I believe the administrative costs in the past were in the 1% range. But here the government has also said that it wants to rely on these proceeds for legal costs. It could be associated with the dispute mechanism. The agreement said that a portion of the $1 billion was to be assigned to the cost of managing the dispute mechanism, but not to the legal costs. If I understood the testimony of government officials last week, they would expect provincial governments to carry some of those costs where the provinces were involved. I don't know if there is any precedent for that. The mechanism does not provide for anyone but the federal governments to engage in the dispute process. There is no provision for provincial governments, private counsel, or provincial counsel to engage in any of the disputes.
In the past, where disputes have arisen under these agreements, they have been disputes raised by the United States questioning the conduct of Canada, and they've focused on provincial practices. It's not easy to foresee what will happen going forward, but presumably the anti-circumvention clause would be the principal source of dispute. These would be claims brought by the United States. It would be the Government of Canada's obligation to defend these claims, but it may seek to deflect to provinces. In these cases, the provinces would carry the cost of the dispute while the mechanism would be funded by the money taken from the $1 billion. If the Government of Canada actually does the defence, it presumably would be drawing on resources from the export tax. Then your question becomes, how much would they spend on that? If they use their own lawyers, they spend internally and in theory it's already in the treasury. But then, they could also hire private counsel. There have been reports about how much the Government of Canada tends to spend on private counsel, which I can tell you is a bit more than the private sector spends.