When you have a legal determination—the wins that we're talking about—those wins are based on information that's put on the record for a specific period. As you know, we were under managed trade between Canada and the United States between 1996 and 2001. When we decided not to extend the softwood lumber agreement, the United States immediately responded by launching the petition for both countervailing duty and anti-dumping.
The period that was used for investigation for countervailing duty and anti-dumping was April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, which was a period under managed trade. The period the Court of International Trade, the CIT, used in determining whether there was injury or threat of injury, which is the other big win we talk about, was 1999 to 2001, again a period where the softwood lumber agreement was in full force and we were under managed trade. As I said earlier, it was also a period of a high Canadian dollar.
When you're under a trade agreement or managed trade, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that they couldn't determine “injury” and only “threat of injury”, because if there were injury under a managed trade agreement, it would be evidence the agreement was not working.