Perhaps Mr. Schintz inadvertently created a bit of confusion, with all due respect. I think the confusion is—and perhaps Mr. Schintz can clarify this, Mr. Viersen—that it's not that consent would be needed by the governments listed in this legislation for any new piece of legislation to come forward, which is what I'm suggesting they can do and we should be supportive of. What he is saying is that for this specific piece of legislation to be amended to include those groups, it would require the consent of the governments in this particular piece of legislation. In other words, the distinction is that this legislation specifically, with these three governments, could only be amended if those governments consented. However, it does not change the fact that, as we've said many times before, the other governments you've referred to have the ability to come forward with their own legislation in the future that would not require consent because it would be independent of this legislation. It would be a brand new piece of legislation, hypothetically, so it would not require the consent of the governments in this bill.
I hope I've clarified accurately, Mr. Viersen, where your concern lies.
Mr. Schintz, you can certainly comment on that.