Mr. Chairman, my response to the honourable member is that we don't share the same vision of the future alternatives. Clearly, the precedents that he talks about we don't see as having necessarily large value.
I must repeat that for somebody who has lived through Lumber I to Lumber IV, yes, we've gone further in this case than ever before, but my understanding even of the CIT decision is that it's only binding on this particular issue. If in fact we should lose on the appeal, it would not be binding on the USTR on the next round. I guess it comes down to how you see the future, and we certainly see it based on where we've been over the last years. We are in fact looking at this as being a reasonable alternative going forward.