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.
With regard to the proposed agreement not being enacted either by industry voting it down or it not getting through Parliament, again, the precedent was set in 1996 when the Maritimes undertook obligations to ensure that the recognition of our circumstances was maintained and there was no circumvention through our borders. We undertook obligations with regard to maintaining forest policies, and that was codified in what we referred to as an exchange of letters. I can assure you that rather than spending any more money on legal fees in a case where there are no allegations against us, where we have been used as the benchmark in determining subsidies as litigation is going forward, if the Canadian industry and the Government of Canada see fit not to invoke this agreement, we will be seeking our own separate arrangement.