Yes, I think we're agreeable to revisiting the discussion.
There's one thing I would say in response. If the contention is that the way the legislation as drafted originally already includes these aspects that we would like to include in your amendment, that section doesn't include safety, though, as we just read. It doesn't make an explicit recommendation. But if your argument is that given the original legislation, this concept as well as the others we would like explicitly noted are already dealt with in the original legislation, then I think it follows to make the argument that the consideration of wood as a building product in itself is already embedded and under the discretion and the consideration of the original legislation, which calls into question what exactly we're doing with this legislation at all.