I don't want to get into the legal details of all the briefings I had, but I will tell you that we clearly don't want Lumber V. We know the costs that represents and I say that with all due respect to those charming legal men.
This is an enormous and prohibitive cost to the industry, and we think we should have mechanisms that solve the original problems through arbitration. Some factors suggest to us that we can find an arbitration mechanism that will no doubt be just as costly—we're not deluding ourselves—but that may allow greater neutrality and speed. We're talking about a neutral arbitration arrangement.
We all agree on the share of the U.S. market held by the Canadian industry, and we also know the market share of each province. This issue has more or less been resolved in our view.
I'll stop here to turn the floor over to the others.