I think that's right. I don't think you want to get into a situation where you're looking at a forestry job as being more important than a steel job or a cement job. I think that's exactly right, Mr. Regan.
To your question, we support the bill because it advocates the use of wood. Are there technical ways to make it better? I'll leave that up to the committee as legislators, but we certainly think that one way to do it is to put everything on a level playing field. The way to do that is through the life-cycle assessment and incorporating that into the decision-making process in terms of choosing materials for your buildings and for your upgrades.
The other part of it of course is one I highlighted in my notes, which is to update or modernize the national building code, which right now doesn't allow structures beyond four stories to be made out of wood. Other parts of the world are doing that; other parts of this country are doing that. We see no reason why you can't. With the engineered woods that we have out there, we can go well beyond; if you look at the Richmond oval in Vancouver that was used for the Olympics, you're spanning a 300-foot span with that.
Wood has gone well beyond where we used to think of it being used for 10 or 15 years ago, and we think the code should reflect those changes.