Mr. Ambassador, I am going back to the issue of softwood lumber.
Earlier, you replied that the industry wanted to see a settlement with the United States. I simply want to point out, first of all, that our corporations agreed, because they were at the end of their ropes, and because many of our sawmills had been sold. People thought that it was time for something to be done.
You are, nonetheless, the father of this agreement. You were there when it was negotiated. In the dispute on softwood lumber, Canada has always won. Decisions have all been in Canada's favour.
Why did we accept a cut-rate agreement when we were right? Does that mean that the dispute settlement mechanism does not work and will never work with the United States? That is my first question.
Secondly, the very day the agreement in principle on softwood lumber was reached, the Americans filed an extraordinary challenge under NAFTA, with the hope that NAFTA would not be able to provide a definitive ruling that our forestry system does not constitute a subsidy. But Washington, which is afraid that this body will not provide its ruling before the conclusion of the agreement, decided not to appoint a judge, which has had the effect of delaying the setting up of the tribunal. We understand their logic, but we have now learned that Canada decided not to appoint a judge either. I want to know why.
I will conclude by repeating the question that I asked you earlier. Under the terms of the softwood lumber agreement, will the interest reimbursed to the corporations be based on the $4 billion amount to be returned to them, or on the $5 billion that the corporations paid?
Those are my three questions. Thank you.