Go to article index for other editions of Bob Orrick's IN RE (In the Matter of).
Two Sides to Uncle Sam
By
Bob Orrick
Is Uncle Sam crying "Uncle?" Maybe. Canada and the United States have been engaged in a 'war' of sorts over Canadian softwood lumber exports to the USA. For years, U.S. lumber companies have cried foul and have turned to a variety of devices to force Canadian lumber producers to bow to the U.S.'s idea of fairness in trade. The U.S.'s primary complaint is based on the difference between how the two countries log forests. In Canada, most of the woods are owned by the Crown, that is, the forests are public property. In Canada provincial governments lease large tracts of forest to private companies to harvest. In return, the companies pay a stumpage fee to the Crown. The stumpage fee is based on the amount of lumber each log produces. The U.S. claims this system is a subsidy because it is not what Uncle Sam uses. In Sam's backyard, private companies bid to harvest state forests; the highest bid gets to harvest the wood. This difference has caused the two countries to agree to disagree. The upshot is that the U.S. foisted a 'softwood lumber duty' on all Canadian exports to the U.S. The idea was to raise the price of Canadian lumber high enough that U.S. producers could compete. Well, the duty caused several Canadian - primarily in British Columbia - outfits to cut back severely or to close up shop. Thousands of Canadian jobs were lost and many small towns dependent on the logging industry faced 'dire straits' situations. In the U.S., on the other hand, all was not coming up roses as the U.S. proponents of the duty expected. Recent analysis of the duties reveals that the tariff has not worked to U.S. satisfaction. For instance, rather than stemming the flow of high quality Canadian softwood imports, the U.S. producers learned that the Canadian lumber was in high demand and the US$1,000 approximately extra cost to build a house in the U.S. was accepted, reluctantly, by our southern cousins. The result is that in the U.S. a total of 114 mills have curtailed production [shutdowns, reduced workweek, and the like] whereas in Canada 51 have experienced curtailment. From the 22 May imposition of the U.S. tariff, the number of mills affected were: June 17, July 7, August 12, September 4, October 44, November 30. The numbers for Canada were: June 3, July 33, August 2, September 1, October 10, and November 2. The U.S. lobby that campaigned for the tariff has now come around to the idea that perhaps it was not a good thing; rather than cause serious injury to producers in Canada, the imposition has severely hurt mills in the U.S.
Has Uncle Sam cried 'Enough!" Yes, because now the U.S. wants to reintroduce the quota system that was in existence for a few years before it was tossed in favour of the current tariff. This is one more example of why Canadians have some difficulty with their southern cousins when it comes to doing business; simply put, our neighbours tend to impose their rules, then when things do not work out as they thought they would, they cry foul and want to change the agreement; always, it seems, to suit themselves with little regard to the other partner in the agreement. Interestingly, Canadian producers have no stomach for a return to the quota system. In a sense, the U.S. wanted the tariff system so now they must live with it.
What is clear about this silliness is that Canadian softwood is superior to that produced in the U.S. and is in much demand by builders south of the 48th.
There is another area where Canada and the U.S. do not agree wholeheartedly. Begun a few years ago in the U.S., the affirmative action programme may have run its course. A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the legality of a University of Michigan's policy is noteworthy. The University's policy is that it "offers preferential treatment to minorities." The case came to the fore when a white, female applicant who scored in the top 20 per cent of the university's entrance exams was rejected. This young girl had been vice-president of her high school student council, served as a tutor and senior citizen escort, and served as class historian. Because this young girl is white, the university said that her "race did not 'enhance' her application." It seems that at the University of Michigan, "being a minority is worth 20 points but writing an outstanding essay, for example, is worth only one point." [Quotes from the Ottawa Citizen.]
When the U.S. Supreme Court's judgement is handed down next year, it will determine the future of affirmative action in the United States. In Canada, however, the idiocy of 'multiculturalism' continues. This country is just as caught up in identity politics, as is the U.S. Here, we call it multiculturalism. Will Canada wake up and follow the U.S. lead? Will someone in this country have the backbone to challenge the legality of 'identity politics' and bring the case before the Canadian Supreme Court? Probably not, at least not in the near future. Sadly, Canada is saddled with a constitution that has as one of its foundations a section called Charter of Right and Wrongs - oops, sorry that is Rights and Freedoms. This charter has caused more headaches than ever thought possible - even by federal bureaucrats - and has made many questionable lawyers wealthy. In a word, it has caused the Canadian economy a heck of a lot of money as challenge after challenge is waged in the adversarial system known as Canada's courts. Before the Charter, Canada did okay, back then common sense was applied and life went on. Today, life is in a constant state of turmoil as people and companies walk on eggs to avoid being sued by someone who feels slighted. The frivolous and vexatious claims are killing the country and clogging the courts causing real justice to be delayed; we all know that justice delayed is justice denied. The author of that sage point probably was not a Canadian.
So, one point to Canada on the softwood tariff and one point to the U.S. on identify politics.
This contribution will be the last until the New Year. Unless God has other plans for me, IN RI will return in January 2003. I thank those who have taken the time to read IN RI. Whether or not readers agreed with my comments - mostly subjective but occasionally objective - does not matter. The intent is to cause readers to reflect and to discuss and to engage each other in positive dialogue. Feedback is welcome.
Merry Christmas to all regardless of where you live and which religion you support. We are after all, Children of God.
May the Good Lord Bless You and Keep You Safe. Happy New Year.
Send your comments about Bob's articles to syears@senioryears.com. We will display letters at Talking Back to Bob
Bob Orrick is a private tutor of English grammar, literature, poetry and Canadian history to off-shore youngsters. His pupils hail from such places as Taiwan, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Venezuela. He was previously in international marketing, was a ministerial assistant to a provincial cabinet minister, spent a few years as a reporter then editor of a community newspaper and enjoyed a career in the Royal Canadian Navy.
Advertising Information 
