Mr. Melaschenko has done a comparative study. So, if you have any questions on that, I will let him answer them. I would just like to begin by giving you a more general response.
I would agree that subclause 9(1) is quite broad in scope. In spite of that, however, I think it's important to read it in relation to the remedies available to residents under subsequent clauses of the bill. My reading of it would suggest that we are talking about the remedies set out in clauses 10 to 23. Ultimately, that is probably the way it would be interpreted. Clause 9 would be interpreted in light of the potential remedies set out subsequently in the bill. However, I do agree that it would be easier if this were specified in the clause.