Thank you.
I see that neither you nor Ms. Berube had much to say about the bill itself. You're here advocating on behalf of the forest products industry, the wood industry. I'm certainly very aware of the challenges that the lumber industry is having these days.
I'm not only concerned about the fact that we have the housing situation in the U.S., where there is something like a glut of a million houses available and there's not likely going to be a takeoff in construction of houses in the U.S. anytime soon, which is very important to our lumber mills across Canada and to an awful lot of small communities. Not only that, but there is also the problem when they do get going—when the housing construction sector gets taking off in the U.S. again—you still have the problem now that pulp and paper mills are less active. Fewer people are buying The Washington Post and The New York Times and reading those newspapers, for example. It means that there is less demand for pulp and paper, and therefore the sharing of the cost of bringing the lumber out of the woods is less there. That's more challenging for our lumber industry and makes them a little less competitive. That's an ongoing concern that I'm very aware of, as a former critic on our side for natural resources.
Let me ask you something. This bill would give preference to wood, and that's a real concern to other industries, as you're no doubt aware. We're going to hear from some of those today. Do you think that on all sides...? I think Ms. Berube mentioned the need to put wood on an equal footing, as opposed to a preferred footing. Is there a way to do that?
Secondly, what is the best way for the Government of Canada to support the forestry industry, perhaps without taking jobs away from other industries, which I don't think you want to do?