Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I personally have had a lot of long-term experience, when I was in government before, in dealing with provincial-federal areas of cooperation. I think the question you asked really impacts on that.
With the community trust of $1 billion, the question could be whether it is enough money. The way it was done has posed some very interesting dimensions. It has actually forced the provinces to decide what the priorities are.
I can say from personal experience recently—and this is talking about Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia—that the feedback we're getting is challenging us to say that we see forestry as being key with this money that has come in, and that it will be involved. It really fleshes out where the provinces stand on issues, when you go across that, which is a different dimension from what I've heard most people talk about.
On the other issue, concerning the $1 billion, I would say based on the magnitude of the problem, particularly since the money could go to other sectors also, that it's probably not enough money. But having said that, it's a start, and I can tell you that I've seen a very positive response by the provinces I've mentioned to looking at that money in a partnership way, whereby we'd also come in with industry money to move ahead certain agendas.
On the respective roles of the provinces versus the federal government, I believe when it comes to forestry—granted that the provinces, you can say, own the resource, and there's a jurisdictional issue there—that truly it is a federal-provincial partnership again. The provinces might own the resource, but both are ultimately concerned with manufacturing, small communities, job losses, wealth creation, etc. And when we talk about markets—market access, developing new markets, new applications, support of R and D—the federal government is in there in spades. That's a mandate.
So I see it as that there's so much in common on which we can be working together that it's not, to my mind, a jurisdictional question of one versus the other. It truly should be a partnership arrangement.
Thank you.