Mr. Johnson, the Committee would in fact like to travel to British Columbia to find out what the people of that province think of this agreement.
I want to come back to the matter of litigation, which you have already talked about. You said that the alternative would have resulted in even more litigation. In fact, two are currently under way: the case involving Tembec, which is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and one which is currently before the NAFTA Extraordinary Challenge Committee. I put this question to Mr. Emerson and Mr. Wilson this morning. They answered that there would be no appeal of the ruling handed down in these cases. In fact, they would eliminate illegal tariffs. They would force the U.S. government to pay back the full amount, rather than retaining $1 billion. If the federal government is able to provide loan guarantees, why should we go ahead with such a bad agreement when we're so close to victory?