Maybe I'll start by saying that in our case we do participate on a regular basis in consultations with the government. We've been trying hard to help improve a process that really is in need of tremendous improvement, because government buys in a way that's much more complex than it needs to be, and that hurts everybody. We need to move to more standard, commercially acceptable clauses. That's causing a lot of difficulty in the industry as financial reporting requirements are harder, and that's causing more grief and making it harder to bid openly for the government.
I think what the experience of the last few months showed was that something that is brought about circumventing those consultation processes should not be attempted again. In our industry, information and communications technology, where there is some spillover with the temporary help people, I certainly wouldn't want the more sophisticated experts who are currently under the temporary help offers vying to stop that. In those areas there may be a need to get the multiple associations together from time to time and try to get as close to a consensus as we can. It will simply help everything work a lot better. We had suggested some sort of council like that.
In our view, there's a fundamental problem here that is going to cause all these efforts by individual commodities or services to keep being more frictional than they need to be, which is that we're not sure that it's only a matter of Public Works. There may be a triangle between Public Works, Treasury Board, and some of the key buying departments. Public Works needs to improve its processes as much as they can, and there are lots of improvements that need to be made, but if they're doing the best process in the world to buy the wrong thing, then the government's getting the wrong thing and our industry is missing out tremendously. So there needs to be perhaps some sort of a triangle there to really address the fundamental problems.