I'm not ultimately a member of this committee, so I'll let the regular members decide what to do in the face of that answer.
You used the term “meaningful commitments”. My only very bad experience with the ICA is with Anbang, the purchase of Retirement Concepts in British Columbia, which ultimately saw the purchase of that company. A number of provisions were promised by the government in the House of Commons, saying that Anbang would be held to high standards. Ultimately it was left to the Minister of Health in British Columbia to basically push that company to make sure seniors were getting basic services that were necessary under the law.
When you say “meaningful commitments”, can you tell me if those are actual, locked-in-stone commitments, or are they just commitments they've made to the government, and now the government is using that as a fig leaf? Maybe you could go into it a little so we know exactly what kinds of commitments have been made in order to have the ICA approve this deal.