Thank you very much, colleague.
I want to again come back, because while, under what is called option A, in a weak market we could be in a 15% export tax category right now, that is a choice that is to be made by the provincial government. They could choose option B, which is a combination of a supply restriction and a maximum tax of 5%. So don't create a scare story by automatically assuming we're into that kind of tax range. It's not so.
And I want to repeat one more time that all of the legal victories we have won have given us a position of strength to be able to negotiate what I think is a very good agreement. What the legal victories have not done is guarantee we will not have Lumber V, and I would personally say the probability of a Lumber V, if we do not conclude an agreement, is very high, very close to 100%. I can't imagine there not being aggressive trade actions launched immediately.
Concerning the alternative plan, our primary focus is on getting this agreement agreed to by provinces and by industry. In the unlikely event that it does not happen, we will have to talk with provinces and the industry about where they would like to go next. It's not something we intend as a federal government to unilaterally put in place at this time. The forest industry and forest resources are largely a provincial resource, and the industry is largely in collaboration with their provincial governments. There is not a place for the federal government to simply tell the industry and provinces what should be done with the industry in that unlikely scenario.
On the EDC and the mechanism for appealing, that's a technical question. I do not have the answer to that. It may be that Andrea Lyon could help you with it. I would presume the EDC would be very rigorous and disciplined in ensuring that the entries that have to be unwound to get at the money would be done correctly.
Andrea, do you want to add to that?