Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be quick, because I do need to get out a number of points.
First, I'm going to read from the international trade articles. It states that documents can contain specific requirements for particular materials when required for technical or operational reasons, but “the biasing of technical specifications in favour of, or against, particular goods or services, including those goods or services included in construction contracts” is prohibited. You can reference the trade agreements.
Then, in the WTO agreements, it makes it very clear that the preference for wood in tenders, in the absence of technical reasons, would be an unnecessary obstacle to trade.
So what I am suggesting is that we have a bill right now that has a good intent. It has a good intent to promote wood. I come from a lumber-producing area. Let me tell you that there'd be nothing greater for me than to be able to go home and tell my folks to open up the mills, to fire everything up because we're going to build every federal government building with wood. It's not going to happen, though. In fact, if we were in contravention of the trade agreements, we would shut down all the mills that are currently open.
I think what I'd like to know, Mr. Casey and Ms. Berube, is this. If in fact this would impact international trade agreements, is this a correct way to go? Or would you prefer that this committee look at levelling the playing field for wood at the national level, if we as a committee were to look at the national building code and something like that? Because let me be absolutely clear: if this bill passes this committee and becomes law, you have to live with all of the impacts, including the possible shutting down of international trade agreements. So will you live with that if in fact that's what this bill does?