My question is for Mr. Connors and Mr. Doherty. I would like to quickly return to the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.
I am familiar with the Quebec forestry regime, which has been modified to make way for the auctioning of wood. There is therefore no longer any reason to believe that we are contradicting American claims. Even though the WTO has ruled in our favour, the United States is dragging the conflict out at length. The problem has gone on for too long.
Let's take the example of Resolute Forest Products in Quebec. It is subject to tariff measures that result in nearly $200 million being retained by the Americans. Last time, this was settled by a ransom, so to speak, as the Americans kept almost $1 billion that should have gone to forest producers.
Mr. Connors, I would like to understand the situation in British Columbia. I'm not very familiar with the forestry regime in British Columbia, but I'd like to hear about it from you.
Is the mid-market guarantee and financing program suitable for you in its current form?