Thank you very much, Chair.
And thank you very much for the questions, which are thoughtful and detailed.
We'll take the Atlantic Canada exclusion first. We are aware particularly of the views of the Maritime Lumber Bureau with respect to the specific wording to reflect the agreement. We are working with the Maritime Lumber Bureau, and we are moving closer to resolution of questions that you've raised--exemption versus exclusion and what that means for interpretation of the bill as it relates to the agreement, as well as the 0% duty, these types of issues.
We are in discussion with many provinces, with associations, with remanufacturers, for example the Maritime Lumber Bureau, etc., so we're aware of that. We're working with Atlantic Canada to ensure their concerns are accurately reflected in the legislation, to the extent, of course, of following Canadian domestic law and the obligations we have in that respect.
So yes, I think we can agree that for this purpose perhaps exclusion might be a better term than exemption, that the 0% duty can be referred to in a different way to provide the same effect, and that those actions and consultations are under way with the relevant association.