The only reason I brought this up was because of the intent. The way that proposed subparagraph 9.1(1)(j)(v) is drafted, it is intended to be a paragraph that provides flexibility for the CRTC to consider other factors. The way that the provision is written, it seems to add a lot more specificity to that section now, which would alter the intent or purpose of that subparagraph.
I had indicated that perhaps the suggested motions could be severed into two parts, but I'm really not the person who should be directing where they go.