As an example, we went through that very lengthy dispute settlement panel on the country of origin labelling. We started it in 2008 and we finally got the authorization to retaliate in 2015.
We knew that law was coming, and as we started looking at how to address it, working co-operatively with the trade and agriculture departments at the time, we evaluated the options of taking the panel under NAFTA or under the WTO.
Our feeling at the time was that NAFTA probably would have given a more expeditious result. We could have started earlier, because under the NAFTA you can challenge a prospective measure to try to head off something from coming into effect, but under the WTO you have to wait until it's in effect. We balanced that off, but looking at the history of the NAFTA panels and the decisions, there really isn't a strong enforcement mechanism, such as exists with the WTO and the authorization to retaliate.
In the end, even though we felt that the WTO process was going to be the more lengthy, it was the one that would give us the hammer, so to speak, at the end.