It's not a demand problem. I will put it that way. I think it was Jean Chrétien who famously said to Paul Martin, when he handed over the keys, something like, “There's free trade between the U.S. and Canada on everything except softwood lumber.”
The reality is—and there are folks on the video conference here who probably know more about this than I do—the industry interests in the U.S. are very influential, and they are the ones who bring forward these complaints.
The National Association of Home Builders has been very clear about how it disagrees with the position that the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, as they call themselves, have taken. They are very influential.
As I indicated, it's a debate we have been having for four years. Notwithstanding the fact that Canadian producers have historically consistently been proven correct in the position we have taken, the issues keep coming back and coming back.
It is a big challenge. As I said, though, it's not a demand problem. The reality is that the U.S. is not able to meet more than 70% of its internal demand need for softwood lumber, so it always needs to fill it with something else. Canada is the logical partner, but today, as a result of duties, we have seen imports of lumber from Europe. If you think about that for a second, it's hard to comprehend how it makes more sense economically to import lumber from Europe.
To your point about diversification, one of the things that I think is unfortunate about a debate like this one is.... There's a great opportunity. I think Mr. Lee mentioned it earlier as well, but there's a wonderful opportunity to promote the use of lumber in different applications, in taller wood buildings, what we call “mass structures”. There are plenty of good stories. Wood is 100% renewable. Its carbon footprint is a fraction of what concrete and steel would be, but that's a harder story to tell than the one we're telling today on tariffs.