As the chairman and Mr. Feldman said, we are not going to rewrite history, but the fact remains that this agreement and this bill have been erected on relatively weak foundations. There has been confirmation that consultation, whether with industry or lumber specialists, was not as extensive as we might have believed.
In any event, we are studying Bill C-24 and know that under the current circumstances, everything in the agreement needs to be complied with. In passing, I should add that if you are ready for an election, let us know. We could then improve Bill C-24 to address your concerns and ensure that certain subjects are covered more readily and more openly, whether we are talking about the exchange rate, tax treatment or definitions. Indeed, Mr. Pearson told us with respect to the definitions that it is the courts that will have to rule when the time comes for clarifications on these matters.
Does your knowledge of the act enable you to tell us whether industry representation can be assured on the softwood lumber committee, as provided for in the act, which is responsible for supervising the implementation of the agreement, for coordinating its further elaboration, for establishing working groups to examine certain aspects of the act and, indirectly, the implementation of the agreement, in greater detail? To ensure that there is industry participation, along with the involvement of regional and provincial governments, should such participation not already be provided in the act?