Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to be very clear, Mr. Emerson, that I'm asking you why you initialled a deal that the vast majority of the industry opposed. I would still like an answer to that question.
I also want to mention that you are undermining your own argument. You talk about Lumber V, and we know the consequences of accepting a deal that erases four years of legal victories and gives half a billion dollars to the coalition for their war fund to attack our softwood industry again. Yet you have not specifically mentioned anything to contradict what we all know to be true: that with the suspension of the ECC judgment, which is non-appealable, and with the recent Tembec judgment, we're basically 90 days away from a suspension of the illegal tariffs, through a preliminary injunction, and 12 months away from repayment.
So you have said nothing specific to contradict this. There is no crystal ball that somehow indicates that there are any other mechanisms the United States can use. I want to be very clear about this.
I have two specific questions. The first concerns the clause within this deal that essentially revokes the duties retroactively. In a very real sense, this allows for the elimination of four years of legal victories. Why would you initial a deal that eliminates four years of legal victories?
Secondly, when we talk about termination, in article XX, paragraph 34, it says very clearly that the United States reserves the right to terminate the agreement, if Canada is not applying the export measures under article VII and article VIII, without resort to dispute settlement or any other precondition for termination. Essentially this is a loophole that allows the United States to terminate the agreement on a simple allegation of circumvention. So why would you give that loophole to the United States?