Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess, coming from B.C., I have to go back to the softwood lumber issue, lest there be some confusion about the value of that agreement. For a number of years, when the old agreement ran out, we spent several hundreds of millions of dollars, I believe, in lawyer fees and in negotiations. We arrived at this agreement, which guaranteed producers secure access, via the quota system, to the U.S.
I think it's fair to say that even if that quota system were doubled and that Canadian producer could ship twice as much, these days, because there's no market down there, they probably wouldn't be shipping twice as much. As a matter of fact, they're even having trouble shipping what they're allowed right now, because the more they ship, the more money they lose. That's the way the market is right now.
My colleague from B.C. has mentioned that this would be probably in the best interest of softwood producers if we didn't have that SLA right now. It's causing us a lot of grief. Isn't it realistic to consider that, given the very difficult times in the housing market in the U.S. and the starts that are dismal, if there was no softwood lumber agreement, the lumber coalition down there would be working overtime to prevent any softwood going down into the U.S. from Canada? That would be certainly in their best interest that they were able to supply all of what little there is to supply to that market down there. Of course, that's what they're there for. They're protecting their end of the business, but it's more about the market right now than the agreement. The agreement is actually keeping us in there.
Without the agreement, is it realistic to think we would have trouble shipping any wood down there, given the current market situation?