Skip to main content

Canada has done the obvious thing by taking the softwood lumber fight to a NAFTA dispute settlement panel.

And why not? The Canadian government has gone this route twice before – in 1992 and 2001 – and won both times. Given that track record, last week's filing under Chapter 19 of the North American free-trade agreement is a no-brainer.

There is another, less obvious reason this is an astute move by the Trudeau government. Canada could have held off on a challenge as a sign of goodwill to the Trump administration. Instead, it has given itself a valuable bargaining chip in the ongoing renegotiation of NAFTA.

Story continues below advertisement

U.S. negotiators want Chapter 19 scrapped, arguing that it usurps the sovereignty of U.S. courts. Canada sees dispute settlement as an insurance policy against a U.S. anti-dumping and subsidy regime that is tilted in favour of the home team.

The softwood lumber case gives Ottawa some leverage – particularly because the odds are good that Canada would win. Assuming the United States does not abandon NAFTA, Canadian negotiators should take the position that if the United States want to talk about Chapter 19, it will first have to settle the softwood lumber dispute, permanently.

The United States cannot easily make this case disappear by walking away from NAFTA. Canada could pursue it through the World Trade Organization and the U.S. courts.

On the other hand, a U.S. pullout from NAFTA would almost certainly end Canada's Chapter 19 challenge, Toronto trade lawyer Lawrence Herman said.

"The U.S. will simply end whatever panel proceedings are under way. Period," he said. "In practical terms, it's game over."

That is unfortunate, because the U.S. case against Canada on softwood lumber is not strong. The United States initially sought a duty of nearly 27 per cent, but that has already been scaled back to 21 per cent. A NAFTA panel could reduce those duties further, perhaps to near zero.

The United States should want to put the lumber dispute to rest, for many reasons.

Story continues below advertisement

The Americans have long argued that the provinces, which control access to most of Canada's forests, unfairly subsidize lumber mills by charging too little to log on Crown land. This argument has never stood up to legal challenges. And Canada's forestry practices are far more market-oriented now than they were during the last go-around, in the early 2000s.

More importantly, the North American lumber market is already showing the consequences of protectionism.

Prices are up sharply since the United States launched its latest complaint against Canadian lumber imports. In the past 12 months, the price of lumber rose about 27 per cent to $436 (U.S.) per thousand board-feet, according to the Random Lengths composite index.

The purpose of the duties is to punish Canadian producers and level the playing field. But that is not what is happening.

For the most part, the duties are just being added to the final price. The result is that U.S. consumers – homeowners, builders and contractors – not Canadians, are paying the price.

Any good economist could have predicted this. Take a market with growing demand and tight supplies, and then throw in a severe price shock in the form of duties.

Story continues below advertisement

Americans use more lumber than they can produce domestically, much of it for home construction. Canada has traditionally filled the gap, supplying about 30 per cent of the U.S. market. Last year, the United States imported $7.5-billion (Canadian) worth of lumber from Canada.

The pace of U.S. housing starts has more than doubled, to about 1.3-million a year, since the depths of the recession in 2009. Rebuilding after Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma has spurred additional demand.

Meanwhile, the supply of lumber is tight because of this year's forest fires and the continuing effect of a pine beetle infestation in Western Canada.

In short, there is plenty of evidence that the tariffs are inflicting a toll on the U.S. economy.

As long as NAFTA lives, Canada should use the tools at its disposal to get what it wants.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter