Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to add that this study of the service sector and the previous study of the industry produced a wonderful result that we can all be very proud of. It has been said, and it bears to be repeated again, that the solutions to our problem are not in government intervention.
If we go back and take the blues for a recent witness, I think it was Mr. Lazar of the Forest Products Association of Canada--I think this was his name, I don't recall--I must confess that when he came here, sitting on the government side, I thought, boy, we're going to get hammered, and I was fully prepared for that. But if we check his testimony, his suggestion and his wish from the forestry industry was, get out of the way. He specifically said, there's going to be some bloodletting, we need you, we will survive. It's going to be tough, and when we come out of this, we're going to be that much tougher. Check the records. Check what the man said.
The other thing he said--and this is striking, and I think it builds on what Mr. Arthur was saying, and some of my other colleagues mentioned it as well--is that the problems they're experiencing in the forestry industry today are direct results of government intervention and governments pushing them to set up shop in areas where it wasn't economically feasible to do so.
This runs contrary to what we've been hearing time and time again from all of our witnesses, from the service industry and from the industry leaders. They're looking for a level playing field. They're looking for lower taxes. They looking for harmonization. Those are the buzzwords. Those are the things that we're hearing from them. They're not asking for government money and bailouts. They recognize that as a thing of the past that's been counterproductive.
Should we suggest that we go down that path again? We're going down a path where, as a committee, our studies are finding--