Certainly. The choice that I'm referring to, Mr. Paquette, is the choice that we started out with, one we thought we had from the very start of this adventure, which was the return to complete and full free trade and our absolution against these allegations: you're subsidized; you threaten us with injury; you're injurious to us. The pact that we made among ourselves in Ontario--and I will suggest that we were in the forefront of galvanizing the Canadian version of the alliance to meet the allegations--was that we know we're not subsidized, we know we are not injuring the United States, so let's have our day in court, and an independent court of competent jurisdiction will uphold that we are right.
Now we are on the cusp, right on the edge of the last two or three pieces that we need. Whether or not there's a deal afterwards, a conclusion, what we ask Parliament to do for us is to have the legal process fulfill itself, to make the pronouncements. That's it. If at that point the only resolution with the Americans is that we don't really care whether you are subsidized or you're injuring us--that was all a facade--and that what we really want to do is manage trade, then we'll open that discussion then. As we've always said in Ontario, we're not averse to a deal, but we are not accepting of a deal in which the allegations made against us are so trumped up that we feel we have to bail out because it's the end of the line and we've run out of money.
Peripheral to that, of course, are the loan guarantees that were requested from many quarters over many months simply to allow us to continue the legal cases to their conclusion on the understanding that the people of Canada would ideally receive 100% in return, once all was said and done. We want a guarantee so we can get our money back.
Those are the two things we've been asking Parliament for.