I will follow up both Mr. Arthur and Mr. Lapierre. You have touched on this whole issue of consolidation. It's fragmented and...obviously, it's been successful, but in order to bulk up, I don't know if you're saying there's an over-capacity and therefore one needs to consolidate, or whether or not you need to consolidate by virtue of the fact that there are synergies when you start to bulk up.
I'll ask a couple of things. Are you talking about government being involved in a planned consolidation, because you can either plan consolidations or wait for outsiders to buy out and consolidate for you? If that's the case, are you then asking for adjustment programs for workers who are displaced or communities that are directly affected?
I'm trying to understand how government can help either in the consolidation or what you are doing in order to consolidate, rationalize, and everything else. There are significant social implications for communities and people. Therefore, is that the piece where you want government to be involved?
Secondly, with regard to research and development--and I think our greatest hope for the future is to continue to do some research and development and value-added--what role do you think government should have with the forestry sector in helping to develop a forestry strategic plan that encompasses a pool of money, with yours, that will help us add value and do some research and development and some of the new innovation for wood products that must come about?