International Trade committee  Basically, how it works is that the scope is frozen under the agreement as of April 27, 2006. When I say “scope”, I'm referring to the scope of product coverage under the agreement. That scope of product coverage is based on the revocation of the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders that existed up until recently, so as of April 27, 2006, it was based on the anti-dumping countervailing duty orders.

International Trade committee  It's not in line with what is in the agreement, which is that anything that was in the duty order as of April 27, 2006, is included in the scope of the coverage. This product was in the duty order as of April 27, 2006, and therefore this amendment is not correct.

International Trade committee  I can't answer if it would require more expenditure. But obviously it would require expenditure because it would lead to a potential dispute. To defend disputes would require government expenditure if we are defending a charge. So in that respect, it would increase expenditure.

International Trade committee  In order not to circumvent the agreement, it has to be a $200 charge, not a $100 charge.

International Trade committee  Yes, it would change the agreement. The agreement provides for a $200 charge on exports in the Atlantic provinces that exceed production in inventory. It's specified in article XVII of the agreement. To remain consistent with the agreement, it should be a $200 charge, not a $100 charge.

International Trade committee  I don't have the pages listed here, but it's article XVII, “Anti-Circumvention”, paragraph 5(a).

International Trade committee  No, it's not. There is no exclusion provided under the softwood lumber agreement for exports from the state of Alaska. It's solely for the Atlantic provinces, Northwest Territories, Yukon, Nunavut, and excluded companies. That's it. The state of Maine is also on that list.