I'd like to make a comment on the termination clause. I think we have three aspects here that really make this a separate case from these other agreements that you're mentioning. I think it's only fair to say that in those other ones, those deals weren't bought with my billion dollars. That's a big difference here.
The second difference is that those other agreements you mentioned weren't done in settlement of an extremely litigious dispute, a very long-standing, hugely litigious dispute in which one party appears to have been willing to do almost anything in that litigation.
Thirdly, those other agreements don't have the situation we have here, where we've lived through five years during which the American government seems to want to do just whatever the coalition asks.
So I really don't think in those three circumstances it is enough of a reassurance to the Canadian industry, faced with a termination clause of 23 months when they were told they were going to get seven years, to just say, well, that's normal. In those three very specific circumstances I gave, it's very reasonable that we should ask at least for the assurance that the power of termination in article XX will only ever be used as a last resort and only if consultations show that the agreement cannot be made to work properly.