Merci.
To make it a good deal, I would concur with what Jamie Lim has said. The legal basis for the deal could be changed. We've provided very precise language to the federal government to do that. It doesn't mean doing away with the basic terms of April 27; it means that this deal should be about avoiding Lumber V, rather than settling Lumber IV. Lumber IV was settled last year. Only the U.S. refusal to implement the final decision of NAFTA is stopping us from doing that. That's why we're in U.S. courts. Basically, that should be recognized.
There should be no punitive aspect. If we leave a billion dollars behind, that's punitive enough. But it should be clear that's what we're paying to get permanent, durable settlement of this thing, and not just another one of those trade agreements that we've had in the past.
On the policy exits, the agreement now says that in the next 18 months they will negotiate that. That's not good enough. Policy exits are important. What do the provinces have to do to get their industry out from under these restrictive measures? We need to know that now, not 18 months from now. Where will the leverage to get those policy exits be once the final deal is signed?
First and foremost, we now need a process that allows industry input into this legal drafting process. We're being kept at arm's length. We're being told that we should work through the provinces. That's not good enough. That should be improved.