That's a fair comment. The reality is that the many chapters and incarnations of the softwood lumber disputes over 20-plus years have tended to be, since NAFTA, all through chapter 19. We've been contesting countervailing duties throughout this whole time, using chapter 19. There are over 20 legal cases out there, as you know, that are either chapter 19-related or WTO-related.
The reality is that chapter 19 is imperfect. Chapter 19 is the one that allows spurious cases that are not well substantiated to be launched, which is what we have today. You can make allegations about dumping, you can make allegations about subsidy, and you can put in place 27% duties, all under chapter 19. So chapter 19 is being used, and at the end of the day I think we all recognize--and Mexico has come to recognize--that it's a pretty expensive proposition to take these battles right down to the final legal victory. Indeed, there may never be a final legal victory if some of the protectionists have their way in the U.S.
So this framework says that if we can't fix chapter 19 and get a more rigorous test for when a countervailing duty can be brought, or a more rigorous test for when an anti-dumping duty can be brought, or a more timely resolution of the dispute, then let's have an agreement that precludes these disputes and gets back to a basis of stability for the industry.
That's the trade-off we've made. We've decided that we're far better off to have stability, to have the Americans swear off taking actions, and to get on with a more stable and predictable environment to build the industry.