Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, members.
If I understand the subamendment correctly, I think one of our concerns prior to the summer break was not to give the false impression or potentially confuse the situation that something that is already able to be considered is actually able to be considered.
I have two thoughts in the context of the subamendment. It is helpful in that it suggests that it's not without prejudice to the foregoing, as in it broadens the consideration. The contention, though, is that privacy matters and intellectual property matters are already factors eligible for consideration under net benefit reviews. It's less of a concern about whether or not it's only privacy and intellectual property—because we've listed them—and more actually that we might be undoing the generality of the current provisions that actually suggest that these are already reviewable factors. I think there had been some consideration, prior to the break, as to whether or not a “for greater certainty” clause could be clear that these are including but not limited to. I think that was potentially the spirit in which this was understood.