Trade litigation, which is what happens in the absence of a deal, is a very blunt instrument designed to weaken one side of a negotiation, whereas a negotiated treaty has the ability to protect certain interests that can't be protected during litigation. It affects the B.C. industry probably more than any other industry across the country because of the value of the timber species and the lumber products that are produced in British Columbia.
Litigation will put a pro rata duty on all products regardless of product value. When you get into some of the high-value cedars on Vancouver Island and throughout the B.C. coast, those operators will pay very high absolute-dollar duties to access the traditional market in the United States, whereas under the SLA there was a cap on product value that helped to protect those operators.
The other area that's badly hit is the independent remanufacturers, which help to create a more vibrant industry than would be the case with strictly the primary industry only. There were provisions in the 2006 SLA such that remanufacturers that purchased product from a primary would pay duties on access to the U.S. market based on the cost of their inputs as opposed to the cost of their outputs, so the high-value producers and the small independents are more at risk from a litigation process than the bigger, better-capitalized major producers. I think that's something we need to be very cognizant of from a public policy standpoint as we move forward to discuss litigation versus a renewal of the SLA question.
That's number one.