I'm going to rule it as admissible, and although you've outlined some of what you believe Mr. Bigras' motives are, I believe he is looking for clarity within the act and looking to bring some more consistency into the definitions with regard to what some of the other clauses alluded to further on in the act.
We're going to allow it to stand, but you're definitely free to raise that in your debate.
Are there any comments?
Monsieur Bigras.