If I can remember your question to the point on the commercial viability, we've heard that term mentioned several times here from Mr. Potter as well as from a number of the industry reps in the associations. I'm in agreement with him.
I think, for example, that on article XX, the termination article, I did learn something today. I had not realized--and not being privy to the behind-the-scenes negotiations that all of you have and the members of the associations have--that had been requested by B.C. But I do feel that the 23 months is not commercially viable as far as having the companies sign on is concerned. I think it's fairly evident that they want either a letter or just an acknowledgement that we tried to get a little bit longer. I think the standstill definitely helps going forward.
The biggest commercial viability of the deal as it is right now is the return of the $4 billion. Maybe you didn't get my gist when I was saying that probably the one biggest problem we've had in the past five years in previous softwood lumber cases has really been the damage it's done to the capital investment in the Canadian sawmill industry. It really has been very much interfered with. I personally, as I said, think that to the extent a deal can change that situation I support it. Four billion dollars is a lot of money. With the current anti-dumping and countervailing duty, and with the prospects of a softwood five around the corner, the investment in this industry will dry up to virtually nothing.