Yes on some points, and no on others. We have only singled out the points that do not comply with the spirit of the agreement. I'll give you an example.
In the first paragraphs of the American document—the only one I've officially seen—they clearly want us to agree that our industry is subsidized, which is false. We even won our case before the International Trade Tribunal. So that's a sentence that must quite naturally be struck out. That goes without saying.
The four important points that we want are priorities. We didn't want to get into the infinite details of the document, which is some 20 pages long, in addition to all the annexes, as Mr. Feldman said. Obviously, for us, the four points that we very specifically suggested concerned Option B. We absolutely don't want a company penalized when it comes to the end of its contract. I'll give you an example, ACI with Home Depot.
Let's suppose it's short a million board-feet. We wouldn't want it not to be able to serve its customer because the quotas are filled and Option B has been chosen. Levy a punitive tax on it because it's filled the quotas, but at least give it the opportunity to complete the commercial transaction. This agreement shouldn't cause our businesses to lose contracts. This is a very important point regarding Option B that should be clarified. Even an American business would not accept this kind of situation.
I told you about the exit ramps. Amendments are needed in order to enable the various governments to carry out their reform of forestry systems, which has begun in Quebec and elsewhere.
Anti-circumvention provisions are also necessary.
The last point concerns manufacturers. We consider them on a first-mill basis. We wouldn't want an independent remanufacturer to pay less tax than someone who remanufactures his wood himself. The latter would pay $200 for the same quality and type of wood, while the former would pay $100 because he remanufactured it independently. So it's a question of equity and justice for our businesses.
It's very important to clarify these four points with the U.S. government, and we think they can influence any subsequent decision.