Okay.
It was interesting. When I was reading through all of this, I have to admit that my own politics kept coming through, because the emphasis was always on justifying why the crown was keeping it, while my starting point was always that if the Canadian taxpayer paid for it, the pressure ought to be the other way; it ought to be to justify why we're giving it away, given how much money is at stake.
I have two questions for anybody who wants to jump in, and don't leave too long a lag. First, what criteria are used? Is there a rule of thumb, or what are some of the things you look at to determine whether ownership will remain with the crown and with the Canadian people or go to private interests?
Second, are there specific areas that automatically go to the private sector? In other words, is something a given because of the nature of the work or perhaps because it's historical, or is everything examined in a one-off?
As well, if intellectual property is created as a result of a contract that's paid for by the Canadian people, is that reflected in the money paid to the contractor, or is it a bonus situation if they come across something and convince the government to let go? There's a nice little bundle that generates money for them over and above the contract.