Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your presentations as well.
I certainly agree with Mr. Brodrick when he says the government keeps coming back; I wouldn't say necessarily they get something else. We started off on April 27 with a seven-year firm termination clause that's gone to 23 months on July 1. Now we're at August 21 and it's down to 18 months. Article XX, as Mr. Wilson confirmed this morning, says that after 18 months after entry into force, either party may terminate this agreement. That's not including, of course, the fact that the United States can pull it on basic allegations of non-compliance at any time.
So when the government says this is a stable agreement, I'd certainly admit it looks like a stable, and more and more it's starting to smell like a stable; I certainly wouldn't say it is a stable agreement in any way, shape, or form.
I'd like to come back to your presentations; they were excellent. I'll start with Mr. Brodrick.
You raised some really serious concerns about what the impact of this badly botched negotiation and this badly flawed deal could be in your community and your region. I'd like you, if you could, to respond with a little more detail: what you're hearing in your community, and what kinds of consequences could happen in your community and your region if we tried to ram this deal through.
Mr. Milton, you raised two very important issues. One was the issue of the running rules. I'd like you, if you could, to go into a little more detail about the various punitive measures that happen retroactively and how they could impact a business. You talked about the quotas being set on a monthly basis, but I'd like you to go into more details, because we heard this morning from Mr. Wilson that there have been no changes to running rules.
You also followed up on the revelations by Mr. Feldman that $450 million is going to the White House. You have to think there must be some reason to try to ram this through. Maybe the Conservatives want to help their Republican friends. I'd very much like to hear a little more detail there.
Just to conclude, Mr. Chevrette, I have to say I'm really sad to hear that the Quebec industry has been treated so badly by this government and is now divided. You said that loan guarantees would have changed the Quebec industry's approach to this agreement.
If, as expressed by the vote we had here barely an hour ago, loan guarantees were provided over the next few days, would that change things, in that it would be possible to provide the Quebec industry with the assistance it so badly needs?