That's okay. I think the forest industry has a pretty solid performance in terms of greenhouse gases, so that puzzled me.
I'd like to go to the softwood lumber agreement. I see we have someone from International Trade here, Mr. Bailey.
The Free Trade Lumber Council made a presentation to the international trade committee. I'd just like to read a couple of excerpts from their brief. They say that the second paragraph of the softwood lumber agreement, in a preamble, says:
...Canadian softwood lumber that the United States has found to be dumped and subsidized and threatening material injury to the softwood lumber industry in the United States.
They go on to say:
...we cannot build a long-term durable peace on the foundation of a lie.
We know that the NAFTA panels have consistently shown that there is no subsidization. They go on to say:
The current design of the deal, as we understand it, does exactly what the Coalition wants. We face absolute quotas or, alternatively, graduating export taxes. The tougher the market, the more we pay. The U.S. industry becomes completely insulated from competition in down markets. So, we want free access, and they want protection in down markets. The deal imposes trade restrictions that get tougher on Canadians the more the market slows down.
They go on to summarize:
...we want our legal victories, they want them erased. We want all our money; they want a lot of it. We want free trade; they want trade restricted and managed. We want to manage our forests according to our own rules and ways, and they want significant oversight over our forest policies.
So I ask you--and I want to get into the anti-circumvention clause, because I think that's an area where I have some big concerns--how would you respond to those statements?