Let me go back. Why did I initial this agreement? I initialled the agreement because I felt it was in the best interests of the industry and the country. It was a substantial improvement on the framework agreement, which received relatively broad-based support after April 27. I believe, and continue to believe, that this agreement is in Canada's best interests, and it's in the industry's best interests—and I would do the same again.
In terms of eliminating four years of legal victories, I would submit to you that the legal processes that we—whether under the Liberal or the new Conservative government—have been engaged in for the last four or five years have always been fundamentally focused on strengthening our position so that we could achieve a negotiated settlement. At some point, you cash in the legal victories and what you buy is security.
When you talk about leaving loopholes for industry to come back and attack us, this agreement is the best assurance that on a whim the U.S. industry cannot launch any more legal or trade actions against Canada. That is what this agreement is all about. I will stand on that to the bitter end; there is no loophole. There is a provision in the agreement whereby, if Canada did not complete the provisions in the agreement for an export tax/quota framework, then in effect we didn't implement the agreement, and therefore they could terminate because we didn't do it. That's what that is all about; it is not a loophole.