Thank you very much, Chair.
Again, I'd like to thank the witnesses. This is the second meeting in a row where we've had to deal with some housekeeping matters and it's gone a bit longer than we anticipated, but I guess it's a reflection of this committee and its eagerness to move forward on some key issues.
Mr. Grenier, in your testimony, not only today but also in the Senate, you mentioned the machinery of government, and you talked about the softwood lumber agreement in your remarks. I'm glad you brought that forth, because that's something I want to use as an example, to talk about the machinery in government and lessons learned from that particular agreement.
You indicated in your testimony in front of the Senate committee this month that “the agreement is overly complex, it has needless punitive measures against Canada, and left too many loose ends that are open to interpretation.” That was one remark you made, followed by:I guess the biggest frustration from our perspective is that the federal government viewed the signing of the agreement as the end of the process, it was just the beginning. The government has offered minimal help to industry in interpreting the agreement, resolving tax issues. In the six months since the pact was signed, they weren't around. They disappeared.
The concern I have—and I was trying to discuss this in the last meeting as well when we discussed the machinery of government with Mr. Siegel, the president of EDC—is about the refund process. He indicated some of the success stories around that and how industry received its refunds in time.
There's another concern that was raised, which is the misunderstanding of how the surge provisions were calculated in the province of British Columbia, for example. They interpreted it giving one perspective and the federal government had a different perspective on it, and my understanding is that the U.S. had a different perspective on it.
So how can departments better coordinate that? First of all, I want you to comment if there was a misunderstanding, and secondly, if there was a misunderstanding, how was it resolved?