To go back, as far as precedent is concerned, I don't see it as precedent-setting. The intention was that there was already this clause for these costs in the bill, and it's simply a modernizing of that.
If it were precedent-setting, I would think other acts, other boards, could have looked at that since this was done. I think it goes back to the 1950s, so it has been a long-standing practice that this board has had this clause. It has definitely been in place since 1985 at this dollar amount. I believe we've been able to put in the safeguard to capture and reflect what this board has operated under for a number of decades, and that safeguard is through the Governor in Council process.
I'm very comfortable that we are not opening up a brand new issue for other boards. That would have happened previously if that were the case. I really believe that through the drafters and legal advice we have, we've come to a good solution on this one.