If I can answer that.
As for what happened in the United States, I'll use as the first example. A number of industries tabled requests for safeguards according to processes that were laid out. Although it's not quite the same, we have the Canadian International Trade Tribunal here that could hear those kinds of safeguard cases.
Essentially what happened was chaos in the marketplace, because once you trigger a safeguard, it's: get in, move it faster. So everything gets moved up faster and creates an amazing disruption in the marketplace, because that's just good sense. If there's going to be a safeguard in place with a certain cap, you move like heck to get in there before the cap takes hold.
Faced with that level of confusion in the marketplace, China agreed--although it did not have to--to negotiate a broader quota arrangement with the United States. And again, the same sort of thing happened in Europe. But if we were to look back about a year and a half, on the cover of BusinessWeek, I think, were the bra wars in Europe. All the retailers were bringing in bras from China and they hit the cap.
There are many opinions about what should be done. But I would not want this committee to think it's just one-two, we'll notify them on the safeguard, they'll say okay, and we'll negotiate a bilateral.
If you were looking at some of the growth rates in 2005 into the States, they were up 700% in some categories, they were up 20%, 10% in some, and the cap was at 7.5%.
So again, I would encourage you to speak to the people at International Trade to have them clearly lay out what the scenarios would be, because it is not a simple process, by any means. Setting aside that our position is in general that they're not appropriate, even if you chose to move forward on them, it's a rough road.