First, thank you, Mr. Généreux.
I alluded to 2012 because the situation was more limited. In a context where foreign state-owned enterprises were increasingly coming forward to acquire companies in Canada, the main question was what was happening with governance rules. Canadians were generally greatly concerned. At the same time, it was always important to maintain a balance, that is, to send the markets a positive signal, but not at any price. That is why I took a broader approach to the issue in my presentation and spoke to the values of a free and democratic society. After all, our system is a market-based democracy. When it comes to dealing with economic systems that are more like a dictatorship or where governance is opaque, it's more problematic. That's why, at the time, we established guidelines.
I find the current bill interesting. It addresses the whole issue of personal data as well as technology. Things are evolving rapidly. It is clear that things should be done upstream to protect critical data. I think that's potentially a good thing.
However, I talked about balance, and that's the only thing I'm questioning. I agree with the Canadian Bar Association on this. We're talking about different activity sectors, and that's what we have to focus on. How are we going to define business sectors properly? Which ones do we want to protect? Why are we defining certain sectors in particular? Some have been identified, and they would be the obvious ones. But there are also concerns about casting too wide a net. In the case of certain investments, the message sent to markets might create an unforeseen boomerang effect, whereas otherwise these investments would not be a cause for concern.
That's the point I'm trying to make.