Mr. Chair, the concerns with respect to this amendment concern this switch from collecting information that is relevant to an order-making activity to necessary. Then there's also a lack of clarity, potentially, and some risk of confusion. The core issue appears to be the difference between “necessary” and “relevant”.
The issue here is that there is information that is highly relevant to an order-making activity, but it's highly debatable whether it would be necessary, for example, information from the private sector on the costs of implementing an order to undertake a reasonable cost-benefit analysis of how to calibrate the order. Arguably, that is not, strictly speaking, necessary to proceed, but it is certainly relevant to whether and how an order should be calibrated.
The issue of the risk of lack of precision is due to the language around gravity of the threat. Another reason for collecting information in this context would be to verify compliance. By taking the gravity-of-the-threat language out of the order-making and putting it into information collection, it's unclear what threat we're talking about here. Is it the threat of non-compliance? Is it the threat for the reason of the order to begin with?
I'll stop there. Hopefully, that's clear, but I'm happy to go further as needed.