|
As Christmas approaches this year, the attention of
many people is turning toward the purchase of their
family Christmas tree. My attention, however, has
been focused on different kind of trees and problems
that we have been having with Canadian softwood
lumber imports. The facts speak for themselves: the
Canadian government has been protecting their
softwood lumber industry through ongoing price
supports and subsidies to the detriment of our own
industry.
The history of softwood lumber disputes between
Canada and the United States is a long one. The
first skirmishes date back to disagreements between
New Brunswick and Maine in the 1820s. The issue of
lumber also figured prominently when the U.S. House
of Representatives considered a reciprocity treaty
with Canada in 1853, as well as in later
disagreements throughout the late 1800s and 1900s.
In the United States, the majority of the softwood
lumber is harvested from privately owned land. This
is not the case in Canada, where most of the lumber
harvested comes from land owned by the federal or a
provincial government. The difference between the
ways Canadian and American governments set the price
they charge corporations to harvest this land is
quite different and is the basis for the softwood
lumber disputes of today.
Let’s look at what’s happening now. The U.S.
government has levied countervailing duties against
Canadian softwood lumber imports as a means of
leveling the playing field for US lumber to
counteract Canadian price supports and subsidies
that have kept their prices artificially low.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Commerce
recently agreed to significantly reduce those duties
on Canadian softwood lumber imports to put us in
compliance with an order handed down by a North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Panel in
October.
This decision makes little sense as the U.S.
Department of Commerce has found that the Canadian
government subsidizes its lumber industry through
below-market sales and dumps it in the U.S. at
unfairly low prices. Such findings have been upheld
by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the
International Trade Commission (ITC) that have
asserted that these unfair Canadian imports threaten
our own timber industry.
I believe that the next step is for the U.S.
government to invoke an extraordinary challenge
within NAFTA to overturn this decision and bring the
Canadian government back to the table to negotiate a
final settlement. Any attempts by the Canadian
government to further prop up their lumber industry
threatens to impair our ability to come to a
long-term viable solution to this issue.
I am also frustrated with the Canadian government
for granting $1.2 billion in further subsidies for
their lumber industries affected by U.S.
countervailing duties. The announcement of
additional subsidies by the Canadian government
unnecessarily escalates this dispute when they
should be coming to the table to negotiate a final
settlement.
Our nation’s softwood lumber industry and workers
continue to suffer greatly from Canadian subsidies.
In the United States, we have an open and
competitive timber market and now is the time for
the Canadians to have one as well. The future of
Maine’s softwood lumber industry depends on
remedying unfair Canadian subsidies, and I pledge to
continue the fight for fair timber prices.
|
