Absolutely. I've been trying to jot them all down. If I'm missing a couple, I'd be more than happy to go back to them.
Your first question was with respect to the meritorious initiative foundation. It is indeed formed under the body of U.S. laws governing charitable organizations, which has within it elements of non-partisanship, etc., cited in the U.S. laws governing the status of charitable organizations.
With respect to the meritorious committee recommendations on use of funds, yes, Canadian lumber can be used. Given the amount of Canadian wood that is exported to the United States, we expect that some would be used in these initiatives, so there is a positive aspect there.
You also raised the reporting structure for the two non-voting members. I'll have to get back to you. I'm trying not to mislead the committee; I wasn't aware if the two non-voting members have any sort of formal reporting structure, so I'll have to get back to you on that.
With respect to the binational industry committee, the question there was with respect to industry recommendations about how things can be improved, as opposed to another agreement. And you're quite right, I tried to identify that the industry input into this process about improvements is continual through a number of ways.
My colleague Brice MacGregor has also identified, in the side letter that I mentioned earlier from Ambassador Schwab to Minister Emerson, the possibility of parallel industry discussions on how best to improve. I would add that to the mix, as well as the other types of mechanisms and consultations that would lead to industry input as to how things can be improved going forward with the agreement.
With respect to the dispute mechanism, I think your question there was relating to the effectiveness of this new mechanism that we've established. Would that be a fair assessment?