You asked whether you had lawyers representing any of the major companies. I've been representing Tembec and Domtar for five years--they're considered major companies--and a host of other companies within the associations I represent, some of whom you'd also regard as major companies, I'm sure. And I talk with the counsel of the companies to whom you're making reference almost every day.
So would we have a large debate about some of these questions? I think there'd be consensus that the special charge is not appropriate as to the refunds, and I emphasize that point because your previous statement seemed to focus on the issue of the income tax--and I've referred to different taxes here--because this bill contains an implied income tax, the special charge, and the export tax. This has become a large revenue bill, even though my understanding was that it was supposed to be the implementation of the softwood lumber agreement, and there are elements here that are not implementation of the softwood lumber agreement. That's the main point I'm making.
So when you say there were companies who supported or endorsed or agreed to reaching an agreement in some fashion, the special charge and the tax arrangements weren't part of anything about which they were saying yes, let's get on with it.