Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dahl, thank you for being with us. I'm from Quebec, specifically Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, one of the most active forestry regions in Quebec. I completely understand what it's like for you.
In response to my fellow member Mr. McKinnon's question, you talked about the drawn-out dispute with the United States. It's clear that, without a resolution, things won't get better for the forestry sector.
I read in the news that the minister, Dominic LeBlanc, was in British Columbia for a forestry summit on November 3.
A proposal has been going around for a while now. It was raised publicly and has been discussed during the committee's proceedings. I wanted to know what you thought.
Right now, $11 billion in countervailing and anti-dumping duties is being held by the U.S. Clearly, 80% of $11 billion is a big chunk of money for the government to fork out to forestry producers so they can keep their operations going. It was something a number of people had initially asked for. However, realizing how much money was at stake, people came up with a compromise, which is that the federal government buy back 50% of countervailing and anti-dumping duties from producers at the end of every month. That way, producers could maintain their facilities. I'm not sure whether the proposal made its way around your neck of the woods, but I'd like to know whether you think it could help. Would it be an acceptable solution while we wait for the dispute to be settled?
Like me, you probably saw government communications indicating that the government's negotiating priorities vis-à-vis the U.S. are steel, energy and aluminum. Softwood lumber isn't one of them, so we have to find a way to keep people in the sector employed, to keep producers in business.
Does a 50% buyback at the end of every month seem like a viable solution to you?