All right. So the point of the amendment was to change the appointment of the chief administrator to appointment during good behaviour as opposed to the bill before us, which would have that appointment during pleasure. Our objective is to ensure that there's a greater independence on that individual who, if appointed during pleasure, could be of course turfed out at any point in time when the government didn't like what he or she was doing.
Is there a distinction at law, in your judgment, between good behaviour and during pleasure?