One might prefer a regulatory approach. That's fair. I'm sympathetic to the idea of a regulatory approach. If the government put forward a comprehensive regulatory approach that checked a lot of these boxes and checked some of the boxes Mr. Lawford's been talking about, I'm open to that suggestion, but we have what we have in front of us, and I'm hearing that there are objections based on CUSMA. I doubt that the word “sole” ultimately upends the whole thing.
I take your point that (b) doesn't fully fall within the exception for proposed paragraph 41.12(1)(a), but you'd think that there's a pretty good argument that 4(h) in CUSMA would encompass it, given we're really talking about the same thing and that proposed paragraph 41.12(1)(a) is already there, so interoperability is already there as a premise. It's already there as an exception.
On this, what would be helpful for my purposes, rather than going back and forth in this short time, we are going to I think be engaging trade experts in this space, so if you were to follow up in writing with the core.... The questions have to be framed in some way. It would be nice to be fully prepared so we can have a thorough conversation with those trade experts and make sure all concerns are properly addressed in full. I think Mr. Rosborough made a pretty compelling case around proposed paragraph 41.12(1)(a) and CUSMA's 4(h), so if you're not satisfied, then putting those concerns and that lack of satisfaction in front of a trade expert would be helpful for us.