Among our committee there was no consensus with respect to term extension, so it wouldn't have been an issue that we addressed as part of our submission.
But as a result of term extension clearly being covered in USMCA we touched upon reversionary rights, because I think if copyright term is extended it's incumbent upon the government to also consider reversionary rights within that context. This is because at present you are effectively adding those 20 years if the first owner of copyright would have been the author and the author had assigned rights, and reversionary rights under the current regime with everything except for collective works, you would be extending copyright for those who have the reversionary interest and not for the current copyright owners. That was the way that IPIC submissions were impacted.