Thank you.
I think we provided suggestions to the Canadian legal text that would preserve our legal victories going forward. It's very critical. That's when we talk about the complexities of writing the agreement. That's part of it--making sure that the language that's in the final legal text doesn't admit guilt. It doesn't say that this is to protect the U.S. against subsidized Canadian lumber, as the legal text is saying.
When we got the Canadian version, because we've been working.... We know this train has left the station. We want to make sure we get it off a political track and get it onto a commercial track and make it a reliable commercial agreement. So when we got the legal text from Canada over the long weekend, we put a lot of effort into analyzing it and suggesting language that would preserve our legal victories going forward and help us avoid starting at ground zero and Lumber V.
Again, as Mr. Wakelin has said, we have to make sure that the suggestions we're making, the advice we're giving, is actually being used and incorporated into that final legal text. That's going to be critical.
Perhaps Carl might want to add to this.