Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our witnesses.
I would like to begin with you, Mr. Grenier, obviously, regarding softwood and the implementation of our trade policy. We just heard Mr. Cannan say that the Softwood Lumber Agreement has been fantastic for his community. I am from British Columbia, and that is not at all what we are seeing on the ground. We have lost 5 000 jobs since that agreement was implemented. So, this is extremely problematic.
I would like to explore with you the difference between the principles behind our trade policy and the reality of its implementation. With NAFTA, there was a dispute settlement process that was supposed to protect us. Then we had the softwood lumber dispute.
This is my first question: What action should the government have taken when the softwood lumber dispute arose between NAFTA countries?
Second, lumber companies had launched a legal process which resulted, on October 13, in an Act Respecting the Implementation of International Trade Agreements with the United States, a process which Canada effectively won.
Once again, there is a difference between the principle and the implementation. Rather than focussing on the ruling, we focussed on the agreement.
My second question relates to that difference. What could the government have done with respect to that ruling on the agreement?
Third, the Softwood Lumber Agreement was implemented. In British Columbia, it was absolute chaos at the border, where people were not sure what tariffs to apply. It is quite possible that tariffs were doubled.
How could the government have set about implementing this decision to sign the Softwood Lumber Agreement? What could it have done better to avoid job losses?
And, at each of these three stages, what could the government have done to better implement our trade agreement?