Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yesterday, the committee heard from a constitutional expert by the name of David Robitaille. He said that the definition of “national interest” set out in this bill in no way corresponds to the one set out in Supreme Court rulings, including the one on carbon pricing.
It seems that when you designate something as being of national interest, that's a way of saying that it's in the interest of Canada as a whole.
Why did you not use the Supreme Court's definition instead of applying completely arbitrary criteria?