The decision is made by the Minister of Finance, and we were part of the consultations. We did a lot of the analysis. I think you're going to have that department here in a week or so. I just don't know what date they will make an announcement, but I can tell you that it was robust analysis that was undertaken.
One of the considerations, as you design the safeguards—just as when we did the retaliation packages on July 1— is the question of unintended consequences. If there are contracts in place in many businesses, we want to be really sure that if we put a safeguard in place and someone is either still required to export under those conditions or has suddenly lost their linkage to an important external supplier, that we'll all hear about that story and about the fact it's not a benefit.
We're being really careful in doing the analysis on the contracting sides, and also around the issue of scarcity. We want to make sure, if we're putting a safeguard in place, that we're doing it for a reason. If there's not a domestic supply— and this sounds very straightforward, but when you get into the codes and you're looking at all of the thousands of different products, then you need to get to that level of granularity. We don't want to be in a position where, two weeks after we put a safeguard in place, we find out that we turned off the tap to an international supply for somebody, that there's no domestic opportunity and that all we've done is increase the price for them.
We're being really careful with the calibration. Any decision we make has to be defensible, both domestically and at the WTO. One of the foundational points for the government is that as we negotiated the trade agreements and engaged in all of our international activity, we remained steadfast in our support for the international rules-based system. In our own conduct, we need to make sure that any programming or support we provide or actions we take in response are defensible in those kinds of frameworks.