That's a very good question. I want to say thank you to my honourable colleague, because that's something that made even me pause when we presented that.
The reason we went with 25% is that this is the threshold we have in law for money laundering and also for combatting the financing of terrorism.
That's one thing. The second thing, which is probably more relevant, is that if we want to ensure interoperability with other jurisdictions around the world, north of 120 jurisdictions around the world—if my memory serves me well—have agreed to have beneficial registries. We decided to meet and exceed the standards that have been put by the Financial Action Task Force of the G20. The reason is that if one jurisdiction changes the threshold, you can't compare the data. It won't be comparable with other jurisdictions.
On balance, to be consistent with the laws we have in Canada on money laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism, and also to be in line with the international standard, we decided that 25% was the right threshold. Otherwise, we'd have the issue that we'd be the only jurisdiction with a different threshold. For the record, it's quite important that when you search foreign ownership, you have something that allows you to compare apples with apples. If we start changing the threshold domestically, it won't be comparable with other jurisdictions and their own beneficial registries.