Thanks for that question.
No, actually, I think our policy has remained the same. We did that paper a couple of years ago, and it related to the Buy American measures that have been applying to federal moneys that are spent on highways and transportation infrastructure in the U.S.
Those restrictions actually have their origins in the 1930s, and they were modernized in the 1980s. They affect companies making products used in mass transit projects or in highway types of projects. These restrictions have been in place for a very long time. We were unsuccessful in NAFTA, and before that in the Canada-U.S. free trade negotiations, in getting an open market in the United States.
So our policy paper was developed as a result of that. Our members came to us. Our members making mass transit equipment and our members making steel for highways and bridges were coming to us saying, “If we can't change that policy in the U.S., we need to have a level playing field here in Canada, and maybe we should look at having policies that provide us with the same kind of domestic support.”
The objective was always, first and foremost, to get the U.S. market open, but if we're not successful with that, we need to look at our other options. That's what we were trying to tell the government. That's what we've been trying to tell people.
So the parallel with the current Buy American negotiations I think is that this agreement actually gives us an opportunity to put that issue on the table with the Americans, because they've committed to sitting down around the table and having discussions with us over procurement generally.
Are we going to be able to get any traction on that issue? I don't know. But I think the objective should always be to open the U.S. market. That's where most Canadian companies would like to do business.