Thank you, Ms. Yurkovich. I wholeheartedly agree with you, particularly on the synergies on green infrastructure and building greener in both countries. That's a priority for both of us, so that should hopefully be persuasive.
We know where we are, and we know that we've actually deployed a number of tools under a number of different mechanisms to challenge decisions that have been taken. We've been successful at every turn. Sometimes those decisions take time and some of them are still pending. At the WTO there is a total of three that are pending right now. Under the old NAFTA chapter 19 there are three instances of litigation that are still pending, and under CUSMA chapter 10 there are four instances of decisions that are pending.
I know it's not the ideal situation, because we would like to not be in litigation, but I'm conscious of the fact that when we were brought into renegotiating NAFTA and turning it into CUSMA, we heard a lot from parties in the chamber, including Her Majesty's official opposition about resiling from things like imposing a strong dispute resolution mechanism. That mechanism is actually clearly in play given that there are no fewer than four disputes currently at play under CUSMA chapter 10 right now.
Perhaps I'll ask this question to Mr. Krips. Could you let us know where you think we'd be if we didn't have a dispute settlement mechanism under CUSMA through which to litigate some of these disputes?