That's correct. If I could add to that, as I understand it, the list set out in the treaty--I can't help but discuss that momentarily--has cross references to the harmonized system of tariff classification, as well as a non-exhaustive list of products. In other words, if that treaty legislation is to be ultimately adopted as the control list by the Export and Import Permits Act, we will still have a great deal of vagueness in terms of what constitutes a softwood lumber product.
Tariff classification is not as much of a science as we would hope it to be; it's a bit of an art as well. Frequently there are disputes concerning tariff classification. Whether or not a softwood lumber product falls within a specific tariff classification will be debated and established by the courts, not by Parliament. I don't think that's what was intended by this agreement. Likewise, the non-exhaustive list that's contained in the treaty is not limiting, so that's an additional problem.
Finally, there is consistent use of the word “product” in the context of processing--primary processing, last primary processing, etc.--throughout the legislation. In my view, as a result of that language, there will be a significant amount of dispute as to the scope of the agreement. We will be litigating these issues. This will cause uncertainty, which is the problem when you're trying to assist an industry to come out of this four or five years of difficulty.