In Canada there are, of course, small businesses engaged in this sector that could be negatively affected by a dispute, and they do a wide variety of things, but most of the smaller businesses tend to be in the value-added sector. The mass production of structural timber tends to be done by larger businesses. But there are single-mill operators or specialized operators who also do structural timber work. We have been working with them as well. Their concerns are similar to the broader group's, but they also have some particular circumstances.
For example, in Quebec, there are some medium-sized producers—I wouldn't characterize them as small—that source primarily from either Maine or from private land. They had an exclusion under the previous agreement, and this is an exclusion that we are seeking in any future agreement. That's an example.
But I would say that across the country in our consultations with the smaller producers we've heard issues related to product coverage. Some of them have said that the products they produce are very high value, or very low volume, and in that regard we have been discussing with the U.S. how we can adjust the product coverage to make it different from the previous agreement, to make it more focused. We're also discussing how to ensure that these higher-value products are appropriately treated even when covered.
That's the kind of situation we're in. I don't have much to add right now, so I'll leave it at that.
Thank you.