U.S. Lumber Coalition Critiques NAHB's Trade Position
In a recent statement, the U.S. Lumber Coalition has voiced its concerns regarding the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and their ongoing advocacy for importing Canadian softwood lumber. This comes in light of the U.S. Government's findings that Canada engages in unfair trade practices that negatively affect the American lumber industry.
The NAHB, a significant entity in the U.S. home-building sector, has historically pushed for unrestricted access to Canadian lumber imports, which they claim is essential for ensuring a reliable and affordable source of building material. Recent reports indicate a sharp decline in lumber prices—down by 67% since 2021—contrasted with the rising cost of new homes, which have increased by 21% over the same period. In this context, NAHB CEO Jim Tobin reiterated the importance of maintaining a robust supply of Canadian lumber to stabilize construction costs.
However, Andrew Miller, Chair/Owner of Stimson Lumber Company, argued that NAHB’s position undermines the challenges faced by the U.S. lumber industry. He criticized the NAHB for advocating for imports that he described as 'injurious' to American manufacturers, while merely paying lip service to the notion of fair trade. According to Miller, this approach contradicts the broader policy goals of the U.S. administration aimed at bolstering domestic lumber production and reducing dependency on imported goods.
Zoltan van Heyningen, Executive Director of the U.S. Lumber Coalition, emphasized the importance of enforcing U.S. trade laws to promote domestic production. He stated that since the enforcement of these laws began in 2016, the U.S. softwood lumber production capacity has markedly increased by 9 billion board feet, making a substantial contribution to U.S. supply chains. This, he noted, has resulted in Canadian companies paying nearly $7 billion in duties to the U.S. government.
Van Heyningen highlighted that according to NAHB's own statistics, the lumber cost constitutes less than 2% of the total price of a new home, and complying with tariffs against Canadian lumber imports leads to virtually no additional expenses for American consumers. Instead, he argued, the focus should shift to the underlying causes of housing affordability issues in the U.S., which include significant profit margins for homebuilders and structural challenges within the market.
Interestingly, van Heyningen also pointed out the apparent irony in the NAHB and Canadian argument that the current duties burden American consumers. If this were truly the case, they would not spend an estimated $50 million annually on efforts to combat the enforcement of anti-dumping and countervailing duties against Canadian lumber.
Furthermore, he noted that Canada is facing its own housing affordability crisis and that Prime Minister Carney has made it a central theme of his political agenda. Yet, instead of addressing these issues through utilization of their excess softwood lumber production capacity, Canadian leaders seem more focused on facilitating exports at the expense of fair competition in the U.S. market.
In conclusion, both Miller and van Heyningen contend that Canadian firms must cease their unfair trade practices if they wish to avoid paying duties imposed by the U.S. government. This situation serves as a critical reminder of the importance of maintaining a balance in international trade and safeguarding domestic industries. The U.S. Lumber Coalition continues to advocate for strict enforcement of trade laws to protect American jobs and ensure that U.S. lumber production can meet domestic demands without being undermined by unfairly traded imports.
For additional information about the U.S. Lumber Coalition's efforts and policies, visit their official website at
www.uslumbercoalition.org.