I can cite numerous articles of trade agreements that we find a high likelihood both in law and in practice would be contrary to what is currently cited within the bill, and if the underlying crux of the bill is the promotion of the use of wood, then perhaps consideration—which I heard the member was open to—of a non-prescriptive element would be something that you would consider, or the committee would consider.
The other element that, from our point of view, should be considered is that many of these considerations and decisions are made at what we loosely call the “needs analysis stage”, where we're looking at the requirements of our client departments and agencies, for building in this case, what exactly the technical specifications are, the codes that need to be adhered to, and what possible materials can go into meeting those requirements, and then we're setting up a procurement strategy toward that. Those decisions are made well in advance of the award. They're made at the procurement requirement-setting stage, and that's something that I'll leave for this committee to consider as well.