Actually, that's not really a concern. What it really comes down to is respecting the recommendations that were made. On the other side, I'd say we've been talking about that consistently. The first recommendation was indeed to have a leader. But the second was to have an advisory council, as called for in the amendment.
The bill sets out the intention to cooperate, and that's good. But with this amendment, we're proposing a structure. We're saying yes, it is important that the members represent and reflect the diversity of the stakeholders and that they be appointed by the commissioner. So we're talking about diversification. And that means going further.
I think we can agree that it may end up working that way. But there could be a partisan appointment—not to say that it would happen. We could have a leader with a very closed vision of things, someone who is even slightly partisan. So the point to all this is really to have openness, to have consultation, to have a structure.
In its current wording, the bill doesn't provide for a structure. I think we would all agree that there has to be cooperation. The point of this amendment is really to build the foundation for cooperation and true consultation.