Sure. It's got two pieces to it. The first is obvious: that the sector's acceptability in the marketplace depends on its environmental credentials. It used to be that most people thought environmental problems were industry's fault. It's no longer true; most people now hold themselves personally accountable as well as holding industry accountable. You'd think that would be good for the industry, but it's bad for us because when people buy something, they judge themselves on whether or not they're making a responsible choice. We had to change our brand, which was quite negative environmentally, in order to sustain our place in the market.
In addition, because it’s gone through such hard times, the industry has a bad reputation with investors. Investors think, “The Canadian forest industry? Oh, you've got to be kidding.” Without that investment, all the government programs in the world won't save us. We had to do something to say to the whole world that this is an industry that gets it; this is an industry that's capable of bold moves. What's bolder than getting Greenpeace to hug the head of the forest industry on national television? What shocks the brand more than 21 multinational forest industry corporations together with the most radical environmental groups saying that we are in a uniquely Canadian experiment? We're going to stop fighting and start figuring it out.