When I practised law, I did not often have cases involving the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. However, I know that all these issues surrounding security, especially ranking, are at the heart of the legislation and the debates. Before giving you a blank cheque to proceed with the amendment, I would really want there to be at least a cursory review to ensure, in terms of the jurisprudence, that this did not give rise to certain problems of interpretation at the time.
However, if that were the case, perhaps they all came to the same conclusion and that resulted in the proposed amendment. I think that would make sense.
Could such an amendment make a difference? In case of doubt, would a judge have ruled one way rather than another? I have no way of knowing that. In fact, I was rather concerned when I read the provision because it seemed to touch on the controversial. It seemed to me that the explanation accompanying the proposed text was somewhat lacking, even cursory. I don't know what Senator Runciman's letter says, but it might be worthwhile taking a closer look in order to determine whether there was debate, whether this question has been asked already, and whether it has always been interpreted this way.
I think it would be more prudent for us to arrive at this conclusion.