That's a very good question. It's in some ways similar to this problem. This is a long-term issue we've had with the United States, both in softwood lumber and on procurement policy. We have a fundamental disagreement.
I wouldn't try to represent the industry's view on what the preferred path forward is, but the more recent signals we're seeing from the U.S. is an interest in a new agreement between Canada and the U.S. I'm not sure how serious that is, but at least there have been comments from the new USTR in that space and to the extent that that would be helpful.
It has been a challenge, though. We always struggle to raise our issues. At the American level we're dealing with local constituencies and business groups. This came up in the steel and aluminum case with section 232 tariffs, where there were specific businesses that had a key interest. They were able to drive federal policy in a way that worked against, I would argue, American national interests.
We're seeing a very similar pattern with softwood lumber now. We know very clearly the National Association of Home Builders in the United States has been very vocal. I don't want to misquote the numbers, but adding $20,000 to $30,000 on top of a house at a time when housing prices are so high is absurd.
I'm hopeful we can reach a conclusion. That does seem to be one area where the administration has at least signalled an openness to dealing with Canada. Hopefully we can make progress.