[Alberta's Child]

Historically, there really hasn't been all that much of a difference between the U.S. and Canada when it came to lumber production. What has changed in the last ten years or so is that the U.S. government has restricted logging on much public land that used to be harvested regularly.

There's a very simple reason why Canadian lumber is so much cheaper, and it really has nothing to do with the so-called "government subsidy" in Canada. The reality is that Canadian lumber is so much cheaper because there's a lot more trees up there.

In addition, the element of U.S. demand for Canadian energy sources comes into play as well. Canadian mills along the eastern slopes of the Rockies in Alberta have a cheap source of lumber at their disposal -- the trees that are cut for oil and gas exploration and production. The energy companies cut these trees to clear land for seismic cuts and oil and gas rigs, and sell them at major discounts just to generate some extra revenue from something that would otherwise go to waste.

[Somewhat Centrist]

Yep, that's how I see it too. There is surpluss capacity in the US lumber production, which leads to companies bidding over each other for the right to cut the trees of private owners. The companies have to either buy the right to cut at a price which leaves them running a deficit, or go out of business. When cutting capacity in the US lumber industry has been reduced to match forest supply again, demand for cutting rights will drop, and loggers wil turn a profit.

Tariffs on foreign producers has no effect on this, as the resulting increase in profits for US logging companies is passed on to forest owners in higher stumpage fees.