Tom, being counsel, might be able to answer this a bit better than others, but feel free, anybody, to answer.
When I look at some of the amendments, for example to proposed section 134 and subsection 135(6), proposed by NIRB, they seem to be more along the lines of language and drafting. Would you say that a lot of these amendments that are being put forward are more drafting issues between two legal parties trying to get the language right in an agreement? That's my general view of a lot of them. It takes me back to law school when I looked at drafting agreements. I never did it after that.
What would you say to that comment?