Two clarifications arose out of the subsequent discussions we had with Washington. A 12-month standstill agreement had been negotiated as of July 1, and that didn't apply on expiry of the agreement, so you can have a one-day difference from a termination on the last day of the agreement to the first day after expiry. The Americans accepted the clarification. It didn't really make a major difference, so they agreed to allow the standstill to occur on normal expiry of the agreement. The agreement that was initialled on July 1 allowed for 23 months and then a one-month termination, so effectively two years. The industry felt that if we could get a six-month notice instead of the one-month notice it would add some value to the agreement. The Americans sought it within the two-year timeframe originally negotiated. So an adjustment that way was not a major factor.
You mentioned running rules as another matter that was raised at the meeting. The United States have indicated to us that they understand there are concerns on running rules. They understand that running rules have to be operated in a way that is commercially viable, that makes business sense. They have indicated that in one of the consultative elements of the agreement...that they would be happy and would expect that we would bring them forward. There's an understanding between us that this will probably be an early item brought forward to that agenda. There could be things from both sides, both the U.S. and the Canadian industry, in that consultative mechanism.
I should make an observation on that. I think this is a very important mechanism. It's very important that industry from both sides of the border get together and discuss these matters without the filters of industry associations or lawyers, and in this and other ways, we have provided for that type of dialogue. It can be an important element in keeping us away from problems in the future.
You mentioned the Byrd Amendment. As you know, the Byrd Amendment has been ruled illegal, and we are very supportive of that. We are very conscious of the difficulties it presented and we pushed pretty hard in any discussions that we had with the United States on the matter.
You asked whether we considered any options. I should say to you that of the $1 billion that goes to the United States, $500 million goes to the industry and $500 million goes to a number of initiatives, what we've called meritorious initiatives. You touched on one, Katrina rebuilding. There could be others. Who knows what's going to happen, with this hurricane season that we're just getting into right now. There's provision for half of that money to go to, first of all, industry promotion; that would be North American industry promotion. The much larger balance will be on these meritorious initiatives, which we've had discussions on, but we haven't had final agreement as to what they would be.