Thank you very much for your testimony. It's very eye opening, even chilling, to think what the consequences could be and how dangerous it would be if we rammed this deal through without taking the appropriate time to consult. I think that's something each of you has highlighted and each member of this committee will certainly take back. We can't be irresponsible about this.
I have three questions I'd like to ask, so I'll get them off quickly and allow you time to respond.
My first question is to Mr. Grenier. Talking about the litigation that is in course over the next few weeks or the next two or three months, what are the consequences of Canada's folding, essentially, and not proceeding with that litigation? And what are the consequences, particularly for chapter 19, dispute settlement, generally?
The other question is, do you see anything in the proposed agreement that would actually protect Canada's rights with a binding dispute settlement mechanism? Further to that, does the folding of our tent in some way validate the Byrd Amendment?
And finally, in terms of the issue of the no-injury letters from American producers, do you believe that actually has some weight?
To Ms. Lim, you mentioned some estimates showing that 20% of sawmills would close, particularly in northern Ontario and in Quebec. Have the provinces of Ontario and Quebec expressed concerns about what the possible impact would be with a rushed deal that might indeed lead to those consequences?
My third question is to Mr. Wakelin. I'm very surprised that Alberta and the Alberta industry have not been consulted in this process at all--although the consultation process has much to be desired even for those who have been consulted. You mentioned that Alberta's market share would actually decline. Is there any estimate on job losses in Alberta if this agreement were to go through as we've seen it to date?
Thank you.