
Trump could crush Canada's softwood exports. Here's how a new crisis could play out
Article content
Canadian foresters, mills, and governments that enjoy taxes, economic spinoffs and stumpage fees from Crown land will feel the pain if they lose too much access to the massive U.S. market. But larger producers have been preparing for just this kind of contingency and have cleverly hedged their bets, building capacity in the U.S., where they can sell as much as they want to Americans, tariff-free.
Article content
Article content
Canadian firms will soon receive word from the U.S. Commerce Department's Sixth Administrative Review (AR6) of U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood lumber exports, with the rate expected to jump from around 14 per cent to roughly 34 per cent. For Canfor, the Vancouver-based lumber giant selected as a mandatory respondent in the AR6 review, it will be even worse. Its duties are calculated based on its own shipments and prices, not an industry average, like it is for other companies.
Article content
Article content
Then there's the threat of tariffs from President Donald Trump's ongoing national security investigation of Canadian lumber imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which he ordered in March and is due late this year. Currently, lumber shipments are exempted from Trump's baseline tariffs, because they're covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal (USMCA), but that could soon change based on the findings of the 232 probe.
Article content
Article content
National Post breaks down the position of the two countries, what the impacts could be, and how Canadian producers are trying to mitigate the potential damage of punitive trade barriers.
Article content
Article content
The U.S. Lumber Coalition is playing for keeps. It backs higher anti-dumping duties and tariffs for what it sees as a subsidized domestic industry. It claims Canadian producers don't pay market rates for stumpage because their forests are publicly owned and provincial governments set the stumpage rates, while U.S. producers face higher market rates. But it doesn't stop there: the U.S. coalition also wants to see Canada's U.S. market share significantly chopped.
Article content
Miller isn't shy about the goals: 'A countrywide quota with no exemptions and no carveouts, and a single-digit market share' for Canadian lumber.
Article content
Today, Canada has a 25 per cent market share, with exports of 12 billion feet of softwood lumber to the U.S. each year, according to the coalition. Softwood lumber accounts for about 7.5 per cent of Canadian exports; in 2023, the U.S. was the destination for 68 per cent of those forestry products. The whole industry is worth about $33.4 billion in sales annually and employs more than 200,000 workers across Canada, according to a report this year from RBC.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Winnipeg Free Press
25 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
GOP House members want to run in other races. Trump is telling them to stay in their seats
WASHINGTON (AP) — Michigan Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga was ready to launch a U.S. Senate bid. All he needed was President Donald Trump' s blessing. But in a White House meeting last week, the president encouraged Huizenga to run for reelection rather than challenge former Rep. Mike Rogers for Senate in the battleground state, hoping to keep his west Michigan seat secure, according to two people with direct knowledge of the conversation. On Wednesday, Huizenga announced he was skipping the Senate race. 'After careful consideration … as well as in consultation with President Trump, I have decided against a bid for U.S. Senate in Michigan,' he said in a statement. It's the latest example of Trump's increasingly heavy-handed efforts to keep incumbent House members in their seats and keep those seats in GOP hands as he and his political team try to avoid what happened in his first term, when Republicans lost the chamber after just two years. From Michigan to New York to Iowa, Trump has actively worked to reshape Republican primary fields, demonstrating the enormous influence he wields over a party that, by and large, answers to him. Trump puts his thumb on the scale for the 2026 midterms In Iowa, Rep. Zach Nunn had been weighing a run for governor until his own conversation with Trump, after which he opted to seek reelection to a seat that national Republicans feel would have been more competitive without an incumbent on the ballot. Trump offered a full-throated endorsement of Nunn's reelection after he said he spoke with him. And on Wednesday, New York Rep. Mike Lawler announced he would defend his pivotal swing seat rather than launch a gubernatorial bid after a private meeting with Trump last week. 'He obviously encouraged me to run for reelection to the House,' Lawler said about his conversation with Trump. 'That's where his focus is.' The efforts are the latest demonstration of Trump and his political operation's intense focus on keeping control of the House next year. The party in power historically loses seats in midterm elections. But Trump, according to people familiar with his thinking, is determined to avoid a repeat of 2018, when Democrats took over the House and proceeded to block his legislative agenda and then impeach him twice. Trump is hoping he can buck history and maintain maximum power for the next three-and-a-half years, despite his lame duck status. To that end, he and his team have worked to dissuade incumbents in potentially vulnerable seats from stepping down to pursue runs for the Senate or governor, delivering the message that they are all on the same team and that it is in the party's best interest to keep control of the chamber. 'We have a tight margin. These competitive districts are going to be determinative of the outcome,' said Lawler. 'Of course, the president has a focus on wanting to keep these seats and avoid unnecessary primaries.' Trump still wields power over GOP members Trump's success in dissuading members from pursuing what are effectively promotions is yet another demonstration of the enormous power he wields over members, many of whom have made clear that they will not run unless they have the president's blessing. At the same time, he's shown a willingness to greenlight bids from members in safer seats. Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, who represents a deep red district, continues to move toward a potential run for governor. Trump also signaled support for a Senate bid by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in Georgia, though she ultimately decided against it. Republican House candidates this year are generally trying to run in lockstep with the president — a reflection of his sky-high popularity with Republican voters and his success last November in drawing new voters to the party. Republicans are eager to replicate that model after struggling in the past to turn out Trump's supporters when the president isn't on the ballot. Democrats, meanwhile, have tried to cast the moves as a sign that Republicans are nervous about 2026. 'They know their prospects for reelection are grim. They have been ordered by Donald Trump to seek reelection. In other words, Donald has signed their political death sentence,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters Wednesday. 'They chose to bend the knee.' Huizenga steps aside Huizenga, for months, had been contemplating challenging Rogers in the Republican primary, waiting for a more formal discussion with Trump about the race, although they had spoken on the phone multiple times. Some Republicans in the state felt that Rogers should be challenged, since he lost last year even as Trump won by nearly 80,000 votes. Rogers has hired a number of Trump's staffers, including his former campaign co-manager, Chris LaCivita. While the emphasis from the White House was on keeping the House seat — which Huizenga won by just under 12 percentage points — he has not yet made a final decision on reelection. 'Every two years, Bill sits down with his wife to discuss what is best for their family,' Brian Patrick, Huizenga's spokesperson, said in a statement. 'This election cycle is no different.' Lawler said that while Trump shared his desire for the congressman to stay in the House, 'I didn't get here by doing as told.' 'It's something that I've thought extensively about and went through a very unemotional process and a more data driven process than anything,' said Lawler. Not everyone has abided by Trump's wishes. Rep. John James of Michigan is running for governor in a crowded GOP field, leaving open a competitive House seat. 'He's running for governor but I'm not sure I'm too happy about that, John,' said Trump during an event in June, with James in the audience. 'Do we have somebody good to take your seat? 'Cause otherwise we're not letting him run for governor,' Trump said with a laugh. James' spokesperson, Hannah Osantowske, said in a statement that James has earned 'the President's endorsement in every race and is committed to earning it again.' 'He's a proven winner, and President Trump backs winners who've stood by him,' Osantowske said. Trump has leveraged other power over Republicans Beyond discouraging members from running, Trump is flexing his power in other ways. In Texas, he has pushed Republicans to try to redraw House district maps to help protect Republicans' slim majority next year. He wants Republicans to carve out as many as five more winnable congressional districts — a high-risk, high-reward maneuver that could energize Democratic voters. The intense involvement in House races stands in contrast to the Senate, where Trump, until now, has generally avoided wading into contentious and open primaries in crucial battleground states like North Carolina and Georgia, as well as in Texas. In the Lone Star State, a longtime ally, Ken Paxton, is challenging incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, to the dismay of many national Republicans who fear Paxton would be toxic in a general election. Even in Michigan, where Rogers is now expected to be the lone high-profile Republican in the open race, Trump has yet to endorse. The contrast, allies say, reflects the more disciplined approach his political operation is taking compared to years past. That includes subjecting candidates Trump may endorse to a careful vetting process that includes an assessment of their teams and fundraising capacity. ___ Colvin reported from New York.


Winnipeg Free Press
25 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Gabbard uses surprise White House appearance to attack Trump's enemies on the Russia investigation
WASHINGTON (AP) — As the national intelligence director, Tulsi Gabbard is responsible for guarding America's secrets and discovering threats from overseas. But when she made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room Wednesday, her targets were President Donald Trump's political enemies. Escalating her attempts to undermine the long-settled conclusion that Russia tried to help Trump beat Hillary Clinton for the presidency nearly a decade ago, she unspooled what she called unshakeable proof that then-President Barack Obama and his advisers plotted nothing short of a coup. 'They conspired to subvert the will of the American people,' she said, claiming they fabricated evidence to taint Trump's victory. Little of what she said was new, and much of it was baseless. Gabbard said her investigation into the former Democratic administration was designed to stop the weaponization of national security institutions, but it spurred more questions about her own independence atop a spying system intended to provide unvarnished intelligence. Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who ran for president herself before joining Trump's idiosyncratic political ecosystem, seemed prepared to use her presentation to burnish her own standing. She was trailed by her cinematographer husband, who held a video camera to capture the moment. And Trump, who had previously expressed public doubts about Gabbard's analysis of Iran's nuclear program, appeared satisfied. He posted a video of her remarks, pinning them at the top of his social media feed. It was a display that cemented Gabbard's role as one of Trump's chief agents of retribution, delivering official recognition of Trump's grievances about the Russia investigation that shadowed his first term. The focus on a years-old scandal also served Trump's attempts to shift attention from the Jeffrey Epstein case and questions about the president's own association with an abuser of underage girls. Gabbard touts her latest release During her White House remarks, Gabbard said she has referred the documents to the Justice Department to consider for a possible criminal investigation. Obama's post-presidential office declined to comment Wednesday but issued a rare response a day earlier. 'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,' said Patrick Rodenbush, an Obama spokesman. The White House rejected questions about the timing of Gabbard's revelations and whether they were designed to curry favor with Trump or distract attention from the administration's handling of files relating to Epstein. Still, Trump was quick to reward Gabbard's loyalty this week, calling her 'the hottest person in the room.' On Wednesday, she released a report by Republican staff of the House Intelligence Committee during the first Trump administration. It does not dispute that Russia interfered in the 2016 election but cites what it says were tradecraft failings in the assessment reached by the intelligence community that Russian President Vladimir Putin influenced the election because he intended for Trump to win. Gabbard went beyond some of the conclusions of the report in describing its findings from the White House podium. She, along with the report, also seized on the fact that a dossier including uncorroborated tips and salacious gossip about Trump's ties to Russia was referenced in an annex of an intelligence community assessment made public in 2017 that detailed Russia's interference. It was not the basis for the FBI's decision to open an investigation in July 2016 into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, but Trump supporters have seized on the unverified innuendo in the document to try to undercut the broader probe. Timing of the reports prompt questions Gabbard said she didn't know why the reports weren't released during Trump's first administration. Her office did not respond to questions about the timing of the release. Responding to a question from a reporter about Gabbard's motivations, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused journalists of looking for a story where there wasn't one. 'The only people who are suggesting that she would release evidence to boost her standing are the people in this room,' Leavitt said. Trump, however, has said he wants the media, and the public, to focus on Gabbard's report and not his ties to Epstein. 'We caught Hillary Clinton. We caught Barack Hussein Obama … you ought take a look at that and stop talking about nonsense,' Trump said Tuesday. CIA Director John Ratcliffe served briefly as director of national intelligence during Trump's first term but did not release any of the information declassified by Gabbard. The CIA declined to comment on Gabbard's remarks Wednesday. Trump and Gabbard's evolving relationship Gabbard told Congress in April that Iran wasn't actively seeking a nuclear weapon, and Trump dismissed her assessment just before U.S. strikes on Iran. 'I don't care what she said,' Trump said in June on Air Force One when asked about Gabbard's testimony. Gabbard recently shared her findings in an Oval Office meeting with Trump, according to two administration officials who requested anonymity to discuss a private conversation. Afterward, one of the officials said, Trump expressed satisfaction that Gabbard's findings aligned with his own beliefs about the Russia investigation. Other recent releases on the Russia investigation On Friday, Gabbard's office released a report that downplayed the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 election by highlighting Obama administration emails showing officials had concluded before and after the presidential race that Moscow had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in Trump's favor. But Obama's Democratic administration never suggested otherwise, even as it exposed other means by which Russia interfered in the election, including through a massive hack-and-leak operation of Democratic emails by intelligence operatives working with WikiLeaks, as well as a covert influence campaign aimed at swaying public opinion and sowing discord through fake social media posts. Earlier this month Ratcliffe released a report earlier this month criticizing the 2017 investigation into the election, but it did not address multiple investigations since then, including a report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 that reached the same conclusion about Russia's influence and motives. Democrats call for Gabbard's resignation Lawmakers from both parties have long stressed the need for an independent intelligence service. Democrats said Gabbard's reports show she has placed partisanship and loyalty to Trump over her duty and some have called for her resignation. 'It seems as though the Trump administration is willing to declassify anything and everything except the Epstein files,' Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement Wednesday. Warner predicted Gabbard's actions could prompt U.S. allies to share less information for fear it would be politicized or recklessly declassified. But Gabbard enjoys strong support among Republicans. Rep. Rick Crawford, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and Ratcliffe were working to put the intelligence community 'on the path to regaining the trust of the American people.' Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence panel, said Gabbard hasn't offered any reason to ignore the many earlier investigations into Russia's efforts. 'The Director is free to disagree with the Intelligence Community Assessment's conclusion that Putin favored Donald Trump, but her view stands in stark contrast to the verdict rendered by multiple credible investigations,' Himes said in a statement. 'Including the bipartisan report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee.'


CTV News
25 minutes ago
- CTV News
B.C. Human Rights Tribunal orders company to pay $10K to employee it fired after learning about his criminal convictions
B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a Kelowna-based software company to pay a former employee who was fired after one week on the job $10,000, as it found the employers discriminated against him based on his criminal record. The employee – anonymized throughout the decision as Mr. T – was convicted of robbery and obstruction of justice a number of years before he was hired by MotiveWave Software, according to the decision issued on June 13 and posted online Thursday. Co-founders Tony Lindsay and Leigh Carter, a married couple who run the business out of their home, found out about the convictions when they Googled Mr. T after deciding to fire him, the ruling says. Mr. T admitted he lied about not having a criminal record during his job interview, and the employers did not conduct a criminal record check. Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau ruled the employee would have been fired regardless of his previous convictions, so denied his claims for lost wages, but still found his criminal past was a factor in his termination and approved compensation for 'injury to his dignity, feelings and self-respect.' The B.C. Human Rights Code prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of conviction for an offence, if the offence is unrelated to the job. To explain why, the BCHRT cited a 2003 Supreme Court of Canada decision that stated: 'The saying 'once a criminal, always a criminal' has no place in our society. Individuals who have paid their debt to society are entitled to resume their place in society and to live in it without running the risk of being devalued and unfairly stigmatized.' In this case, there was no dispute that MotiveWave fired Mr. T or that he had prior convictions. Cousineau was tasked with answering two questions: whether Mr. T's crimes were a factor in the termination and whether they were related to his employment – ultimately ruling both were true. The crimes According to the tribunal, Mr. T robbed a bank in December 2014, when he was in his early 20s. He told the HRT he was suffering from undiagnosed mental illnesses at the time and 'became fixated on money as the barrier to his wellness and success.' 'During an episode that his psychiatrist later described as 'full-blown psychosis,' he developed a plan to rob a bank to prove that money is a myth,' the decision reads. 'He planned the robbery, in his mind, to ensure no one would be hurt. While no one was physically hurt, he now acknowledges that the event was traumatic for people present and working in the bank that day.' During the robbery, Mr. T closed the bank's doors with zip ties, approached a teller and shook his bag to 'imply he had a weapon,' and forced the employee to hand over 'increasing sums of money,' according to the tribunal. He was arrested and charged shortly after. While awaiting trial, Mr. T was charged with obstruction of justice, for a matter he claimed was based on a 'misunderstanding of how he was allowed to communicate with witnesses.' He was convicted of that offence in December 2016 and sentenced to nine months in jail. After being released, his mental health deteriorated and he breached probation, and was sent back to prison around July 2017. Mr. T then pleaded guilty to the bank robbery charge in December 2017 and was sentenced to time served plus 18 months probation. 'Mr. T says that he now understands how immature and unwell he was at the time. He accepts that he caused harm and acknowledges his responsibility to earn back the trust of his community. He wants to reintegrate and move forward with his life,' the decision reads. Since 2017, the HRT sys, Mr. T has not been charged or convicted of any crime, and that he started taking medication, returned to school and work, and started a small business. At the time of the crimes, Mr. T's last name started with 'U,' the tribunal noted. He legally changed his last name because he said people were treating him differently after Googling him and finding 'sensationalized' news articles about his convictions. The job Mr. T applied for a job as a product support specialist at MotiveWave in early 2020, a position that involves helping customers via email and phone. On the application, he used his new last name, though the legal change wouldn't become official until October of that year. At the second of three job interviews, Carter asked Mr. T if he had any criminal convictions, explaining the position was based in her home and her children would be present. Mr. T said he did not. She later Googled him and the news articles did not come up, because he did not use his legal name. 'Mr. T gave several explanations for his decision to lie about his criminal convictions, which I accept. First, he says that he did not consider his criminal convictions to relate to the job or the safety of Ms. Carter's children. From his perspective, his convictions had nothing to do with violence or children or any other aspect of the job, as he understood it,' Cousineau wrote. 'Second, he says that he considered it significant that MotiveWave did not require him to complete a criminal record check. He figured that they had done their due diligence and, if it were truly necessary, would have required a criminal record check.' Carter and Lindsay, the co-founders, testified they had reservations about Mr. T as he overstated some of his skills, but liked his 'energy and enthusiasm' and were struggling to find any other qualified applicants, so decided to give him a shot. 'Lindsay testified that they thought that the worst-case scenario was that, if it didn't work out, they would terminate Mr. T's employment and move on,' the decision reads. Mr. T started the job on Aug. 24, 2020 – an employment that lasted seven days. The HRT noted Lindsay and Carter learned of his legal last name when he submitted his banking details and 'found it strange' but didn't follow up. Lindsay and Carter gave the HRT several reasons they decided to terminate Mr. T after one week. Some pertained to his performance, such as not progressing in training and spending too much time trying to change the company's website, which was not part of the job. Carter was particularly concerned about Mr. T's demeanor, the tribunal writing the pair 'were not, in these early days, a good working fit.' She testified Mr. T repeatedly asked for access to the backend of MotiveWave's website to make changes, which made her uncomfortable, and in one instance described him as 'aggressive' and intimidating. Mr. T, for his part, said he thought things were going well and denied having an argument with Carter. 'Ms. Carter told Mr. Lindsay they needed to let Mr. T go. She told him she felt he had been aggressive, and she felt upset and scared,' Cousineau wrote. 'I accept that, at this point, Mr. Lindsay and Ms. Carter had decided to terminate Mr. T's employment the next day. This decision was not based on his criminal convictions, because they did not know about them yet. This is when Ms. Carter remembered that Mr. T's legal name was 'Mr. U' and decided to Google him.' The couple found several news articles about the bank robbery and Mr. T's conviction for obstruction of justice, which they were shocked by. The tribunal accepted Lindsay and Carter 'were scared by what they read and perceived that Mr. T posed a safety threat to them and the kids.' Lindsay called Mr. T and asked if the articles were about him, and he said yes and admitted he lied about not having a criminal record. Lindsay told Mr. T he could not have him working in his house anymore. 'The meaning was clear: because of Mr. T's criminal convictions, he was fired effective immediately,' the decision reads. 'Mr. T started pleading with Mr. Lindsay to find a solution. He tried to explain that the information in the articles was incorrect, that the issue was his mental health, that he had gotten help, and had taken responsibility. He told Mr. Lindsay he could talk to his mother, friends, probationary officer – anyone would confirm that he was a good person. He suggested he could work remotely. However, Mr. Lindsay was resolute. The relationship had been tarnished, and the employment could not continue.' Mr. T filed the human rights complaint the following day, Sept. 2, 2020. The decision MotiveWave's operators argued Mr. T's prior convictions were not a factor in his firing, as they had already decided to dismiss him. However, the tribunal ruled the crimes were part of the decision, as they fired him immediately after finding out, rather than the next day as previously planned. The HRT also noted that if MotiveWave fired Mr. T for lying about the convictions, rather than the crimes themselves, it might have been off the hook. Lindsay and Carter also argued the convictions were related to Mr. T's job because he worked out of their home where their three young children were present, and that the product support specialist role involves accessing baking information from customers. 'I agree, without reservation, that an employer has no obligation to employ someone who poses a threat to their children. But the law is clear that the threat must be assessed contextually, and not solely by focusing on a past crime,' Cousineau wrote. The tribunal deemed Mr. T's risk of engaging in further violent or threatening behaviour 'very low, if not negligible' because when he robbed the bank he was dealing with an untreated mental illness and has since received treatment, is taking medication and understands his triggers. 'He is resolute in a determination to rehabilitate himself and move forward after his convictions. However, one of the biggest obstacles to his rehabilitation is how people respond to him when they learn about the convictions,' the decision reads. 'He described his job with MotiveWave as a 'dream job' that allowed him to work in the field he was passionate about, with people he admired. He foresaw opportunities to grow and progress. Mr. T's commitment to rehabilitation and success cement my conclusion, considering all the circumstances, that his previous convictions were unrelated to his employment with MotiveWave.' Cousineau thus declared MotiveWave terminating Mr. T was discriminatory. The compensation The tribunal denied Mr. T's claim for 18 months worth of wages, as it found he would have been fired for 'non-discriminatory' reasons the next morning regardless. However, the tribunal awarded half of the $20,000 he claimed for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. In his testimony, Mr. T said it would have been much easier to move on if Lindsay and Carter gave any other reason for firing him. 'The indication to me that the only reason they fired me was because of my criminal history and it had nothing to do with who I was as a person, or the work I did as a worker; it basically indicated to me that I could be the best worker and the most courageous and happy person and people will still fire me for a criminal event that happened many, many, many years ago,' he said. 'That process made me think that my life isn't worth anything. And I had some really deep thoughts about what purpose I have in society or in a community in which no one wants me or no one would give me the time of day to give them my knowledge or to help them.' Cousineau accepted the incident seriously impacted Mr. T's mental health, and, while reiterating he would have lost the job anyway, ordered MotiveWave to pay him $10,000.