Your question makes an important point. Hopefully, there's no confusion about this.
We support an amendment to Bill C-218 so it basically follows the same approach as Bill C-13, which as written, did have protection for the horse-racing industry. My understanding is that the racing industry is fully supportive of this amendment. You could go into the specific details of it, but without going into the details, it basically protects racing to be able to operate and conduct racing the way they always have, and it didn't get caught up in Bill C-218 with an unintended consequence. It's an amendment to Bill C-218 to bring it in line with what was originally proposed for Bill C-13, which is favourable to the horsemen, and which the horsemen are in favour of and are supporting.
The second element they're talking about, which is historical racing, is an additional amendment. Quite frankly, I don't know what historical racing is. I think there were some comments.... I'm a horseman, too. I know Bill and Sandy directly. I think that may work or not, but it certainly should be debated at some future time.
For now, I think the amendment we are proposing and that's being fully supported by everybody is to bring Bill C-218 to look like Bill C-13. Get it passed. Let everybody win, having betting be a part of a licence agreement impacted by it.