Thank you very much, Mr. Menzies.
On your question relating to litigation, I think you alluded to the response when you talked about the potential for appeal for all this litigation. It's by no means certain when that litigation would end. I think it would be fair to say that the major lumber exporting provinces and the industry itself have taken the decision that they would prefer the certainty of the agreement to the extended process of litigation, which could carry forward into 2007 and beyond. So I think that is the answer to your first question.
I would also flag that the softwood lumber agreement stipulates that the agreement is without prejudice to the legal decisions taken so far within these processes. So all these decisions are not lost, in terms of precedent and how they do that. Nonetheless they are not final litigation decisions, and no one is claiming that they are.
On the point Michael was making about binding arbitration, both sides have committed themselves to binding and final arbitration under the SLA. There are questions relating to a reasonable period of time to bring your measures, or whatever the issue is, into conformity with the decision--consultations on what might happen if those timeframes are not met, etc.
I think you have to understand the whole process, with the emphasis squarely on the dispute settlement process from both sides, in respect to the decision of the arbitrator and the award decision of the arbitrator relating to issues brought before them. I think we would underscore that point.
Michael, is there anything else you would like to raise in that regard?