B.C.'s independent wood manufacturers decry retroactive U.S. softwood duties
The province's Independent Wood Processors Association says in a release that the U.S. Commerce Department's decision this week to raise duties also includes a requirement for Canadian companies to retroactively remit duties for products shipped to the United States since Jan.1, 2023.
Association chair Andy Rielly says in a statement that the requirement to pay duties on products shipped in the last 31 months could not only force small B.C. producers to shut down, but may also threaten operators' personal assets as they may have to risk using their homes as collateral to secure bonds to pay.
Rielly is urging the Canadian government to create support programs to make sure B.C.'s independent wood processors can keep workers employed and their companies running.
The U.S. Commerce Department said earlier in the week it will raise anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood to 20.56 per cent, drawing the ire of several B.C. industry groups such as the B.C. Council of Forest Industries and the B.C. Lumber Trade Council.
The Independent Wood Processors Association says the the 'all-others' rate affecting its members will be raised from 14.4 per cent to 27.3 per cent, with the possibly of another increase 'in the coming weeks' potentially pushing the duties for their products to as high as 35 per cent.
'Until the Canadian government can negotiate a settlement to this long-festering dispute, we need a government support program to keep our workers employed,' Rielly says, adding an overall duty of 35-per-cent would force members to pay retroactive duties of 27 per cent on products already shipped.
Monday Mornings
The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week.
Association executive director Brian Menzies describes independent wood product producers as 'collateral damage' in the trade war, and says the only hope they have of avoiding the hit is either 'a favourable appeal from the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement' or 'pursuing a bilateral negotiated resolution.'
'We should not face export taxes or quotas,' Menzies says. 'Our raw materials are not subsidized, and we are too small to 'dump' our products in the U.S. market.
'We acquire logs and lumber at 'arm's length' from various suppliers on the open market, just like claims made by members of the U.S. Lumber Coalition, and yet our Canadian companies along with U.S. consumers must pay these unfair and costly duties.'
Prime Minister Mark Carney had previously said that a future U.S.-Canada trade deal could include softwood lumber quotas.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 26, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Ottawa's plan to boost deposit insurance is too timid and mired in concerns of ages past
John Turley-Ewart is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail, a regulatory compliance consultant and a Canadian banking historian. Between 1982 and 1985, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation paid out $3.177-billion in claims to cover depositor losses. Ten poorly managed and badly regulated trust companies were the cause. By 1993, CDIC had recovered more than two-thirds of those funds when the liquidators were finished. The final cost to CDIC was $827-million. This loss put a dent in the Department of Finance's perception of deposit insurance. It was supposed to boost competition by levelling the playing field for smaller banks and financial institutions. Instead, some smaller institutions leveraged deposit insurance to attract deposits from unwitting customers that they then used to fund high-risk ventures. This boosted instability, not just competition. But those days are long gone, and financial regulation is different today. Ottawa needs to let the past go. Investor Clinic: Understanding deposit insurance rules could help simplify your holdings The quickest way to boost competition in Canada's banking system is now on the table: Increasing the dollar value of deposits guaranteed by the CDIC in cases of failure is under consideration in Ottawa. The more coverage CDIC offers, the easier it is to move beyond the Big Six banks for deposit accounts, chequing accounts, investment deposits – such as guaranteed investment certificates – and other CDIC-covered deposit categories and products. This in turn incentivizes Canada's Big Six to offer more competitive interest rates, reduce fees and improve service standards. Yet, the federal government is squandering an easy opportunity to boost competition with a timid proposal to insure consumer deposits up to $150,000 (versus the current amount, $100,000) for each eligible deposit product at member institutions, which include chartered banks, federally regulated credit unions, and loan and trust companies. Curiously, the Department of Finance is proposing that CDIC increase coverage for business deposit accounts to $500,000. Businesses will welcome this, but it creates a politically flawed, two-tier deposit insurance system. Such an approach puts any future federal government dealing with a bank failure in the invidious position of having CDIC business payouts exceed by more than three times consumer payouts. The likely outcome would see Ottawa cough up taxpayer money to make whole consumer deposits exceeding the $150,000 ceiling, defeating the purpose of CDIC. Rob Carrick: A $250,000 deposit insurance limit for banks would suit today's world a lot better than the current $100,000 The last time Ottawa increased CDIC coverage on Canadian-dollar deposit accounts was 20 years ago. Now the federal government is playing catch-up with the annual rate of inflation (2.18 per cent) since CDIC coverage was last raised to $100,000 in 2005. In real value of money terms, CDIC coverage dropped by almost 54 per cent over the past two decades. With the expansion of savings products covered by CDIC in recent years, such as the First Home Savings Account, one might assume the effective CDIC coverage has widened. And yet, the Department of Finance's own study found that CDIC-eligible deposits fell to 36 per cent in 2024 from 58 per cent in 2005. This advantages the Big Six banks at the expense of smaller financial players. Canadians are more likely to trust uninsured personal and business deposits to larger, older institutions. Following the failure of two finance companies in 1965 and 1966 that generated heavy losses, and a run on the Montreal City and District Savings Bank (known today as Laurentian Bank) in 1967, the federal government founded CDIC to restore confidence in the financial system while 'enhancing the competitive position of … smaller banks.' Deposit insurance was the antidote to the understandable bias toward larger banks. CDIC's initial deposit insurance coverage in 1967 was $20,000, the equivalent of $181,000 in today's dollars – 20 per cent higher than what Ottawa is now proposing. Competition would be enhanced by ensuring 'the safety and soundness of those depositors who are usually not in a position to judge for themselves the financial soundness of the institution holding their deposits.' It is an approach with advocates in other parts of Canada as well as the United States. Provinces regulate their financial deposit-taking institutions and have provincial versions of CDIC. In Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, deposit insurance is unlimited. In Prince Edward Island, it is unlimited for deposits in registered and tax-free accounts. Ontario offers a mix of unlimited coverage and $250,000 in deposit insurance depending on the deposit product. In New Brunswick, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador, provincially regulated deposit-taking institutions offer $250,000 per nine common deposit product categories. In the U.S., the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation offers US$250,000 (roughly $340,000) in deposit insurance for each of 14 deposit product categories. Revised CDIC coverage aligned with provincial and U.S. norms will better encourage competition in our banking system. It could be problematic, though, if the Department of Finance has real concerns about the state of some of our smaller financial institutions. Proposing such a modest increase to $150,000 raises the question: Does it?
Calgary Herald
an hour ago
- Calgary Herald
US, China negotiators meet in Stockholm to extend trade truce
Article content While China has denied its responsibility for the flow of the deadly drug, last month it tightened controls over two chemicals that can be used to make the opioid. Earlier this month, Trump praised those moves. 'China has been helping out,' he told reporters. 'We're talking to them and they're making big steps.' Article content For the US, the recent Chinese actions aren't enough, as such moves were required to comply with United Nations measures, according to a person familiar with the trade talks. Chances of reducing the 20% tariff in this round of talks are very slim, added the person who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, while noting everything could change on Trump's whim. Article content China would be willing to cooperate more on fentanyl, said Sun Chenghao, a professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. But the US would have to remove the related tariffs, stop blaming Beijing for what it sees as a US domestic problem and provide concrete evidence of crimes, he said. Article content Article content The US business community remains hopeful for progress, with Sean Stein, president of the US-China Business Council, telling Bloomberg TV that movement on fentanyl presents the 'biggest opportunity' in talks. Article content 'That then lowers tariffs on the US side, which then opens the door for China to lower tariffs that lets us sell agriculture, lets us sell airplanes, lets us sell automobiles, that let's us sell energy,' he said. Article content Oil Purchases Article content In his comments announcing the talks, Bessent indicated negotiations can now take on a broader array of topics, potentially including Beijing's continued purchases of sanctioned oil from Russia and Iran. Article content Chinese state media has already pushed back against that idea. 'China won't play along' with such attempts to use China to kill Russia's economy, Lv Xiang, a US expert with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences last week told the state-run tabloid Global Times. Article content Article content By contrast, China's imports of three major energy products from the US hit almost zero in June, marking the first time in almost three years the Asian nation didn't import any crude oil from its top rival. Deliveries of American crude oil, liquefied natural gas and coal have been subject to Chinese tariffs of 10% to 15% since February. Article content Xi's government has begun rolling back some of its other retaliatory measures since the two sides met last month in London. Crucially, Beijing has boosted shipments of rare earth magnets, while the US relaxed restrictions on sales of less-advanced semiconductors to China. Article content In another potential goodwill gesture, as the Sweden talks were announced this month, China revealed it had suspended an antitrust investigation into the local unit of US chemical manufacturer DuPont de Nemours Inc.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Worried about financial scams and bad advice? Stick to the investing basics
The investment industry is complex, confusing and intimidating for many people, and it's made worse by fraud, bad advice and high-risk investments. This combination of factors can be such a turnoff that some people avoid investing altogether. And that's a problem because it means they miss out on the opportunity to build their savings, which is a crucial part of having enough money for life's big expenses like postsecondary education and retirement. While it would be great if fraudsters disappeared, this isn't going to happen. The scams become more believable all the time and have increased their reach thanks to social media. A recent example is the David Rosenberg scam, where his image was used to convince investors to buy high-risk stocks. There are things that social-media platforms and regulators can do to curb the targeting of investors, but scammers will always find a way around roadblocks, so individuals need to figure out how to avoid falling victim. David Rosenberg says investment scam using his name bilked victims out of hundreds of thousands of dollars Unfortunately, many people feel ill-equipped to do so, with only 51 per cent of Canadians saying they have an understanding of investing. However, there are a few simple principles that everyone can follow. The surest way to avoid fraudulent and high-risk investments is to stick with the basics. While some people enjoy wading into the world of individual stocks, cryptocurrencies, and hedge funds, all anyone needs are guaranteed investment certificates (GICs), mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). GICs are wonderfully simple and easy-to-understand products issued by financial institutions, making them safe and reliable. Mutual funds and ETFs are subject to regulation that requires the disclosure of standardized information in an easy-to-access format. This transparency keeps the financial companies accountable and gives investors the information they need to make good decisions. Once you start looking at unregulated investments (like private mortgages) or less regulated products (like hedge funds), you open yourself up to the risk of fraud, mismanagement and ultimately, losing money. Knowing what a reasonable rate of return is will also protect you from being lured into high-risk investments. A realistic rate of return on a portfolio of global stocks – which can be in the form of equity mutual funds or ETFs – is about 8 per cent per year on average. This is based on the historic returns of the U.S., Canadian and international stock markets. An investment that is touted as generating a significantly higher return than that should be questioned. You were targeted in a scam. Is your bank liable for the losses? The basic investment principle of risk and return says that you need to take on more risk to generate a higher return. While this principle works very well when it comes to GICs (low risk/low return) versus stocks (higher risk/higher return), unproven investments without a long track record cannot show this to be true. If an investment promises a high return, you have to question what kind of risk is being taken to generate that return – and that's not a risk that most people can afford to take. A good investment shouldn't need to be sold to you. There's a difference between getting advice on an investment and being sold an investment. Getting advice means someone is explaining what the product is, how much risk there is involved, how it has performed in the past, why it fits in with your investment plan, and how much it costs. Being sold an investment requires a marketing strategy: a way to grab your attention, hook you in, and ultimately convince you that you should buy it. Some signs to look out for that you are being sold an investment are eye-catching phrases like 'investment opportunity,' a sense of exclusivity or being let in on a secret, a promise of high returns, and a pushy or persistent salesperson – which can be anyone from an investment adviser to someone you met at the dog park. Investing is simple and there are no shortcuts to earning high returns. If you remember this, you should be able to spot a scammer from a mile away. Anita Bruinsma is a Toronto-based financial coach and a parent of two teenage boys. You can find her at Clarity Personal Finance.
