Today I have the honour to begin the debate on this motion, which proposes that the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce study and report on the Canada-United States agreement on softwood lumber.
I would like the committee to analyze, among other things, the impact on Canadian sovereignty over resource management, the impact on the interpretation of chapters 11 and 19 of NAFTA, and the measures in the agreement relating to financial support for the industry and its workers.
As you know, an article in the Winnipeg Free Press on Saturday, May 13, pertaining to a media interview of Minister Emerson held in Vancouver, reported him as having said:
Provincial governments will be expected to vet any forest policy changes through Washington under the terms of the new softwood lumber agreement...
Those are the words of the International Trade Minister, David Emerson, as a member of the Conservative government. Surely it is not respectful of the Canadian Constitution in regard to provincial jurisdiction to cede our provincial sovereignty to Washington. This deal does not represent a solution for Canada. It represents our surrender to the U.S.
Why was it that the Conservative International Trade Minister, David Emerson, who held the same portfolio in the last Liberal government, recommended the rejection of the same type of deal because it was not good enough for Canada? Why is it that the deal is now good enough?
Honourable senators, being able to study this proposed softwood lumber deal would give us a chance to see why the Harper government is ready to give up our provincial and national sovereignty over the management of our natural resources. Even the Canadian forest industry said that the package's so-called anti-circumventing clause could give the U.S. government a veto on changes to provincial forestry policies, and thus impinging on Canadian sovereignty.
It sure did not take the Prime Minister long to surrender Canada's industry in the hope of scoring cheap political points with the U.S. The terms of this agreement were unacceptable to the Conservatives when they were in opposition. Why are they acceptable now? The best the Conservatives could achieve was a deal that the Liberal government rejected. The Conservative government even caved in to the U.S. government in agreeing to a softwood lumber deal that would see the Americans keep over $1 billion of the tariffs illegally collected at the expense of the Canadian industry, half of which will go to the U.S.-based lumber coalition to compete against our own lumber industry and lawyers.
Here is an interesting quote from Mr. Harper, no less, when he addressed the Conservative national caucus in Halifax on September 7, 2005. Mr. Harper said:
There can be no question of Canada returning to a conventional bargaining table, as the U.S. Ambassador has suggested.
You don't negotiate after you've won.
The issue is compliance.
And achieving full compliance should be the objective of the Prime Minister
That was Stephen Harper when he was Leader of the Opposition, of course, but that was not so long ago; it was just last September. When the Conservatives were the official opposition, they demanded that the U.S. respect NAFTA rulings that were in Canada's favour, that Canada settle for nothing less than full compliance and that we even refuse to continue to negotiate, but it did not take long for Prime Minister Harper to cave in to his American Republican friends. This government owes it to Canadians to achieve nothing less than what they promised: Free trade and a 100 per cent refund.
Why is it that, back then, Mr. Harper did not want to negotiate, and now he has not only negotiated, has given away Canada's sovereignty and over $1 billion collected by the Americans at the expense of our Canadian forest industry? Thanks to this government's softwood sellout to the U.S., Canada's forestry policy must now be vetted by Washington. This so-called deal clearly shows the government's strength is capitulation, not negotiation.
By caving in to this deal, Prime Minister Harper is wasting years of work that the Liberal government and the Canadian forest industry have put into making sure Canada got the best deal and that our lumber industry was protected. By catering to the U.S. forest industry, they can now do research and development and market strategy so that they can be more aggressively competitive against us in the global marketplace.
On May 15, as a result of the proposed softwood agreement yet to be signed, our own Canadian forest industry had no choice but to file a lawsuit against this Tory government — against their own government — because they have turned their backs on the industry and gone along with the American protectionist lumber plan.
Our Canadian forest industry is saying that the Tory government and the American government have conspired against Canadian private industry. Had we not stopped the litigation, we would have eventually recovered all of the money that the Americans took from our industry. We were so close to winning again. Unfortunately, this deal wants to eliminate all Canadian victories, past and future. This agreement is nothing more than a political agreement without being a reliable commercial agreement. Some estimates go so far as to say that up to 20 per cent of our sawmills and our jobs will go out of business because of this agreement.
As Jamie Lim of the Ontario Forest Industry Association puts it, we expect to suffer, and suffer significantly, under the terms as they are now written. Moreover, the deal that is written now has no hope of exit. Policy reforms are subject to U.S. judgment and to U.S. veto, and there is no termination clause.
Honourable senators, we cannot afford short-term gain for long-term pain. This Conservative government wants to speed up the process and sign this deal by June 15. However, to proceed quickly is risky, because we risk not getting it right. If we do not get it right, then this deal will turn out to be worse for our Canadian forest industry. The Americans want to speed up this deal because a deficient agreement will work to their benefit and to the absolute disadvantage of the Canadian forest industry.
We have to be aware that we have only one chance to get this right, and if we try to rush through, and this deal turns out not to be a reliable commercial agreement, then Canadians will pay the price and live with the consequences.
Industry representatives have stated that the proposed softwood lumber deal is worse and will make them suffer more than the current situation. Mr. Carl Grenier, the Executive Vice-President of the Free Trade Lumber Council, has declared that the basic U.S. objective of the agreement is to erase the last four years of litigation, to eliminate all Canadian legal victories and to replace them with the same old legal assertions that the U.S. industry has been making for the last 25 years. They want to be ready for another trade war on this issue as soon as the current deal fails or expires, and they want to wipe out any advantage Canada may have gained from defending itself during the last four years.
The Conservative government has invested $1 billion into the American forest industry, and they can now do research and development with the money from our Canadian companies. Not only did our Canadian forest industry lose $1 billion, but the Conservatives also decided to remove from their budget the previous government package worth almost $1.5 billion designed to help Canada's forest industry remain strong and sustainable.
In November 2005, the Liberal government flatly rejected the same deal because it was not in the best interests of Canada. This so-called deal means $1 billion of Canadian money can be used against us to impose unfair restrictions on Canada's lumber industry. By agreeing to this flawed deal, the Prime Minister has sold out the Canadian lumber industry. This deal represents the Prime Minister caving in to the U.S., not solving the softwood lumber issue for Canada.
As with all agreements, the devil is in the details. We strongly suspect that there are more devils in the details of this deal than the Prime Minister is letting on. This deal does not reflect free trade. We are at the mercy of the U.S. The fact that we would cave in like this is disappointing. Despite my position on this issue, this motion is not a debate on the agreement, but on the possibility for this chamber to analyze what the government is agreeing to on behalf of all Canadians.
Numerous members of the Conservative Party shared views that negotiation must proceed quickly with our U.S. counterparts in order to finalize the details of the Softwood Lumber Agreement. Many members of the government in place believe that we must blindly put our faith in the hands of the executive and accept any final deal that may be aligned with the already-proposed draft. I believe that there is a requirement for transparency — we remember that word, "transparency" — and the need for, at the least, an examination of this agreement.
I seem to have just touched upon an issue here, have I, "transparency"? How cute.
I believe there is a serious requirement for transparency and the need for at least an examination of this agreement and its consequences on our industry and its workers by this chamber.
Canadians want good governance. They want to know the content and consequences of agreements that the government will sign on their behalf. They want greater openness and transparency, and they want to be able to hold Parliament, their government and public sector officials to account for results. In order to do so, it is the role of parliamentarians to examine and analyze the issues. The House of Commons is already listening to the stakeholders, and yet, because of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, this chamber has sat idle on the issue.
I have asked six times for the Leader of the Government in the Senate to table the proposed Softwood Lumber Agreement and to refer it for full study to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, but to no avail.
That is why I now move that this deal be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce today.
Honourable senators, in the spirit of openness, transparency, accountability and fairness I would also like to table, for all of you to be able to read.
This is fun. Honourable senators, for your interest, I would also like to table, along with my motion, documents that I have received in a brown envelope.
These envelopes, I believe, contain drafts, in English and in French, of the proposed softwood lumber agreement. They are 25 pages in length.
The document says:
SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
The Government of Canada ("Canada") and the Government of the United States of America ("United States")
HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this Agreement are to:
1. eliminate all current litigation and prevent disputes arising from trade of softwood lumber products between Canada and the United States;
2. facilitate and encourage mutual beneficial trade in softwood lumber; and
3. foster competitive conditions in the North American softwood lumber market, the expansion of existing markets and the growth of new markets for softwood lumber (and participate in meritorious initiatives).
ARTICLE II
SCOPE OF COVERAGE
1. This Agreement applies to trade in softwood lumber products. Softwood lumber products are those products listed in Annex I.
2. No new softwood lumber products will be added to the scope of this Agreement...
— meaning we cannot add value-added products; you need to read between the lines here —
— without the mutual agreement of the Parties regardless of any tariff reclassification or other action by the United States.
ARTICLE III
REVOCATION OF ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY ORDERS....
ARTICLE IV
REFUND OF ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY CASH DEPOSITS....
ARTICLE V
REFUND OF CASH DEPOSITS MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE...
ARTICLE VI
COMMITMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONCERNING TRADE REMEDY INVESTIGATIONS AND ACTION AND OTHER LITIGATION....
ARTICLE VII
CANADIAN EXPORT MEASURES
Honourable senators, I think this one merits our concerns.
1. Immediately upon revocation of the AD Order, the CVD Order and the termination of all current administrative, expedited, changed circumstances, and new shipper reviews by the United States in accordance with Article III, the following export measures will be applicable: (1) an export charge; (2) an export charge plus a volume restraint; (3) a surcharge mechanism; and (4) a third country trigger.
That sounds pretty one-sided to me. I move on:
ARTICLE VIII
EXPORT CHARGE AND EXPORT CHARGE PLUS VOLUME RESTRAINT....
That means quotas, right? Then, Article IX says:
CANADIAN EXPORT SURGE....
ARTICLE X
THIRD COUNTRY EXPORT SURGE...
ARTICLE XI
EXCLUSIONS FROM THE EXPORT MEASURE....
ARTICLE XII
TERMINATION OF LITIGATION...
ARTICLE XIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS....
ARTICLE XIV
POLICY CHANGES...
ARTICLE XV
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT...
I do not know why they put that in there because they do not believe in it.
Then the document goes on…