Forgive me for speaking in English, but it will be easier for me to answer.
We are talking of two separate amendments here. One amendment is for ENG, which would in theory drive uniformity, and one amendment for weights and measures.
When we are talking about the ENG amendment, that's the one I'm suggesting is not required. We have a lot of data and experience with our accreditation program. There are a lot of provincial and municipal strong association training processes for qualifying meter shop technicians--not weights and measures, but meter shop technicians.
Our evidence doesn't support the idea of formalizing a training process for that. Weights and measures to my knowledge is not what we're discussing now. We'll get to that, I guess, when we get to the next amendment--unless I'm off base.
I don't know whether that answers your question.
In terms of electricity and gas, we don't think it is necessary. The system seems to be working very well.
For weights and measures, that is what the next part of the discussion will address.