I agree with that. I don't want to get into the politics of the situation, but it seems to me the government can agree to amendments on the legislation moving forward. I think I was being quite careful in my comments to say that there were points in the bill that could be clarified to meet the major concerns.
With respect to “shall” versus “may”, I do take the point that this is taken from the original act, but given that the context has shifted somewhat and given that the government is prepared to give an assurance that the backstop exists, I don't see why that shouldn't be there. I think the intent is clearly that the new board would not intervene with respect to program design issues, that this remains for the government, with input. There's a clause in the bill that states that reasonably clearly, but I think it could be tightened and improved.
I guess my plea would be for the government to consider revisiting the legislation to see if some of those things couldn't be changed. I don't want to impute ill motives around some of the flaws, which might--