Four or five years ago, I read something somewhere which stated that Clinton had imposed a 40% importation tariff on raw wood as a building material in order for the American companies to compete. No, this is not a political thread, but one in which I am seeking verification, and also thence the debate of shooting ourselves in the foot, if true.
Personally, if one or more Canadian companies wish to wholesale their raw wood materials to foreign buyers then I say we should save our resources and buy it from the neighbors to the North. And when I say ‘we’ I mean American lumber companies. Instead, we have a condition in which high premiums are paid for on premium or prime wood materials, such as plywood. How many of you would love to pay 40% less for plywood? I know I would.
Of course, Windsor if a straight shot for me as I would travel right up Interstate 75 into Detroit, and cross the water into Canada. If I buy it it becomes a retail purchase and exempt from the tariff, and better yet the taxation on the sale get’s refunded to me, the American buyer, once I remove it from Canada (half at the border, the other half via check-in-the-mail).
Unfortunately, even with a straight-shot in driving this Atlantian would probably not benefit from the endeavor since the cost of a OTR rental, a driver (ok, have an OTR friend, but without the tractor), and diesel fuel for transport would probably break the savings unless I bought the maximum in what otherwise would be high-dollar wood building material.
BUT, this says nothing from anyone living in, say, Detroit or Seattle, etc., and in those resient-locations the enticement would seem obvious–even by pickup. So, I wonder if the information provided to me 4-5 years ago was more myth, misinformation, or downright truth. Anyone know off hand? Maybe a handy federal tariff reference?
Replies
bump View Image
'Nemo me impune lacesset'
No one will provoke me with impunity
The biggest trade disagreement between the US and Canada is the wood tarriffs. In the past 4-5 years about 5 billion has been collected from our wood producers so that US wood can compete (and so US house prices can be higher!!!). The US "agreed upon" joint US/Canada panel/tribunal has ruled twice now that the US is wrong but BUSH is still saying "we can negotiate this thing" and by the way, we still have your $$$. (Ms. Rice was here just before Xmas talking about "negotiating" a settlement after 2 rulings!!!) It's like getting a "not guilty" twice in court but you're still held in jail for the same offence!! Some Canadian companies have gone out of business or downsized severely wrecking local enconomies in British Columbia especially.
This "diplomacy" of "we agree when it goes for us but not when it goes for you" is what gets the US such a poor reputation worldwide. It's not the people but the electeds!!
As a Canadian I find it interesting that most construction industry people in the US have paid little attention to this and yet it is costing your home building industry "Billions" of dollars. For more information on the US lumber manufacturers' perspective do a Google search on "Fair Lumber Imports". But don't stop there then search this website especially the "Media Room" and see what some of the US/Cdn joint panels have to say. "http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/mediaroom-en.asp" By the way the current duty is only 22% although it was almost 40 for awhile. Something else you may not be aware of is the US "Byrd Amendment" unless repealed will have the substantial amount of all duty collected (which is currently in excess of $4 Billion - yes "Billion") distributed to the US mills that make up most of the "Fair Lumber Coalition" group. Boy are you guys getting stuffed!! Any of you reading this who are not a supporter should get behind your National Homebuilders Assoc as they have been trying to fight this from day one. Good luck!
You would think that with that kind of money the US ijdustry representation would simply seek to acquire, in ownership, the foreign competition. Of course, most new home construction in the USA is undoubtedly developments and not custom, so the builder simply passes the material costs onto the consumers. BTW, since when has a track builder ever cared about their consumers? LOL
Having lived in Fla & ontario i did not understand why the builders in Fla were advertising that they were using Canadian lumber in their homes and charging 5000 extra for the homes till i bought some from Georgia to use in my Fla home
the darn stuff was brittle and even gave off sparks when cutting it here it would be considered junk
Turs out a lot of the industry opposing the imports from canada of softwood lumber are from Georgia (suprise suprise)
still 30% of the soft wood imports are froom Canada still even with the duty
also 33% of your energy supplies are also from Canada (we have the second largest proven oil reserves in the world only beaten by Saudi Arabia thats why we are good neighbours to have next door
Lots of the Canadian lumber companies are in fact owned by foreign companies, including American.So not only do they benefit from being able to pressure the government's here for more 'economic help' and tax cuts, (or they'll have to close down) they get to pressure the unions for rollbacks (or they'll have to close down). They also have the benefit of raising their prices on the lumber cut in the State's to match the now higher imported prices, and they'll get cash back from the government from the illegally collected tariffs and taxes. The at least $1000 per home in additional material costs, do get passed on to the homebuyer, with a suitable markup by the builder. The more expensive home needs a bigger mortgage, so the banks make more money. So it's a win-win situation for everyone down the line except for your homebuyers, and the forest workers etc. here in Canada.
I wonder what the SIP panel retail costs are between Canada and the USA. Maybe when I go to build my next home I should simply trek over the border.
The taxes are all over the place as far as how much on what... what it's called has a great deal to do with it... I remember a post where the wood/studs from the north came with holes predrilled for wires... once a manufacturing process has occured (holes drilled) it's no longer "raw wood" it's a manufactured artical... having imported many things from all over the world... what you call it and how much has been done to it alters the duty on it... ie: screen wire vs wire cloth same thing but.... nails vs metal fastening pins, the same people who B&^ch about prices are the same ones who complain about loss of american jobs... it's all balance... I for one have no problem using oil from abroad... it provides the only income many of these countries have... ones we'd be sending aid to anyway... and preserves resources we may really need in the future... if we cut our(USA) "need" for imported oil to zero the world economy would fall... china would then have 25cent gas ..talk about pollution...
just try'n to point out it's all a balance in the end does it really matter that you pay 2.50 for a stud vs 1.90 it sure hasn't slowed building around here...
p
I believe that NAFTA takes into consideration that a product made in Canada and brought into the USA is exempt on importation taxation/tariff. Coupling this with Canada's position I cannot see why any builder would not be buying in large quantities, unless there is a clause/loophole of protection that makes it illegal.
Just another means of the man keeping consumers down. Haha
unless there is a clause/loophole of protection that makes it illegal
From what I gather, there is US legislation that the WTO/NAFTA or similar has ruled on against the US. The US is in contravention of NAFTA or similar; $4-5 billion has been collected at the border from Canadian imports. It is a serious sore point with many of us here. Until that is cleared up, I don't buy US and would like to see us save a bit more of our fuels for ourselves. We send a huge amount of NG south.
The whole thing is very complicated....first off, it's not the whole American industry at all that want's the tarriffs, it's only the membership of the Coalition for Fair Imports, who represent smallish, old-fashioned and unproductive mills in the south and parts of the midwest that can't really compete in modern sawmilling. They could, if they invested in equipment and people like everyone else, but they find it easier to fight for tarriffs. They have had several windows (Softwood Wars 1-4 or whatever we are on), where 'negotiated settlement' was in place to limit Canadian exports....in part so these companies could modernise and compete...but they haven't, and won't it seems.
The majority of the American industry....which is really in many cases big companies with both Canadian and American ownership....is against the tarriffs. Like the NAHB and every group that represents remanufacturers in the US. It's just the Coalition.
In the meantime, a few things have happened. A lot of our marketshare has been taken by Eastern European lumber....remains to be seen if that is temporary, but there is no doubt that that lumber is massively subsidized at every level....and the fight is supposed to be about subsisidies (but, no discussio of the subsidies to Southern woodlot owners allowed, of course). And Canadian mills have closed old operations and really worked on the modern ones....they are now arguably the best in the world, and they are profitable even in the face of the tarriffs. Which means they have come a long way.....when this round started, the numbers I recall were about $20 profit on 1000 board feet of Canadian lumber, and the tarriffs were around $200 or $220, something like that. The tarrifs have been recalculated down in most cases, but it still took a lot of work to be profitable and deal with them. I saw a notice a couple of weeks ago that the tarriffs have been essentially thrown out....recalculated to 1.1% or something, but haven't had time to look into that, I'm not even sure it's true.
As for the Byrd amendment.....where tarriffs collected are distributed among the companies that filed the complaint, not the entire industry......that has been repealed as part of a larger package at the House of Representatives....still has to pass the Senate, and it might not because Byrd is still IN the Senate. But it has been found illegal by the WTO. We would like our $5 billion back please.
It's a big and complicated subject; in fact I read a letter recently by a lumberman in this region that basically supports the American position, and that means I have to rethink some stuff and look into it more.
Bottom line though, is the American homebuyer is paying the price for a small number of American operations that do not want to work to be competitive.Cabinetmaker/college woodworking instructor. Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
Adrian as i recall maitime and Quebec lumber was exempt from the tarrifs it only seems they apply to the rest of canada
funny the americans lost 6 times at Nafta on this item so they went to Wto to try to get a win and still couldent get a clean win
It seems sometimes the US only wants free trade if they can define the terms and screw everybody else
In the beef issue we built new slaughter houses & processers so after the glut of older beef is over the jobs will not return to the US that the had before ,talk about shooting yourself in the foot
Dudue, you're right in previous softwood deals the Maritimes or parts of it were exempted because a lot of our wood supply comes from private land, not crown land....but not this time. They were included, as well as Quebec. A lot of unhappiness here because a) we're included in the tarriffs, which were prompted by the supposedly too low stumpage some governments charge and b) we don't even GET the low stumpage, because we're buying off private land. Double whammy.
Now, there are a lot of other factors besides stumpage rates to consider.....which NAFTA has done, and come down on the Canadian side.
I hear you on the beef issue.Cabinetmaker/college woodworking instructor. Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
Pre-drilling those holes turned it into a 'value-added' product, exempt from the tarriffs. but that loophole was closed up.
There are a number of other remanufacturers that got lumped in with the softwood unfairly (softwood is a primary product, the remanufacturers are doing value-added prcesses , that's secondary processing, and shouldn't have been included).
Speaking of value-added though, there are ripple effects....for example the U.S truss manufacturers use a lot of Canadian lumber. their official position was, last time I looked, that they were completely against any tarriffs on Canadian lumber....but....if there were going to be tarriffs, that they would have to pay (and Canadian truss companies didn't), then that wasn't fair, and they would be looking for tarriffs on Canadian trusses. I can't really argue that....except that the softwood tarrifs aren't fair in the first place, and everyone else gets to pay the price.Cabinetmaker/college woodworking instructor. Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.