In the question of what we're trying to capture here, which is, I think, the spirit of the subamendment that the government has worked on to try to figure out what the issue was that we were getting at.
Something I'm seeing, for example in my community in Nova Scotia, Mr. Fillmore, is assets well below this ceiling being acquired and not being subject to any review, including a net benefit review. Politics is local, so I often talk about the lobster industry and the processors. The buyers are being acquired at prices of $5 million to $10 million. As they gain control, as has happened to some extent with some of the licences in the B.C. fishing industry or with some of the crab licences, none of that is subject to a net benefit review.
Obviously, it could be subject to that, if the Competition Bureau decided it wanted to investigate it. It does have some authority.
I was trying to capture the issue where we basically have hostile states that can be hostile today but maybe weren't a few years ago, so that those automatically get this kind of review. I think what Mr. Gaheer's amendment does is make it more focused. I assume that is to ensure that we're not in breach of certain types of trade agreements.