Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, this problem arose because the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, a Canadian body, ruled against the Canadian apple growers.
It is therefore imperative if we are to win in a subsequent appeal to that body which would follow a national revenue ruling, that we have the clear evidence to make sure that its previous decision is overturned.
The dilemma the hon. member and I have in this instance is that very much the same evidence was provided in the initial hearing of potential damage and was rejected. It is therefore imperative before we go before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for a second time that we have what I would describe as an airtight case in this regard.
As I said yesterday and will repeat today, the consequences to the Canadian apple industry of a second defeat probably would be catastrophic.