Thank you, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.
Indeed, the Americans know that the law is not on their side and that they are going to lose. Their goal lies elsewhere. Their real objective is to take advantage of these disputes to put Quebec and Canadian industries on the defensive by depriving them of considerable sums that could be used to improve their productivity and modernize equipment.
In that context, I think the way forward is to incentivize Canadian industries to switch niches. We have to lead them elsewhere, to high value-added sectors. To do so, we have a major opportunity, which is the response we must summon to the housing crisis—which will necessarily require more and more construction. If, on the one hand, we have a set of industrial policies that make greater use of wood as a material, and, on the other hand, if we support the industry to produce more than just commodities and inputs into the supply chain, we will embark on a path that will give the industry the momentum it lacks.
This effort must also be coupled with a push for market diversification. Dependence on the U.S. market is a major factor in weakening our exports and our industry. The truth is that its potential is poorly served by this dependence on this market.
We now have an opportunity to propose a comprehensive response that is not just a wait-and-see approach, limited to being patient while we wait for dispute resolution mechanisms to prove us right. Instead, we need to take a much more active role. We should have a more proactive response and implement a comprehensive and integrated response in all available public policy spaces. We did it for the automotive industry, in which billions of dollars were invested. We could do the same for the forestry industry, as long as that industry is not perceived as solely dependant on export markets.