Lumber a critical election issue
What happened: A long-simmering softwood lumber trade dispute between Canada and the U.S. exploded this week, as Washington announced duties of roughly 20 per cent on lumber imported from Canada.
The most recent softwood lumber agreement expired in 2015, and last November the U.S. industry officially repeated its demand for duties.
Party leaders reacted swiftly to the bad news, which could hit B.C. hard — about 40 per cent of rural communities depend on forestry.
The industry provides more than 60,000 direct jobs, and last year’s value of lumber exports from B.C. to the U.S. was $4.6 billion.
QUOTES:
Liberal leader Christy Clark: “We will continue to press our case and implement our action plan on softwood. We will ... fight the unfounded claims of the U.S. lumber production lobby and the unwarranted and unfair duties placed on Canadian lumber products.” NDP leader John Horgan: “Christy Clark failed to make getting a deal a priority, and failed to lead British Columbia to a fair resolution on softwood lumber ... If I am elected premier, I will travel to Washington, D.C., within 30 days to make sure B.C. is properly represented in the softwood lumber dispute.” Green leader Andrew Weaver: “The provincial government should have ensured that B.C.’s interests were front and centre on softwood lumber. Sadly, we see today that they have failed. We needed leadership from Christy Clark before the tariffs were imposed, not afterwards.”
FACT CHECK:
The Sun spoke to veteran University of Victoria political scientist Norman Ruff for his take on how the leaders portrayed the handling of this important file.
He disagrees with Horgan and Weaver that Clark didn’t put priority on softwood, noting the appointment in February of David Emerson — a former federal international trade minister and former CEO of lumber giant Canfor — as B.C.’s trade envoy to Washington.
“He is eminently qualified to represent B.C.’s interests,” Ruff said.
Clark leaves herself open to criticism, though, for not making this appointment sooner, since industry experts knew this showdown was coming with the 2015 expiration of the agreement. The Liberals were “not completely asleep at the switch, but this spring is the first clear indication that they gave (this file) priority,” Ruff said.
Horgan’s suggestion that a deal wasn’t reached because Clark hadn’t visited Washington, unlike the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan, isn’t likely true, Ruff said. It can be symbolically important when a premier makes such a trip — sending a strong message that she cares about an issue — but the real work is typically done by people like Emerson meeting repeatedly with U.S. decision makers.
“The issues run much more deep than can be resolved in a few hours’ trip across the continent,” he said.
Clark said Tuesday she has visited Washington, but the NDP countered by noting the government’s timeline on softwood lumber activity mentions only Emerson going to Washington to discuss this file.
Both Clark and Horgan say, if elected premier, their respective governments would fight these duties and fight for a lasting deal on softwood lumber. Is that a fair statement, given softwood lumber is really a federal file?
Yes, says Ruff, because B.C. represents more than half of Canada’s lumber trade to the U.S., so this province has a significant voice.
Both Horgan and Weaver say the Liberals failed over 16 years to get an agreement, but Clark has insisted the Obama administration put up roadblocks and she hopes the Trump government will be more open to discussing a deal.
Clark says the Liberals diversified the lumber trade over 16 years, expanding trade to other countries and relying less on the U.S.
Ruff said diversification is important, but more than 60 per cent of softwood lumber exports are still to the U.S. A 20 per cent tariff will therefore be “devastating for the forestry industries.”
Ruff said this is the first major development in a previously sleepy provincial election campaign, and therefore not surprising that it has ratcheted up the political spin.
“Things have been very quiet, but this might be a turning point. ... The public’s perception of the leaders’ response in how they handle this could be really critical.”