International Trade committee  Mr. Julian, I'm not aware of any cap for Atlantic Canada either in article X, which provides our exemption from the previous articles. It doesn't talk about a cap. Then when you get to anti-circumvention, it talks about 100% of our production, and anything that exceeds our production will be at a penalty of $200.

International Trade committee  Not for 2004-05. There is no cap in here.

International Trade committee  That's not applying to the Maritimes. This is subparagraph 17(a), in (i) and (ii).

International Trade committee  Can you quote to me where you're reading the 2004-05 reference?

International Trade committee  I don't think you need to wait for the American industry. As I said earlier, I think the United States government will take action that they have available to them through their Trade Act of, I believe, 1974. You will see a section 301 or a section 601 action, or other components thereof, and it will be punitive against Canada.

International Trade committee  This is 2006. We're in the 2001 case. With the appeals coming forward, we're looking at decisions between 2007 and 2009. If you start again, we're going to be through the Olympics and looking forward to the next ones before it gets resolved.

International Trade committee  I'll answer that. You know there is something that is going to level the playing field. You can pay it to the United States in the form of the tariff--CVD, anti-dumping--and in this case, get back 80% of it; you can pay it to Canada in an export tax, which is what the agreement is; or you can do as the Maritimes have done and pay it to your provinces or the private landowners in elevated costs that would keep you out of the case.

International Trade committee  The answer to that is very obvious from the degree of our support. We support it, we support it completely, and we urge others and all of our elected representatives in Atlantic Canada to support it.

International Trade committee  When you have a legal determination—the wins that we're talking about—those wins are based on information that's put on the record for a specific period. As you know, we were under managed trade between Canada and the United States between 1996 and 2001. When we decided not to extend the softwood lumber agreement, the United States immediately responded by launching the petition for both countervailing duty and anti-dumping.

International Trade committee  Actually, it is the case, because particularly in New Brunswick we have transportation surveys, which are a requirement of the Government of New Brunswick. Where logs originate from is reported. That's compared with our certificate of origin program. I would stake a reputation on that being controlled quite rigorously.

International Trade committee  I'll add to Mr. Irving's comment. I touched on this, saying we weren't waiting to implement our obligations. When the agreement was signed on April 27, we knew the end of the first quarter had been March 31. We knew our obligations were going to be to collect production data quarterly.

International Trade committee  I don't know if I can comment on the timelines you asked for, but I can comment on a couple of components. The exemption for the border mills was based on three factors: the volume of wood that came from the United States; the volume of wood that was purchased from the Maritimes, given the recognition of those unique circumstances; and the volume of wood from private lands in Quebec.

International Trade committee  Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc. You asked the question with regard to if the agreement didn't go past industry, or it didn't get through legislation, and I'd like to add to that--that is, if it achieves early termination. There's been lots of discussion about termination. Again, from my testimony, using the 1991 example of what happened to Atlantic Canada when, at the request of a single province, the agreement was terminated, we have already put in writing before government officials that we would seek protection--that if the agreement was terminated by either party before it reached at least the seven years, Atlantic Canada would not be thrown back into litigation, and that an exemption of whatever subsequent action would be prevailed at the onset.

International Trade committee  I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear again. This is the second time since the end of May. The Atlantic industry has been represented by the Maritime Lumber Bureau throughout the more than 25-year history of the softwood lumber dispute. The Atlantic position on the softwood lumber dispute has been, and continues to be today, a unified position of both industry and our four provincial governments: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

International Trade committee  Yes, thank you. I think because there's a view that we're exempted, there is also a view that we're not harmed by this agreement or that we haven't been harmed by the ongoing litigation. My answer is directly to your question about investment. Absolutely, we've been harmed in a number of ways.