Thank you very much.
I have other questions for Mr. Rutenberg. You were very eloquent on the fact that we have these two hurdles to go over in litigation to win both on the ECC with the subsidy, which is non-appealable, as we know, and the Tembec case and injury that we won on July 21, which is subject to only one appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
I'd like you to comment on what we lose if we push forward with this proposed deal, both in terms of the $500 million that goes to the American softwood industry to attack the Canadian softwood industry again, with the impact on American home builders, and the fact that we lose all those four years of litigation, which makes absolutely no sense, to lose that four-year investment when we have only 12 months to go.
If we have time, I'd like Ms. Blenkhorn to specifically respond on the issue around the maritime exclusions, the one thing the government didn't give away, the exclusions based on companies not having shipments going above 2004-05 levels. Is that what you requested of the government, to cap it at 2004-05 levels?
Secondly, you mentioned ongoing litigation, a little like Mr. Emerson, but Mr. Emerson, when pressed this morning, was not able to give any sense of any appeals on the non-appealable ECC judgment and the non-appealable Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
It's just to blow up this myth about ongoing litigation when we know very well there are only two hurdles to go.
But I'll start with Mr. Rutenberg.