Great. Thank you.
Now I'd like to move on to two other questions, and then I'll turn the floor over to you.
First, we've had a major shift in trade policy with the U.S. Essentially, I don't think I can underscore enough that Obama campaigned on a fair trade agenda. That was in clear contrast to McCain, who was campaigning on Bush-style free trade. I'm wondering how the department is adjusting to what is very clearly a fair trade agenda before the U.S. Congress—a lot of fair traders were elected to the U.S. Congress as well— and to the administration pushing for stronger social, environmental, and labour standards, pushing for Chapter 11 provisions that Mr. Cardin referenced as well. How is the department adjusting to that new reality, which is no longer the old-style free trade but rather a much more balanced fair trade approach?
My last question is around softwood lumber. I'll have to disagree with the comments Mr. Stephenson made in his opening remarks. Outside of the Ottawa bubble, the softwood lumber agreement, the softwood sellout, is very controversial. In fact, in B.C. it's quite likely that the B.C. government's support for the softwood lumber sellout will contribute to their being defeated on May 12.
Given how large the anti-circumvention clause is, given the fact that essentially it means every time we go forward on any type of arbitration, we've lost, I'm wondering what the upcoming cases are—we've just had a $68-million fine toward Ontario and Quebec—and what the risks are if we lose in that arbitration. What are the costs to Canada likely to be? I'm talking about Ontario and Quebec. I'm also talking about B.C. and Alberta.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.