Brian Menzies: Through duties, tariffs and border enforcement, U.S. Lumber Coalition wants foreign supply curtailed so American producers can capture more of the market at favourable prices
Article content
The U.S. Lumber Coalition repeatedly accuses Canada of subsidizing softwood-lumber production, preserving excess capacity and distorting trade.
Article content
That argument deserves scrutiny — but it must be applied consistently.
Article content
Article content
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.
Article content
Story continues below
Article content
The question is not whether governments support important industries. Both countries do. The questions are which measures are acceptable, who benefits, and who pays.
Article content
Sunrise
Article content
Supply management by another name?
Article content
The coalition is not formally proposing Canadian-style supply management. There would be no lumber-production quotas or government agency setting a national target. Nevertheless, its preferred outcome bears an uncomfortable resemblance to it.
Article content
The coalition wants Canada to reduce production, limit lumber entering the United States and accept a smaller American market share. Through duties, tariffs and border enforcement, it wants foreign supply curtailed so American producers can capture more of the market at favourable prices.
Article content
In an April 29 statement, the coalition argued that Canada should reduce its production capacity rather than expect continued U.S. market access. That is not an open continental market. It is a demand to manage the Canadian lumber available to American buyers.
Article content
If Canada proposed limiting American dairy production because Canadian farmers considered it excessive, Washington would immediately reject the argument.
Article content
Story continues below
Article content
The dairy contradiction
Article content
The contradiction is striking because the Trump administration has repeatedly opposed Canada’s dairy supply-management system.
Article content
Canadian dairy policy combines production controls, administered pricing and import restrictions. It aligns supply with demand, supports farmers’ costs and reduces pressure for recurring bailouts.
Article content
Supply management can raise prices, make market entry expensive, shelter established producers, discourage innovation and contribute to consolidation. But similar risks arise when lumber policy relies on tariffs, restricted imports and protection for incumbent producers.
Article content
The United States cannot credibly condemn Canada for protecting dairy farmers while celebrating restrictions that protect American lumber producers. Calling one “supply management” and the other “trade-law enforcement” does not erase the similarity.
Article content
Both intervene in supply, protect producers from lower-priced imports and transfer income from consumers and downstream businesses to owners of protected assets.
Article content
Who benefits from expensive wood?
Article content
The Coalition understandably wants profitable mills and healthy timber values. But its members’ interests are not identical to those of the entire American economy.
