Thank you very much.
I'll ask my questions to the panellists, and then they can answer in turn, understanding they have seven minutes to respond.
The deal has slid from seven years on April 27 to a minimum of 18 months. Why not cast in stone seven or more years? The corollary of that, of course, is how can we trust the Americans not to ignore even that 18-month minimum? That question is for Mr. Feldman.
Question two is on the dispute panel. Over $5 billion was taken illegally through illegal tariffs. The money was taken unlawfully; that's very clear. So why are we now actually going to agree to that illegal act? It's essentially piracy.
Thirdly, the Court of International Trade said on July 14 that the Americans could not collect those duties, that they must give them back, unless we signed this agreement, allowing them to take them. So if this panel, this court—the highest court—says it's illegal, and the dispute panels have been ignored by the American lumber industry, then does it mean that NAFTA no longer works?
Those three questions are for Mr. Feldman.
For Monsieur Rivard, your representative, Kim Pollock, warned about the surge mechanism factor. Even with this deal, future penalties may be so punitive that many of the companies agreeing to this now may find themselves under duress, to the point where, even if they made an error in calculation of their refund for these tariffs here now—as an aside—they would not even have an appeal for that. So those are my two questions.
Monsieur Parent, the media has widely recognized that the minister has essentially bullied companies into agreeing to this and, really, hung them out to dry. Could an unhappy company make for a happier workforce and happier communities? I guess that's my concern. With this reluctance, can this really work in the long run?
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.