I would tend to agree with the chair. If it's for an abundance of caution, if it's already outside the scope of the legislation, then there's really no need to impose a further obligation. If there is such an imposition of an obligation, it does raise some concerns in terms of how we interfere with the terms and conditions of a private party--in this case, VANOC--to determine who to license with and under which conditions.
On June 5th, 2007. See this statement in context.