EDITORIAL – Canada needs to grow a pair on softwood lumber agreement

An ArmchairMayor editorial by Mel Rothenburger.

IT DOESN’T take a genius to figure out that Canada should avoid a trade war with the U.S. over software lumber but that the deal has to be right for us.

Cathy McLeod and the Conservatives have been nipping at the Trudeau Liberals this week about the expiration of the Softwood Lumber Agreement last Wednesday, proposing a motion that the government “stop delaying and take all necessary steps to prevent a trade war that will threaten the livelihood of Canadian workers and communities.”

The motion, made by Saskatchewan MP Gerry Ritz and seconded by McLeod, wanted it all. McLeod said expiration of the agreement, and a threat from the U.S. Lumber Coalition that it might launch trade action against Canadian lumber, puts 400,000 jobs at risk.

But, of course, it must be a “good deal,” one that does not “give away the farm.” The Tories left the definition of a “good deal” up to the imagination. As David Lametti, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, said in the House on Tuesday, in asking Ritz to clarify: “Do we capitulate and just give the Americans what they want in order to get an agreement? Do we hold out and not have an agreement? I’m not sure what the member would like us to do.”

As for the expiration of the current agreement, where were the Conservatives when they were still in government and the deadline was looming? Why weren’t they busily engaging with the Americans in advance of the expiration?

Softwood lumber agreements have a habit of causing conflict between the two countries instead of avoiding it. With the kind of anti-trade protectionist blather coming out of the U.S. presidential election campaign, it’s more important than ever that Canada not panic — as the Conservatives seem to want to do — and instead stand up and be counted.

In short, Canada needs to grow a pair, if you’ll excuse the male-gender reference.

A new lumber agreement could be reached today if Canada simply agreed to what the U.S. wants, but that isn’t in the best interests of the country and those 650 communities that depend so heavily on the lumber industry.

Got an opinion? Leave a comment or send us a letter.