I'm afraid I can't answer that question with respect to the general procurement agreement of the WTO. I can answer it with respect to the dispute resolution provisions of the temporary agreement, which apply now. The general procurement agreement doesn't apply to municipalities, and from our perspective should never apply to municipalities, but the temporary agreement does.
Under the temporary agreement, Canada is obliged to establish a dispute process if a U.S. company doesn't feel it has been given the access to municipal procurement that the agreement allows. The dispute body does have the authority to say, “Stop the procurement process now, because there's a dispute here that needs to be resolved before it continues.” What is so problematic about the regime, from our perspective, is that there's no reciprocal obligation on the United States; if Mr. Ross's company is trying to bid on a construction project in Maine, and Maine maintains local preferences--as it probably will, because most U.S. states do--there's no recourse. There is no dispute body in the United States.
Mr. Ross's company has no right to access that market, so there's not much point in filing a dispute. It's just another example of how absurdly one-sided this temporary arrangement is.