Okay.
The other one of interest to me here is auxiliary police. We have auxiliary police in Halton region. There's a good training program for them. There's no doubt about that. They do a lot of events in terms of crowd control and that kind of thing. I haven't heard, when I was on the regional council, of our auxiliary police actually getting involved in any police work or action.
My concern is that this bill is four or five paragraphs long. It doesn't define things well enough for us to say that this is good or bad. I'm not sure if you can do it through regulation.
Do you folks have any views of the definition of action for emergency service providers? I understand the training, because that gets them ready for it, but if they never actually get called to a fire, if they never actually perform police work other than traffic control--and I suppose that's police work of sorts, that and crowd control--do you not think the bill would be more effective if we had that kind of definition or some sort of description in it, or do you think that's virtually impossible?
Because you're from a different group altogether, Conrad, maybe you could answer.