Ian Dunn

Increasingly, world powers are placing more barriers to trade in the name of protecting domestic industry and jobs. The current iteration of the softwood-lumber trade dispute – likely the largest global dispute since the end of the Second World War, with origins stretching back to the Jay Treaty of 1794. Canadian lumber producers have paid more than $9-billion in duties since the last agreement ended in 2017. This pot of money sits in the U.S. and grows daily with every shipment of Canadian lumber. This is a considerable amount of capital that could be reinvested into modernizing mills and supporting local economies.

Duties placed on Canadian lumber by the U.S. Department of Commerce in the name of protecting American jobs are a false flag. Commerce will use any means to limit our competitive advantage, regardless of whether it hurts U.S. consumers, ignores legal commitments under CUSMA or brushes off international rulings in favour of Canada. This strategy can have the opposite impact of what protectionism is trying to achieve, resulting in the weakening of cross-border supply chains and exposure to security and trade risks from our common geopolitical rivals. The U.S. electorate should care about higher prices because of politically motivated trade barriers, and American businesses could see a continued fracturing of supply chains.

By focusing on collaboration rather than confrontation, Canada and the U.S. can create a more resilient North American lumber market that upholds environmental standards and supports local economies. As we approach the next U.S. election, policy makers and industry leaders must recognize the unintended consequences of their decisions and should foster an environment where co-operation, not protectionism, prevails for the benefit of both countries. [to access the full story, a Globe & Mail subscription is required]