Thank you very much.
Mr. André, on your reference to softwood lumber and chapter 19, I think you've asked an important question. This committee held a lot of hearings on the softwood lumber agreement. I happen to think, and I think a number of members of the committee agreed, that it was not a good agreement, for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was that it would give the United States an effective veto over Canadian policies.
I have some recent correspondence from the Office of the President to the Minister of International Trade. They're asking for consultation because they believe the policies that have been put in place, for example, by the Quebec government, are contrary to the agreement. So the $436 million, another program in support of regional development in Quebec--$75 million--and $44 million intended specifically for forest workers.... These are indications that it holds a veto power and will determine and shape and limit the ability of our governments to apply policies in the best interest of workers and businesses in the industry.
On the question of Kyoto--and I come back to what I was talking about earlier about regulations--if, as it seems the NACC is recommending, there's a North American default standard that should be accepted, and the regulation should comply with that standard, we have different international commitments with respect to the reduction of greenhouse gases and Kyoto treaty commitments. If something like that is in place, how are we able...? I mean, regulation is a very critical part of implementing a protocol like that. How are we able to have the flexibility to apply a range of regulatory instruments that would be effective in reducing greenhouse gases if there is this North American standard that limits our flexibility? Those are real concerns.