I'm going to turn back to Dr. Kurz.
Thank you again for highlighting the value of long-lived wood products, like engineered wood and mass timber construction. I have a private member's bill that I started in the last Parliament. It's now in the Senate and will be coming back this way. It promotes the use of wood, especially mass timber construction, simply by highlighting those greenhouse gas sequestration benefits you mentioned.
Whenever I promote this online or anywhere, I get push-back from my friends in the cement sector, who say that cement is better than wood because it's longer-lived, and they claim that the forest industry doesn't take into account all the negative emissions from harvest through a life-cycle analysis. I wondered how you would answer that criticism. Does your model take into account the life cycle, the full emissions involved in harvesting wood and the life of that wood, and how does that compare to cement?