The minister has made a very strong point of the very undesirable option of continuing litigation, and if we don't get an agreement here, that option is open to the United States industry. This agreement clearly prohibits that option during the life of the agreement, which would be seven to nine years. The point he has been making is that when you're in a low-price market, which we are today, and because of the technical aspects of anti-dumping--which I won't go into in detail, but I can if you wish me to--it is not difficult for the U.S. industry to successfully launch an anti-dumping action.
What you have to demonstrate is that you are selling below the domestic price and you're selling at a loss. There will be companies in a low-price environment such as we're in today selling at a loss, and by the nature of there being an export duty that would be in place if we don't have a resolution here, that will result in an anti-dumping petition, and probably a successful petition. So having gone through four years of anti-dumping and countervail action, we will be right back into it.
The other point the minister has made, which I fully agree with, is that the United States government has committed a significant amount of political capital to bring its industry onside and contribute to the successful conclusion of this agreement. If we can't get a successful resolution of this and we go back into a litigation environment, it will not be a happy environment. I put it as gently as that. But the other thing is that I think you can be sure that, having committed this political capital to move us to where we are today with an agreement that has been initialled by the two governments, if the industry rejects that, the U.S. government will not get behind another attempt at a negotiated settlement. So I think we'd be a long way away from getting back to where we are today, if we were back in a litigation environment.