Thank you very much.
I believe you've clarified most of what I needed to have clarified, but just for absolute certainty, I want to make sure of this. It is, then, a bit redundant or repetitive, because it is already being covered off in those previous two acts that have been mentioned. It's taking that language and using it in this bill again.
I just want to make sure. You're saying that being repetitive brings clarity, but is there any chance of that muddying the waters instead of bringing clarity?