I’ve spent the last three days embedded with lumber producers across British Columbia’s interior, where sawmill operators describe Washington’s latest decision on softwood lumber duties as “the same old playbook with higher stakes.” The U.S. Commerce Department has now finalized its decision to raise tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports, instructing border officers to begin collecting the elevated duties immediately.
“They’ve been doing this for decades—wearing us down with legal fees and uncertainty while claiming it’s about fair trade,” says Michael Renwick, operations manager at a family-owned mill outside Prince George that employs 87 workers. “But when housing costs are already crippling Americans, adding 20% to lumber prices seems counterproductive for everyone.”
The decision comes after a months-long administrative review process that many Canadian industry observers considered merely procedural rather than substantive. The Commerce Department has determined that Canadian producers receive unfair government subsidies, primarily through provincial stumpage systems that allegedly undervalue timber harvested from public lands.
According to data from the Canada Wood Council, this marks the fifth cycle of duties since the 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement expired, with no replacement framework established. Canadian exports of softwood lumber to the U.S. totaled approximately $7.9 billion last year, representing roughly 26% of the American market.
The duties aren’t uniform—varying by company based on individual assessments. West Fraser Timber faces a 9.38% rate, while Canfor Corporation will pay 19.65%. Most other Canadian producers will pay an average weighted rate of 17.29%, significantly higher than during the previous administrative review period.
Canadian Trade Minister Mary Ng condemned the decision, stating that Ottawa will challenge the duties through multiple available legal channels, including USMCA dispute settlement procedures and the World Trade Organization frameworks. “These duties hurt workers and communities on both sides of the border while driving up construction costs for American families,” Ng said during a press conference in Ottawa yesterday.
The conflict’s economic impact extends far beyond the lumber industry itself. In Minnesota’s border communities, where Canadian lumber feeds American manufacturing, business owners express frustration. “My cabinet shop depends on specific Canadian cedar that I can’t source domestically,” explains Dana Wilkins, who runs a custom woodworking business in Duluth. “These duties don’t protect American jobs—they threaten them.”
The National Association of Home Builders estimates the duties will add approximately $1,400 to the cost of an average new American home at a time when housing affordability has reached crisis levels in many regions. NAHB Chairman Jerry Howard described the decision as “putting government revenue collection ahead of addressing America’s housing shortage.”
The long-running dispute involves fundamental differences in forest management systems. Most U.S. timberlands are privately owned, with prices set through open market auctions. In Canada, provincial governments own about 94% of forestlands and establish stumpage fees through various administrative processes that U.S. producers have long claimed constitute subsidies.
Outside a lumber processing facility in Surrey, B.C., I spoke with workers ending their shift who view the dispute through a distinctly local lens. “Every time these duties spike, we hold our breath waiting to see if our mill will be the next to announce layoffs,” says equipment operator Jasmine Khangura. “It’s not just numbers on a spreadsheet for us—it’s whether we’ll have jobs next month.”
The Canadian government has consistently prevailed in previous international challenges to the duties, winning 24 of 26 cases brought before NAFTA and WTO panels since 1982. However, these legal victories often come years after duties are collected, creating what industry analysts describe as a “cash flow weapon” that disadvantages Canadian producers regardless of the ultimate legal outcome.
Forest industry economist Patricia Mohr points out that market conditions may somewhat blunt the impact this time. “With lumber prices still relatively strong and U.S. housing starts showing resilience, Canadian producers can absorb some of these costs in the near term,” she explains. “But that doesn’t make the duties any more justified under trade law.”
For communities like Quesnel and Williams Lake in B.C.’s interior, where the forest industry remains an economic backbone despite diversification efforts, the ripple effects extend beyond direct employment. Municipal budgets dependent on industry property taxes face pressure when mills reduce production or close entirely in response to market constraints.
As U.S. customs officers begin collecting the increased duties, both governments appear entrenched in their positions. Canadian officials continue characterizing the duties as “unfair and unwarranted,” while the U.S. maintains they are necessary countermeasures to address subsidized imports.
Meanwhile, on sawmill floors across Canada, workers continue processing lumber destined for American construction sites, aware that their livelihoods remain caught in a decades-long trade dispute with no resolution in sight.
