First of all, I'm going to focus my comments on national security, not on net benefit, because the amendments that we're really talking about here are focused on the national security test.
I think you raise a very good question. Actually, the question, for example, with respect to Quebec's own significant involvement in the EV chain and critical minerals means that Quebeckers have an interest, as they should, in ensuring that foreign investment rules apply so as not to scare away legitimate investment and to protect the position of the Quebec entities that are involved.
I know this is funny. You have four lawyers here talking about technical stuff in the act, and almost all of us are talking about very procedural sorts of things. However, it is exactly the procedural issues we have raised that will help provide a bit more transparency, certainty and stability, and will allow, at the same time, the government to step in where it believes it is necessary.
I chose to talk about sectors. The sectors are important because we need to know what the government will get an advanced look at. My colleagues have talked about other changes that may increase transparency and a judicial review function. All of those things combined mean that you have a better balance between encouraging investment and, if you get the procedure right, making sure people feel that if the national security process is being deployed, it's done in a way that's appropriate and doesn't scare away legitimate inbound investment.