I am happy to hear you say that, Mr. Lazar. The U.S. government is sometimes criticized for not being proactive, but on this issue, in certain areas, it has been much more proactive than the Canadian government. Just consider black liquor and red liquor, for example, waste. The U.S. government determined that companies could receive a direct subsidy so that they could cut some of their production costs. The problem we have here in Canada is that our plants were not in a position to compete with other plants on a level playing field.
The government created a program to deliver funding, but with certain conditions attached. In the end, the final condition is that paper manufacturers need to have the money to do their own retrofits or environmental improvements. It seems that the industry is always on the hook for making the changes. If it can afford to make the changes, the government might help out. The government should instead be proactive and ask what it can do to help the industry, to help it become greener, to ensure its jobs are protected and pave the way for the jobs of tomorrow, the jobs of a greener economy, all the while, keeping a traditional industry alive, even if it is pulp and paper, even if it is the forest industry. It is a traditional industry that is shifting to a green industry.
Do you agree with that?