I would say that what's different from previous disputes is that there's been a big strategic shift change in competitive access to U.S. markets. Right now, we're paying, as you know, 45% duties to access the European market, and the Scandinavians and the Europeans are entering that market with similar products at a 10% duty.
The fallacy of the Americans becoming self-sufficient quickly in lumber is challenging. It's not going to happen. I've calculated that they need to build 55 sawmills to replace the Canadian industry, and that's just not going to happen quickly. Also, our customers in America use different species and value our SPF from Canada.
I guess what's different is that Canada has had probably the least competitive access to U.S. markets and been one of their largest suppliers, and other parts of the world, I think, are displacing the Canadian industry. That's really a shame.
I guess what we look for in a durable solution with the federal government and between Canada and the U.S. is getting us access so that we can reinvest and grow our business. As you've said, our family has been through all five rounds of lumber disputes. I know it's hard, but all previous disputes were resolved through negotiation, and we expect our government, both the opposition and the sitting government, to find a durable solution for our industry.