I am going to ask each of the witnesses for a brief response.
First, it has been said that under this deal we'd actually be paying more in duties than would have survived litigation. I'd like you to comment on that.
Second, we're sort of looking at the elephant in the corner here, which is something we've skirted around in this committee hearing today. But the question is, under what circumstances should this deal not be signed? If this deal continues as it is, and if the ambiguity is such that the American industry can profit from every area that has been left with the t's uncrossed and the i's undotted, under what circumstances would it be irresponsible to sign a deal?
Third, my last question, if there was a very explicit recognition from the federal government that loan guarantees would be provided to the industry and that litigation support would continue to the end of this process so that Canada's rights are maintained, do you believe the industry would support that approach?