Phyto’ arguments” ‘defective

* Recent: news items report the continuing efforts by
. 5/ plywood . interests to. bring political pressure’ to’.

ian plywood standards. 4

ar in the matics. of Cani
have: been bashing away

: » defective argumicnts which\are s
‘ or deliberate mis-statement designed ci either t0:. polit

: asia 10. be: their. ‘own reasons,
_ avoided this simple | ‘straightforward. procedure: 'In-)

‘ protectionist building standards,

Canada’s

they hav so ar

stead they repeat loudly and often most ‘objectionable
Statements like ‘Canada slams the door,"’ ‘‘blatantly.
“unless we get very
tough."* LF .

And then there. is’ that matycllous red herring ‘about® ca
* too-.harsh “for (U.S!
lywood."" ‘The ‘inference i is that Canadians have used

a that argument when in ‘truth jit is a statement made by

Canadian ‘Standards and: Building: Cad

tees! including product nian
“and government offici

are ‘established, by ss ge knowledgeable commit-

cturers, specific

“ accepted for building houses in Canada they can’make’”
their case, on-a technically justified basis, to the ap-.

‘ propriate. standards committees... For, what ‘mus be

Fees

Ing to express scathing
mm for’ th “complacency. of

“U.S, plywood representatives, not Canadians. 603).

Under the terms of the. Free Trade Agreement. both A

If the protectionist interests:
siry want to with’ thei Nariff, ;

arguments ney they need it.
A.W. Kempthorne [

ouncil of Forest industries of R. C.
Plywood Technical. (Centre 7