It depends on the type of dispute. I can give you a good example of where the government plays a very important role. For instance, there's RIM's situation in India, where it appeared to us that RIM was being singled out unfairly regarding its market presence. There was a war being waged in the Indian media, promoting false stories about RIM. For instance, after the terrorist attack that took place in Mumbai, suddenly stories appeared saying that the people who perpetrated that horrible act were using BlackBerrys. That was not true at all; they were not using them. It was being done specifically to undermine RIM's presence in the Indian market.
As a consequence, we became involved by having meetings with senior Indian government officials to ensure they knew what the facts were. That's an instance where we did get involved in a situation. It was not about a contract per se, but about assisting a Canadian firm.
In terms of specific disputes, it would depend on what the issue is. If it concerns a contract between partners in a deal and the rule of law pertains in that jurisdiction, then it plays out in their courts. In terms of the actual trade agreements, I'm not sure what kinds of dispute resolution systems they have attached to the agreements. You would have to ask our trade negotiators. Clearly, in the context of the United States, there are situations that arise, but again, these are big when they pertain to a sector like softwood lumber.
I don't know if that adequately addresses the question you've asked.