Yes, absolutely. It's investments and the location of businesses here, which, again, I think we want to encourage.
The other thing the Canadian Bar Association talks about is what “material non-public technical information” means, and they suggest that should be teased out.
The concern I have, as a practical litigator who deals with trade secret litigation all the time, is that it basically depends on the circumstance of each company. It's not something you can put a catch-all on. It's like a patent. You can get patents on all kinds of things, from zippers to whatever. When you try to define that, you're taking that away from the unique circumstances.
Effectively, it means, in my view, that practically everything is covered. If you're a shareholder and you're putting an investment in, under this legislation you are going to be open to having to submit that. A conservative position for a lawyer would be to say, “You'd better submit.” I'm not going to hang my hat on the definition of “you're not getting any technical information.” How would you even know? It's not even in the lawyer's control. It's back and forth with their client. It's outside of their control, so I would just say submit every time. You're making an investment. You'd better get into Canadian government. Otherwise you could be offside.