Starting with your last question first, it's my expectation that we will require a ways and means motion some time, hopefully before the spring session of Parliament is complete. I can't tell you with precision when that will be ready, but we're certainly working to get it done for spring.
In terms of quotas, there is no quota if you don't want a quota. We have provided an option so that a province--and this largely came from Quebec and Ontario, which wanted this option--in weak markets could pay a lower export tax but subject itself to a quota. So we did it, really, in the interests of Quebec and Ontario. It's unlikely that the quota option would be the choice of most western provinces, although they could choose that. The quota will be based, already, on an average of 34% of the U.S. market, and then prorate the share, in your case, of Quebec for the years 2001 through 2005. That gives them the basis on which they will calculate their quota.
I believe that's a pretty decent compromise, and that was what Quebec had asked for. We've had good support from the Government of Quebec. The vast majority of companies in Quebec have been supportive. I realize that the Free Trade Lumber Council, and Mr. Grenier in particular.... I was one of the founding members of that organization, so I know that their whole raison d'être is to fight for full free trade. And it's a good fight to have, but at some point we have to choose between the balance of interests in the country and the national interest. I believe that now is the time to move on, and the Free Trade Lumber Council, I'm sure, will carry on the good fight for perfection in free trade, but I think I'll be dead and buried when they arrive at their destination.