I'll come back to the numbers first and then do the second part of the question.
As I said, five cases were settled. Seven of them were inactive, terminated or withdrawn. When they're withdrawn—and I can tell you, because in a couple of those cases I was trade counsel directly—those were cases in a consultation setting, for example. Two of them I can think of were withdrawn by the investor, who was hoping, at that point, to get some type of settlement. We said, “No, we'll be defending that vigorously.” They decided to withdraw that case to avoid costs against them, for example.
I think part of your question had to do with measures and with measures being withdrawn. Is that correct?
In my understanding, in no case was a measure withdrawn. Under investor-state, there's only one thing that a tribunal can do if there is a case in which they have found a breach, and that is to award damages. They cannot order a country under a treaty with Canada to withdraw a measure.