favour of Canada that this cost structure does not amount to subsidization. This is just pure pandering to the U.S. lumber industry. Guess what? Canada has a lot of forested land. It's one of our plentiful natural resources. Most countries allow exploitation of their natural resources. The U.S. argument amounts to nothing more than "we don't like that they have a lot of trees and that that makes our trees less valuable". Canada is a net exporter to the U.S. of raw materials and a net importer from the U.S. of finished goods. The only reason they attack lumber is because unlike every other raw material, lumber doesn't make its way into many things that the U.S. exports.