Right.
Actually, I have to say that I appreciate it when any witness who comes forward actually puts forward or suggests an amendment in writing. It's always appreciated. It makes it a lot easier to wade through.
In regard to the suggested amendment, I would point out that in the bill, clause 60, which is being discussed, uses the word “arrangement” rather than the word “agreement”. I think it does so intentionally. It's less formal than the word “agreement”, which would intimate all sorts of formalities and cause some of the concern that you would have. The bill uses the word “arrangement” because it's by definition less formal and allows, to my understanding, the CRTC, the Competition Bureau, and the Privacy Commissioner's office to enter into bilateral arrangements with their counterparts and not necessarily require the formality that you're concerned about.
Maybe you could respond to that.