My philosophical opinion is that it should be free and fair trade. Obviously, that's pie in the sky and not achievable.
In terms of the deal that was negotiated from 2006, which finally expired on January 1, 2017, I think that managed the situation probably as best as could be expected. It was more of a sliding scale: If lumber prices were high, there were no duties and no monetary compensation paid; if lumber prices were low, then there was a certain amount of duties paid. It was a fairer system. I believe, ultimately, that's the goal we need to pursue.
However, my counterpart mentioned the position of the softwood lumber lobby from the U.S. The U.S. representative was speaking at a conference here in Vancouver, and the position he took, flat out, was that there will be no money coming back on those duties, that $10-billion amount, to the Canadian companies that it's owed to. That's obviously a position that we can never agree to. A portion of those monies obviously should be coming back to the companies that paid them. I believe that, if not all of it, something needs to come back for the Canadian government to manage, let's say, a fund that would produce innovation in our industry.
There are many opportunities in our industry to produce mass timber and things of that nature. With these punitive duties, as my counterpart also mentioned, they're not able to invest in new technologies that produce more value out of the timber we harvest here in Canada.
There are lots of ways we could certainly achieve a deal, but I think the pressure now is so great that we're not necessarily negotiating from a position of strength, because of the threat of those 25% or 30% duties next year or the existing duties and then having them double. Like I said in my opening, I can't see how any operation is going to be able to continuously run in that environment.