Mr. Julian, your question to me is whether I have concerns about a deal that would have us one day face Lumber V, start from scratch, and have to go through all this litigation, which we've paid $100 million for, again.
The answer is yes, that does pose problems, and I can add to the problems. The fact is, the CIT rendered a wonderful judgment on July 23. It's in appeal, and the settlement, if we have it, doesn't look as though it's altogether final. We also have the constitutional case of the coalition, which is not yet even pleaded, so we might have to live through that again one day.
We also have the fact that Canadian industry is giving away a billion dollars, $500 million of which will go to the people who will use it to finance Lumber V. Does that cause concerns? Yes, but it's not the real question. The real question for a CEO, who has to ask whether he wants to be in the 95% or the 5%—and I submit that's the real question also for the government and for this Parliament—is whether he is prepared to swallow those problems.
I submit that the answer is very likely yes, if there is an assurance of peace for seven years, and if some of these other problems can be fixed. But the answer is very likely no, if you're going to be starting from a bit less than scratch. Nevertheless, if you have to go through litigation all over again, starting in two years or three years, then the answer becomes no. So I think that clarification on the termination clause is an essential component of the answer to your question. Some people will say, I will swallow those problems if I get my seven years of peace.
From a governmental perspective, an aspect of that peace that has to be remembered is the unbelievable friction we have had in the lumber dispute over the past many years. That friction has infected commercial relations between the two countries and has risked leaking into other cases. It did leak partially into wheat. One of the benefits of getting the peace, if it lasts long enough, is to let that friction die down. So the real answer is, do we have a termination clause of two months or seven years?