Thank you.
This is more of a comment before I get into a question, but Ms. Ablonczy referenced leaky condos. Of course, I'm from British Columbia and I think it's a good case in point. You talked about public interest. It's a good case in point where in some cases there was allegedly substandard construction, but in fact the standard itself was insufficient to meet the unique climate on the west coast. That resulted in costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to homeowners when you added it all up. It's a really good example of how standards need to be continuously revisited, that when there are problems emerging that there is that kind of work that's done in order to make sure the standards meet the unique Canadian climate. I wanted to put that out there. Of course people are still suffering in British Columbia as a result of that.
I wanted to touch as well on the evaluation report. This statement in the general conclusions I thought was a bit odd. It said that the evaluation did not find evidence to demonstrate the added value of the CGSB over non-government service providers. But then it goes on to say that the CGSB occupies a unique role in the national standards system.
Could you reconcile those two statements? On the one hand it's saying no value is added, but on the other hand it clearly says you have an important role to play by this unique role.