Thank you, Mr. Boshcoff.
Let me take your questions in the reverse order to which you asked them. You asked if this is the end of NAFTA. The alternative dispute system proposed in the agreement is a complete abandonment of chapter 19, so it declares that chapter 19 is irrelevant.
More perniciously, by abandoning the litigation we've left open one critical question: do NAFTA panels have retroactive authority? That question is being answered by the CIT panel that you invoked, that you mentioned, July 14. That's a three-judge panel chaired by the chief judge.
I heard Mr. Johnson say this morning, well, how do you know you'll win the appeal? Because three-judge panels chaired by the chief judge don't get reversed--that's how you know. That's going to a one-year appeal. So it's not the final court, but it's virtually the final judgment.
We're awaiting this month a decision on the retroactive authority of the panel. If we abandon it, then no one will sensibly ever go to chapter 19 again, because they'll know, courtesy of the two without-prejudice clauses in the agreement, that the United States is entitled to say that its position is that it gets to keep the money. You'll have to fight that whole legal battle all over again--four years--in order to establish that a panel, in fact, can give you back your money. Consequently, no one will ever go to chapter 19 again.
Your second question--why agree to the piracy of the $5 billion--is, I think, related to the answer I just offered you. That is, you are now, as Mr. Julian has frequently said, on the last two hurdles of a four-year legal battle. It's not two or three years away; it's not seven years away. You're at the end. And at the end, you're abandoning the process and becoming, as Monsieur Parent and Monsieur Rivard indicated, guilty as charged.
As to your first question on why it isn't really seven years, it is true, as has been invoked in these hearings, as was mentioned on July 31, that it was British Columbia that initially said maybe we need an exit somehow. We need an exit because the agreement otherwise doesn't provide one. There are no policy exits, there's no expectation of a policy exit. This is the first agreement ever entered into by Canada where there is no way out. Therefore, everyone said, well, maybe there should be a way out earlier--at least British Columbia did--because indeed, looking at the impact the agreement is likely to have on the operations of the industry, Canada may well want out of this agreement in less than seven years.
The difficulty is that by setting it up as two years plus one and lining the pockets of the coalition with $500 million, you've not only proven there's a reward when there wouldn't have been--because they weren't entitled to any money--you've not only financed the next round of litigation, but you've reconfirmed the benefits of launching the petition in the first place. So if the agreement doesn't benefit the coalition enormously--which there's reason to believe it would--then the coalition will be galvanized to file another petition.
For those reasons, you did need to go to the lengthier term, but because British Columbia asked and the United States was delighted to accept, the longer term is no longer available.
Indeed, as was suggested this morning, this is no longer a 24-month deal, this is now an 18-month deal.