Thank you. I believe that what what involved was in fact several questions.
Let me take the last statement first. I suggest that you simply delete section 18. If I remember the sequence of events correctly, I was here on the day that Monsieur Guy Chevrette said that if the government were to provide them loan guarantees they would not endorse this agreement. It was on the basis of his saying that because they didn't have the loan guarantees they did endorse the agreement, I believe, that the Bloc Québécois then said okay, then we support the agreement. If I remember the sequence correctly, that occurred before there was any discussion of a special charge. So the Bloc Québécois agreed to the agreement that would provide money, not a special charge that would take it away.
You could most help the industry and most easily amend the bill without undoing the agreement by deleting article 18 of the agreement.
I need to add that you're in an interesting sequence as well. The United States has revoked the orders and can't go back to restore them. The money is all coming back regardless of what this Parliament now does, for whatever reason that the United States revoked the orders. We all have our own theories about that—and if someone wants to indulge me I'll be happy to elaborate—but regardless, it has happened. The orders are revoked, the money's coming back, and there is no restoring of the orders. Whatever you do in Parliament as to that development doesn't matter; taxing the refunds does, and you don't have to. It was never part of the agreement. It was never part of the Bloc's pledge when it supported the agreement.