We protect ourselves under the WTO agreement. If this industry continues to be subsidized, we have mechanisms at our disposal to take Norway to task for that. Whether or not we choose to do so will be a political decision. I come back to the Brazilian aircraft cases at the WTO, which didn't go so well. But we have this mechanism at our disposal. So there are these sorts of protections that already exist, plus there is the safeguard mechanism, that if the reductions occur too fast and our industry suffers serious injury.... You know what? It may be that there's no overlap between the industries, or it costs so much to get ships to Canada, or there aren't Canadian buyers.... So we have a lot of factors that will come into play, but if it turns out that there are significant sales to Canada and imports into Canada, then we have mechanisms to redress any serious injury that's caused by that activity under the Canada-EFTA free trade agreement.
There's also the SCM agreement at the WTO, which extends beyond that. If we went to the WTO, we would have to bring the case against all shipbuilding industries in every country. Under this agreement, we're able to do it in a country-specific way. So it would be Canada versus Norway, but at the WTO it's Canada versus everybody.
So there are mechanisms where subsidization creates a competitive advantage, allowing goods to be sold in the international market at a lower price. If the Canada Border Services Agency finds there's been subsidization, they will calculate what the value of it is to the particular exporter of the product that is being subsidized. If the companies participate in the case, there are then company-by-company duty rates, or CVD rates. We all know about this through our softwood lumber experience; it's the same sort of thing. Or if none of the companies participate in the process, it would be some specified rate—and this could go on for a significant period of years.