Thank you very much.
Thank you, particularly Ms. Lim, Mr. Wakelin, and Mr. Grenier, for coming again today. You've been canaries in the coal mine, I think. You flagged concerns as this process started, and unfortunately, many of the concerns you raised the last time you came to the committee have come true, as we see the botched negotiation and this badly flawed agreement that was initialled on July 1.
I have a general question, which you can choose to answer or not, and then I have specific questions for each of you. I'll get those out and let you come back to them.
It is inconceivable to me that a government would refuse loan guarantees--especially a political party that promised them prior to being elected--and that this same government would suspend an ECC judgment that's non-appealable and would lead to an end of the illegal tariffs. So I'd like each, or all, of you to comment on what the government strategy seems to be, because it seems to be holding the softwood industry by the neck over a cliff and saying, you are not going to get any support unless you do our bidding.
Regarding the specific questions, Mr. Grenier, you mentioned the cost of the four years of litigation to date--we're in the final lap--where there are only two judgments, two hurdles, to get across. How much has this litigation cost, and how much would it cost if we started over with these various panel processes that we've gone through?
Mr. Reedy, you used the words “total capitulation”. I've certainly heard that from other industry sources. I've also heard from the industry, from smaller companies, how impractical this is and how it is commercially absurd. I'd love for you, as a manager in the business, to comment on how this could even be commercially implemented.
Ms. Lim, when you appeared before us, you flagged concerns about the direction the government was taking and that you thought 20% of mills could close if the government continued along those lines. I'd like to know whether you still feel that way about the job losses from this badly botched negotiation.
Mr. Wakelin, you raised concerns about consultation when you appeared before us the last time. I'm interested in knowing if the industry in Alberta was consulted at all in the days leading up to the infamous agreement that was initialled on July 1, when the industry in other parts of the country was flagging the fact that this was a bad deal and should not go forward.
I'm also interested if you're equally concerned about the termination clause in article XX, which specifically states that the United States has the right to terminate the agreement if Canada is not applying export measures under articles VII and VIII. In other words, all they have to do is allege a circumvention and they can terminate the agreement, take the billion dollars, and run.
Thank you.