Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank my colleague across the way for paying close attention to the important bill that we have before us. I have to disagree with my colleague, however.
In essence, this bill allows some flexibility, which is very important, to the minister. To insist on specific criteria and on the “shall” as opposed to the “may” would limit the flexibility of the minister, who right now has the ability to look not only at the criteria set in the bill but at other criteria.
For those reasons, we would be opposed. I hope our colleagues across the way will see how important that flexibility is, because bills, as you know, take a very long time to amend through the parliamentary procedure. Who knows what kinds of things are going to come forward in the next few years that the minister may want to refer to in the future?
So I think flexibility is important, but in line with what the officials said previously today, consistency is also very important. There are a number of financial institutions statutes that are written very much consistently with what we have. This amendment would require going away from the standard, going away from that consistency, and would be detrimental, frankly.
I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration, withdraw their proposed amendment, and simply go with what has been proposed under the bill.
Thank you.