I apologize for my tardiness. I didn't miss your introductory remarks. I've tried to read up a little bit.
If I could, I have a few what may be housekeeping questions to ask, without dragging this on much longer. Most importantly, I want to know the extent to which international treaties, obligations, or undertakings, impact--and how they would impact--the determination of a net benefit. For instance, if Canada concludes an agreement with Panama, would that trump, would that modify, or can that modify the minister's decision? It seems that the minister has quite a bit of latitude here. One would almost say it's bordering on arbitrary in terms of determination of net benefit.
But for the argument, is it that international obligations can indeed trump, define, or set aside the impact or the considerations, the factors, or the criteria for the net benefit test?