I think this issue of adopting proofs is an important one. To be quite straightforward about it, oftentimes, in order to achieve fire ratings, etc., there is no other way to do this but to simply add more and more material to something. You take a combustible item and wrap it in something that is non-combustible, so you're building something twice. There is kind of this over-engineering, but it's also about just trying to understand how we can get that adopted into the national building code and perhaps allowing municipalities to reference the national building code and not just the provincial building code when they're working on buildings.
I think education for building departments is a huge part that can be done. I think governments can support building engineers who examine these projects to understand what they are actually...taking them on tours to show them the performance.
Then in terms of affordability—and this doesn't have to do with the codes and regulations; it has to do with the insurance for these buildings—I think the insurance companies need to understand that these buildings are safe and not apply the kinds of premiums they are applying to the projects. We need affordability for clients to be able to consider these building methodologies without being punitive to them.
David, did you have anything to add?