Okay, you don't want to comment, but that's a thought that goes across.... If we have the best research, we have to start listening to it.
I want to go to Mr. Fiset. You're really the paradox of a former witness we had here, Avrim Lazar, who was very good. I agree with a lot of the things Avrim says, but one of the things I disagree with—and he knows this, so I'm not telling tales out of school—is that he has a concept of bigness: what we need is huge mills at strategic locations across Canada where the fibre supply is plentiful.
My position is simply—and somebody else acknowledged this—that we're losing the strength of what you stand for in the forestry industry in Canada, and that's a single-industry forestry town.
I know your company. You're three generations. You have three brothers working in this country. There was your grandfather, and then your father, and now you have three brothers. And you're doing well and you know everything there is to know about your industry. If we lose that in forestry, if we lose families like yours or people like you in these single-industry communities, I don't think our forestry business has a chance.
So I like what you say, and I'm ready to go to the post to make sure that we have and retain people in the forestry industry who know something about the forestry business, but particularly who support the single-industry towns. But I want to ask you a couple of questions.
You said retraining was not.... I want your answer on this. Retraining is important. If we can retrain the forestry worker who's now displaced, until he gets placed back in, in other things that are analogous to the forestry business--road building, other things--without a lot of retraining, would you agree with doing that?