Quickly, on the concept of a forum, I agree with Terry. You were talking about education and getting a forum maybe into a more academic level.
Coming back to Mr. Ouellet's question, we have a number of universities in Canada that don't even teach wood engineering courses. It's all steel and concrete types of engineering. We need to do better at that; those need to be prerequisites. We've talked about it being a benchmark industry.
There is a forum scheduled. It happens that Halifax is the North American host this year in June of the woodlands forum, and there are areas where that can be modified. I'm not directly involved in it, it's through the Canadian Woodlands Forum, but I do know a forum has been scheduled. The reason I know is that we're trying to bring in some of our colleagues from the United States to improve relationships, have them attend and actually participate. That's not taking away from Canadian market share; that's actually building relationships so we would increase market share.
I think the idea of the forest strategy is always a good one. I don't want to embarrass myself, not knowing the exact status of the forest strategy, and having been a signator to the last ones, but I do believe that there is a forest strategy in existence.
I think the momentum of its development and the undertaking gets lost over time, and sometimes those things get lost not because people are not well-intentioned, but because people have way too many things on their plates. Our sector has gone through a number of issues. We've gone through the ongoing litigation with the United States, then immediately after that we've gone through the economic challenges that are before us, and we've gone through job losses. There's a major issue to deal with every day with fewer people and less talent, only because that's our mechanism of responding and cutting costs, not because the commitment's not there.
I think those are great suggestions, and I'd like to look at them further.