B.C. and Ottawa applaud NAFTA decision on U.S. softwood lumber duties

Officials in Ottawa and B.C. have welcomed a ruling under the North American Free Trade Agreement that found elements of the United States’ calculation of softwood lumber duties are inconsistent with its own law.

A statement from Mary Ng, Canada’s minister of international trade, says the government is pleased that the NAFTA dispute panel agreed with its challenge of America’s so-called “dumping determination.”

Under the U.S. Tariff Act, the Department of Commerce determines whether goods are being sold at less than fair value or if they’re benefiting from subsidies provided by other governments.

Related articles:

• Canfor to build new manufacturing facility after closure of Houston, B.C., sawmill

• Canada formally initiates challenge of ‘unfair’ U.S. duties on softwood lumber

• Ottawa to challenge lower but ‘baseless’ U.S. duties on softwood lumber, says Ng

Ng’s statement says the duties on Canadian softwood lumber are “unwarranted” and “the only fair outcome” is for the U.S. government to revoke them right away.

The statement says the NAFTA panel directed the U.S. Department of Commerce to review key aspects of its dumping determination.

B.C. Forests Minister Bruce Ralston issued a statement saying it’s “encouraging” to see the panel agree with the “extensive evidence” supporting Canada’s claims.

“Today, a NAFTA panel determined that the U.S. Department of Commerce erred in how it calculated important aspects of the anti-dumping duties applied to Canadian softwood lumber exports,” he says in the statement released Thursday.

“Time and again, neutral third-party reviews of the softwood lumber dispute have confirmed these duties are unjustified,” Ralston says.

The minister says U.S. duties are hurting people on both sides of the border, increasing material costs for Americans, and creating uncertainty for forestry professionals and communities in Canada.

Ng says Canada will “continue to advocate for Canadian softwood lumber workers and industry as we pursue other legal challenges of unjustifiable U.S. duties.”