Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to get back to the dispute settlement mechanism. As we know, upon the expiry of the previous softwood lumber agreement, softwood came under NAFTA, so there was a transition period. We've gone through a series of decisions that have been non-binding. We are now in the court system in the United States, and those decisions are binding. The recent Tembec decision, which I know you're aware of, should give us a remedy in the next few days that would require repayment of all of the illegally taken funds. That is the ultimate result of going through those binding courts.
We were at the stage where we were actually winning. Ambassador Wilson admitted in his testimony this summer that there were no appeals, either to the ECC judgment, which the present government suspended, or to the Tembec decision after the circuit court hears the ultimate appeal. So that's where we were, with binding mechanisms that would force the tariffs to be taken and all of the money to be returned.
Instead, now within the softwood agreement we essentially have a non-binding dispute settlement mechanism. You outlined the arbitration. But in going through the pages of the dispute settlement mechanism, we find that if the arbitration is not accepted--in other words, if the United States chooses, as it did through NAFTA and as it has even in court cases, to continue to appeal until the final stages, which we are now at, and to refuse arbitration--there is a second arbitration appeal. If they refuse the essential mechanism or remedy on that, there is a further arbitration appeal.
The final clause, the ultimate endgame in terms of dispute settlement, is paragraph 32. If the United States imposes compensatory measures pursuant to paragraph 27, or Canada imposes compensatory adjustments pursuant to paragraph 26, the other party may request consultations to discuss the status of the agreement. Such consultation must be held within 10 days from the date the request is received. Following the consultations, either party may terminate the agreement.
So the only binding aspect of dispute settlement contained within this agreement is the fact that ultimately either party could terminate the agreement, which is certainly as much in the Americans interest as it maybe to Canada.
Coming back to the issue of dispute settlement mechanism, given that the ultimate element here is that either party may terminate the agreement, my question really is, what do you consider binding about the dispute settlement clauses that are in this agreement?