Option A and option B are triggered by the price level for wood, so that if there is greater demand for wood, one would expect the price to increase, consequently lifting the price. At the same time it would decrease the use of the border measure on the export, because as the price rose, there would be less imposition of option A or option B.
I would just like to clarify with respect to your consideration of option A and option B. I'm sure you understand it, but I wasn't sure by your comment.
Option B reduces the export charge that a producer would pay within a certain price zone, but in exchange there's a reduction of the volume of export. That's option B. I'm sure you understand it, but with your shorthand, I just wanted to clarify.
Second, with respect to your earlier point, if the binational industry council expands the use of wood through these initiatives--if the entire market grows--so too does the Canadian quota related to that U.S. market, so there is a reflection of that dynamic within the mechanism established for the imposition of the export charge.