I think everyone wants to get this legislation correct, but the problem is that I don't think that as a committee we have all of the relevant information as the act applies. We've heard from officials—and I'm not challenging the officials on this—but they're subject to the security provisions that they have to uphold as officials and, as legislators, we're asked to basically make amendments to one of the most consequential bills for business activity in Canada without access to the confidential information that informed the decision-makers at the Department of Industry.
That's why I tend to side with Mr. Masse on the need for more explicit lists in the bill to provide the assurances that British Columbians especially and, I would say, all Canadians—it's just that in British Columbia it's particularly bad—want to see from this legislation: to see that we're protected.
I don't have anything else to add on this amendment, other than the fact that I think we should move a subamendment to alleviate the concerns raised by the officials and ensure that it wouldn't, under future legal interpretation, be subject to—help me out here, Phil—an interpretation that would exclude other factors by the inclusion of the two factors right here.
With that, I'd like to move a subamendment that proposed paragraphs (c.1) and (c.2) don't exclude any other considerations made by officials or the minister in conjunction with these provisions at hand.