Thank you.
I'm going to be very brief and then I'll share time with my colleague, Mr. Tonks. I'm a temporary member of this committee for today.
You raise some interesting points, particularly you, Mr. Broad. I'm going to ask you a question with respect to your second recommendation. I understand your first recommendation. It has merit, but I think the issue of citizen participation and the issue of certainty—those two issues—are colliding. But I'd rather focus on the second recommendation.
My cursory look at this section tells me that this simply reverses the onus for you, in an eventuality to prove that what happened wasn't beyond the foreseeable, reasonable consequences of your utilizing your rights under the legislation. It reverses the onus for you to actually prove that.
I don't say whether I agree or disagree with it; the question I have is this: can you see a situation in which you as the industry might know of certain consequences that might flow from your actions, within the given set of laws, that might exceed the foreseeable reasonable consequences of that legislation and what was intended under it? Could you possibly foresee that kind of situation?
And then, under those circumstances, would you consider that the industry under those circumstances, knowing what it knew, would have an obligation to cease and desist at that point?