Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your clarifying with me.
Traditionally, Canada has defended the idea of arm's length being defined, even in the case of related persons when they deal with each other, as if they were at arm's length; in other words, when two parties have treated each other as if they were unrelated. That is essentially the issue here. When two parties, even if they are related to each other, deem to deal with each other as if they were unrelated, that should be how we define the question of related or unrelated persons for the purposes of clause 6.
To take the American interpretation--