Yes, you raise a really important point. Because the technical report is the only report—and that's why I referenced that recently information has come to light—that we've had a chance to really look at. There is an enormous degree of vagueness around what the parameters may be in the end.
Certainly, from Victoria's perspective, we've just completed a fairly exhaustive official community planning process, which included about 7,000 of our residents, a very high return rate. That has several components that are absolutely integral around social and environmental and economic development strategies. Those rely heavily on our ability to make choices that favour local or regional or provincial or Canadian respondents to any particular projects. Our bridge, for example, we're rebuilding a very historic bridge in Victoria, which is a $93-million project. It is a project where we looked very deliberately at which parts of it could be handled by local contributors. Again, without any clarity of the definitions, without any examples of the definition, without a lot more information generally, there is nothing on which we can hang our hats to say, “That looks good.”
I appreciate my colleague's comments around the parts that he could identify that were good for his industry, but we can't do that. As municipal governments, we haven't seen the evidence that says we have the ability to retain our autonomy to make good local decisions and still serve our taxpayers, which we want to do. I have to say again, we're not against trade agreements. We're a very eclectic council that understands that this could be good for us, but we don't know because we haven't seen it.