Raw log exports are a complicated issue. Roughly half of the people and half of the capital involved in the forest industry are in the harvesting sector — those who go into the forest and cut down the trees and transport them to market. The other half is in the manufacturing sector — they take the raw logs and make products like lumber from them.
The harvesting sector wants to see high log prices, and wants to see many prospective purchasers vying for their logs. The manufacturing sector wants low log prices, and would prefer that there be no offshore bidders for those logs.
On top of all this, one sees the U.S. lumber industry complaining that Canada unfairly depresses log prices by restricting the number of purchasers. The Americans claim this is a subsidy, and seek to impose tariffs. Canada responds by opening up the market and allowing raw log exports. If raw log exports were banned, would all of that volume go instead to Canadian lumber manufacturers? Absolutely not. A substantial portion of that would simply be left in the forest and not be harvested. This would be at the cost of revenue and jobs in the harvesting sector, and at a cost of revenue and jobs in the industries that support the harvesting sector, and at a cost to the citizens of B.C. in the form of lost stumpage revenue.
The question of raw log exports raises all kinds of issues. Even if the matter is considered only with regard to whether jobs are being gained or lost, one must ask about the net result; is there a gain in the harvesting sector that offsets a loss in the manufacturing sector?