Yes, it's a very odd situation in that the federal government may conclude a treaty without the provinces having ratified it. The treaty may then be interpreted by these arbitrators as having been violated by a province, but then it's not entirely clear who should bear the cost of the award. Is it the provincial government that made the decision that's been found to have been unlawful by these arbitrators, or is it the federal government that concluded the treaty?
We have a very strange situation coming out of one of the recent NAFTA decisions. It's a couple of years old. It's a Mobil Oil case where a regulatory board in Newfoundland and Labrador put in place research and development expenditure requirements, and NAFTA exemptions for the relevant legislation were interpreted very narrowly by two of the three arbitrators. In the end, the arbitrators have indicated they will order the federal government—or they'll order Canada, presumably the federal government—to pay compensation to the investor to make up for the R and D expenditure costs that are applied by the provincial level going forward for decades, which is just a very odd situation.