On the first point, my reference to the draconian nature of the bill is to the provisions of enforcement. As I commented earlier, and as Mr. Pearson seems to be concurring, there is a view that this is not abnormal for Canadian tax law, and it's hard for me to go much beyond that. It would be abnormal in U.S. tax law, and some of these provisions seem extreme to us. I think that, as this is a piece of independent legislation, it would not be unreasonable for you to examine those provisions independently of what's alleged to be “normal” in tax law, and you've just recited some of those instances that seem to be quite extreme. Indeed, you could put aside an educational trust and have it seized years later under the terms as written.
Our principal speculation is that the revocation came when it did under extreme pressure from the coalition, which wanted its $500 million and was getting anxious about getting its money. It was supposed to be at the head of the queue, and the United States therefore made a strategic and possibly erroneous calculation that it could revoke the orders and everything else would necessarily fall into place. In the normal course of things, I don't believe the United States would have revoked the orders without everything already in place, so there were both presumably private undertakings of the Government of Canada accompanying the secret negotiations that amended the agreement, and we are aware of quite intense pressure from the coalition to get its money.