Thank you.
I appreciate your comments on the sunset clause. That's certainly what our committee explored when we reported Bill C-206 back to the House in the previous Parliament.
You have already talked about the state of technology. We know that it's developing, and we certainly heard from a number of witnesses in the previous Parliament that it is not yet commercially viable.
There's a new addition to this bill in “property used for the purpose of providing heating or cooling to a building or similar structure, including those used for raising or housing livestock”. I understand that you may think a sunset clause on that might be viable, but what do you think about the current language of it? Do you think it's open to too much interpretation in the number of buildings that could qualify?