I think the point has already been made, but I want to summarize it.
The fact that it needs to be reasonable is a position the government accepts. That's precisely why it was added already in G-1. However, with proportionality in this concept, Mr. Arbour, you used an example. You mentioned proportionality or the least restrictive.... Using your Huawei equipment example, one could argue that the least restrictive thing is just to leave it.
I would be concerned about leaving that door open rather than having the ability to take assurances against, for example, equipment that might pose a risk or leave a gap in the system. I feel comfortable that leaving in the language around reasonableness and what that triggers in the law accomplishes what stakeholders raised without getting us into a legal fight about proportionality using a charter standard. We're not talking about, potentially, people; we're talking about equipment within a system.
We want to ensure reasonableness in terms of the order, but let's make sure that it doesn't handcuff us from actually achieving the security features that might be needed in, for example, telecommunications equipment.