Thank you for having me here today.
I also want to thank both the current government and the previous Liberal government for your respective roles in reaching the April 27 framework. This framework is the result of years of hard work and political and legal positioning; thank you for your leadership.
Before I talk about Weyerhaeuser's position, I thought it would be useful to provide some background on our company. We have a significant footprint in Canada, with more than 6,000 employees. We've operated here for more than 40 years and are one of the largest softwood lumber producers in the country, with eight company-owned and one joint-venture sawmill. These sawmills are located across four provinces: B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, so like some of the other companies here today, we represent multiple regions in the country and are therefore looking at this deal from a pan-Canadian perspective.
To be clear, although we are headquartered in the U.S., Weyerhaeuser is not a member of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports and does not support the trade action; we oppose it.
With a foot in both countries, we have worked to act as an honest broker, working to bring people together on both sides in support of a long-term negotiated settlement.
When making our decision to support the April framework, we asked ourselves two simple questions: first, is the agreement workable? Second, is there a better alternative?
On the first point, although the agreement is complex, we do believe that with appropriate attention to the details in crafting the final agreement, the agreement is workable. It is an agreement that provides important certainty about the running rules going forward. On the second point, we do not believe there is a better alternative.
For those reasons, and pending review of the final terms, Weyerhaeuser supports the agreement and is working constructively with industry and government to ensure the final terms are commercially viable.
We support the framework, as others have said today, not because it is perfect--it isn't--but because we knew from the outset that the complexity of the issue and the divergence of interests meant a perfect settlement that satisfied everyone was not attainable. At the end of the day this agreement represents a compromise, with neither side walking away feeling victorious.
We have always believed a resolution could only be found with a high degree of political will on the parts of both the Prime Minister and the U.S. President. We believe it is important not to take this political will for granted. There is no certainty that such an opportunity will present itself again in the coming months--or even years.
For whatever reason, the stars recently aligned to create the opportunity to negotiate a settlement.
The other alternative to the settlement is simply to continue with the litigation. While we believe litigation is an important tool, we do not believe this dispute can be fundamentally resolved by litigation. By the time all the appeals are exhausted, we could be several years away from a legal resolution.
There is always litigation risk, no matter how strong Canada's case may seem, and of course in U.S. trade law, there is nothing preventing the coalition from immediately starting up Lumber 5 just as soon as market conditions would permit.
The bottom line is this: we believe the framework is the best option for the Canadian industry and for those who rely on its viability. We don't believe the Canadian government could have extracted significantly more from the U.S.
The longer the dispute drags on, the more harm is inflicted, and with a rapidly rising dollar and other competitive challenges before us, we can't afford to continue to devote the significant resources required to keep this battle going. Our time and efforts are better spent finding ways to enhance competitiveness to the benefit of all Canadians.
As we look to achieving a final settlement, our efforts are now best spent working together to ensure that the final agreement is workable and that important details affecting the commercial viability of the agreement are attended to.
Thank you.