The U.S. Lumber Coalition repeatedly accuses Canada of subsidizing softwood-lumber production, preserving excess capacity and distorting trade. That argument deserves scrutiny — but it must be applied consistently. The U.S. is hardly subsidy-free. Federal and state governments support forestry and wood manufacturing through grants, tax provisions and public programs. U.S. dairy producers also receive extensive government support. The question is not whether governments support important industries. Both countries do. The questions are which measures are acceptable, who benefits, and who pays. The coalition is not formally proposing Canadian-style supply management. …The coalition wants Canada to reduce production, limit lumber entering the United States and accept a smaller American market share. …Free trade cannot mean open markets for American exports and managed scarcity for American imports. A principle applied in only one direction is not a principle. It is protectionism — a policy that shelters inefficient U.S. companies from healthy competition while steadily eroding affordability, suppressing innovation, restricting opportunity and, ultimately, destroying jobs. [A subscription to the Vancouver Sun may be required for full access]