*Also see Pros, cons of China safeguard tariffs aired at Toronto market

The coalition opposes the Canadian Council of Furniture Manufacturers’ petition to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal seeking such tariffs.

In the letter, the coalition said it needs about C$500,000 to cover legal expenses, government lobbying and communications costs to defeat the CCFM’s petition.

The letter was signed by coalition members Ashley Furniture, Hamilton & Spill, Lifestyle Furniture, Magnussen Home Furnishings, Mazin Furniture, Monarch Furniture and Primo Furniture.

The Toronto-based law firm of Heenan Blaikie is representing the coalition. CFFT counsel Paul Lalonde said the group includes not only importers but retailers and manufacturers, and that all these segments have a responsibility to support the fight against tariffs.

“The coalition firmly believes that retailers, particularly smaller independent retailers, will be harmed by the imposition of duties on furniture,” he said. “The large retailers are organised through the Retail Council of Canada, but … retailers who are not members of the RCC also … must be heard.”

The RCC opposes the CCFM’s petition and said it would appear before any hearings held by the CITT.

Sales representatives working for coalition members also have been asked to support the opposition movement financially.

In its letter, the coalition said, “The questionable benefit of protecting a relatively small number of furniture manufacturing businesses and employees is far outweighed by the negative economic impact that higher furniture prices will have on Canadian consumers.

“Our primary competition is not from other furniture stores but from the travel industry, consumer electronics and all the other goods and services that your customers may choose to buy instead of furniture if your prices are forced up by this safeguard duty. This will, in turn, negatively impact the growth and profitability of your business and the job security of your employees,” the letter said.

Lalonde said the rise in Chinese imports isn’t the domestic industry’s sole source of trouble and isn’t the only factor to be considered by the CITT.

“The legal test involves an analysis of whether imports are a significant cause of material injury to the domestic industry,” he said. “If there are other factors that have caused any alleged difficulties, then the tribunal must carefully analyse these other factors in deciding whether to recommend the imposition of duties.

“In this case, manifestly, the increase in the (value of the) Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar is an overwhelming factor that has absolutely nothing to do with imports, whether from China or elsewhere,” Lalonde said.

Should the CITT recommend safeguard tariffs, it would be up to federal government officials to decide whether they should be implemented.

“The federal cabinet should be guided by what is in the best interests of Canadians,” Lalonde said. “Clearly, it is not in the best interests of Canadians to impose safeguard duties on furniture (since) these duties will harm many Canadian companies, jeopardise jobs, negatively impact the furniture industry and the economy generally, and damage our relationship with an increasingly important trading partner.”

He noted the CCFM’s complaint doesn’t include imported components.

“If their goal was really to secure or increase Canadian employment, then surely these components would also have been included in their complaint,” Lalonde said. “The only reasonable conclusion is that this is not a case about saving Canadian jobs or Canadian manufacturing; it is about promoting the unwise strategic sourcing decisions of a narrow group of manufacturers.”