I think there is perhaps some confusion between the safeguard provisions and those that pertain to dispute settlement in the case of a violation of the agreement.
In the case of a safeguard action, which was intended to protect either market in the event of a surge, the provisions in the Canadian agreement are the same as those in the KORUS agreement with the United States. In fact, they don't apply just to autos, as they do in the case of KORUS, but they apply to all sectors. If the issue is protecting the Canadian market from a surge in either automotive or steel goods, the protections in the Canadian agreement are equal to or surpass the KORUS.
The element of snap-back that is sometimes referred to is not in the Canadian agreement. It is the notion of fixed retaliation in the event that the other party doesn't comply with the dispute settlement panel. Hypothetically, if the Koreans were to violate the non-tariff provisions in the automotive chapter, in the KORUS, the United States would have the right to reinstate the automotive tariff. In Canada, we would only have that right to the extent that the violation matched the level of damage we were imposing through our retaliatory measure.
Our view is that this is not a material difference. We think that the impact of being able to reinstate a 2.5% tariff is not that great, that it can't actually be snapped back in the first four years because it's still in place. Most importantly, in the KORUS, that provision will sunset in 10 years if there hasn't been a violation against the Koreans in the interim. The Koreans, of course, will be highly motivated to avoid that situation from arising.
To the extent that there is any value from that snap-back provision, we think we would benefit indirectly anyway. As a practical matter, it would be hard for the Koreans to impose a non-tariff barrier in a way that discriminates between Canadian-built and U.S.-built cars.
The upshot is that we think under our deal we would benefit from the provision in the KORUS for as long as it lasts. Then, in the likely event that it sunsets, we would still have the benefit of our accelerated dispute settlement procedures that last permanently, whereas those same provisions in the KORUS would sunset. On balance, we think we actually got the better deal.