May I interpret your question as going back to Mr. Brison's, whether one should be going about these things in a different way in Washington? And I think the answer is yes. But it's not automatically.... Also, what I interpreted Mr. Brison perhaps to mean is this. Your solution is not in lobbying in the conventional way in Washington; it's not throwing your money away on former ambassadors. It really requires the building of allies, as Mr. Myers has addressed.
There was an opportunity to do this in softwood lumber. There was a group, and there were significant American allies involved, like Home Depot. But it wasn't cultivated. The government didn't want to put any money into it. It was done principally by the industry on a very small budget. It was an opportunity lost. Initially it was missed; now it has been lost.
That kind of lobbying builds friends and allies. The importers of raw goods that come from Canada, the people who need your products--those are the people with whom you need to be in touch. And there are people in Washington who can help you to do that. You have to change that form of the business.
I'm not as pessimistic as Monsieur Caron is about the black liquor issue, but I do think nothing will be done about it until it expires at the end of 2009. I'm not as pessimistic about its renewal or extension, because I think the White House sees too much revenue lost in it, and the White House doesn't welcome all that lost revenue. So I think it would be very hard to stop now, but I don't think it will then resume. It's a very good example of where, if you had allies.... And you have allies. There are lots of Americans who don't like this tax break. But you're not cultivating them or working with them.