Let me start at the back end of your questions.
This agreement provides a mechanism far superior to loan guarantees, and I challenge you on that, if you don't believe it to be the case. It is far superior. It gets cash much more quickly and efficiently into the hands of companies. If you want loan guarantees, this is the framework that gets them.
On the running rules, we would have preferred to have prospective versus retrospective calculation of some of these duties. We worked with the industry. We recognize, and have committed to, the need for a framework of measurement, of tracking of flows, so that we can ensure companies are always relatively well informed as to what their position is and what potential liability they will face in terms of a potential export tax measure.
Frankly, if I were a CEO, I would recognize that you can estimate with great clarity exactly what your position is, within 1% or 2%. Generally speaking, there is no reason why this arrangement should not work very well from a commercial point of view. To the degree that there are any administrative hiccups in ensuring it, we will be working with them. We have a committee; both Canada and the United States have an industry committee that will be focusing on how we can ensure that this agreement works in a commercially viable way.