Certainly, and I'll be quick with this one.
In terms of the the rationale for voting against it, nobody expressed objections to keeping future governments' options open with respect to regional development ministers. The idea of this was that if that part was contentious, we would be able to remove that part and still accomplish some of the other work.
This amendment addresses objectives two and three of NDP-1, if you will. That's really what it's meant to do. It's meant to keep the current ministers of state as ministers of state, albeit that they can be styled through other means as ministers. It's to still accomplish what I think is an important housekeeping task, which is that instead of constantly going through the estimates process in order to pay people who will be deemed ministers of state by some future government, it would allow that to happen directly out of the consolidated revenue fund.