Yes. Offer guidance with respect to the Investment Canada Act. I'd say this is how we interpret the section 20 factors, because they are so broad that they could be interpreted very, very widely. One of the ways to reduce uncertainty and enhance predictability and make Canada look more welcome is to explain what we mean when we say something in the act. Do we regard certain sectors as strategic, or don't we? What are the considerations?
The editorial in The Globe and Mail today—I think it was today—talked about the reversing of the onus so that the minister can only turn down an investment if it's of net harm to Canada. I don't see that as a radical, revolutionary concept because, really, even if you say they can only turn it down if there's net harm, well, you still have to figure out what's considered of net harm. It's really not a huge shift. There might be a slightly more positive take on that from foreign investors. In reality I haven't thought about that a lot, but I don't think it offers a huge benefit.
If you're going to have foreign investment review, and if that foreign investment review is going to be a broad economic review and not just a national security-based review, then you're going to need to define the elements you're going to look at when you review. I rhymed off a whole bunch of them, but none of those would.... I couldn't tell you why PotashCorp was decided the way it was on the basis of those.