Sure.
I think ultimately it will depend largely on where the language lands. Dealing first with proposed subsection 41.12(1), the deletion of “sole” may in and of itself bring us offside on the provision. Proposed paragraph 41.12(1)(b), as worded grammatically, arguably provides for reverse interoperability. The language is just unclear.
Given the ambiguity, depending on how it's applied, I think there is a risk that proposed paragraph 41.12(1)(b) goes beyond it, and that it goes potentially beyond (h). Our view is that we would prefer a regulatory approach to a legislative approach. I take Dr. Rosborough's position that this is a legislative process we're undertaking, but to our mind—