Yes. When the government killed the bid by BHP Billiton for Potash Corporation in Saskatchewan, the minister at the time promised to clarify the net benefit determination. The ongoing failure to do that seems to indicate that there may have been other reasons for that decision. But without a clear definition of what net benefit is, we're still subject to a lack of transparency and predictability for investors.
According to media reports, the C.D. Howe Institute says that the changes proposed fall short of bringing our investment policy into the modern era because of problems with the interpretation of net benefit. I think the biggest deficit is around the interpretation of net benefit, or alternatively, the definition of it.
Given that the net benefit has been central to the review process under the Investment Canada Act, why have we still not clarified the meaning of net benefit?