Thank you.
In the report or brief he submitted to the committee, Mr. Balsillie talked about very specific things. If you’ll allow me, I’ll read an extract, because he uses a certain terminology and I want to make sure we understand each other:
Specifically, economic and security risks should not be analyzed separately. IP and data have multisided features that interrelate, giving rise to the so‑called “dual-use” technology that has both economic and national security value. Any assessment of risk and net benefit needs to include the economic and security value of assets as an integrated whole alongside the changed nature of spillovers in the economy of intangibles. Second, the list of strategic technologies and a set of risk factors is incomplete and needs to mirror those of our allies, particularly the United States.
Do you consider that the subamendment and the amendment that we have moved, and the bill as a whole, reflect these elements that Mr. Balsillie talks about? I remember that it struck me when he testified. He said that, even with the bill in its current form, we were not ready to face the future in terms of our relations with our partners.