I have a question, maybe through to the staff who are here.
In terms of the word “adequate”, I understand the reason for it. Having drafted municipal legislation in the past, I appreciate the danger of fuzzifying a word, but at the same time, if somebody were to raise an issue with us, if the word “adequate” wasn't in there and we were to get complaints, as we may well do, from constituent groups or constituents that in fact a particular service is not adequate, as they describe it when they come to us as representatives... I realize that “adequate” is subjective, but if we agree with them that, based on a population in an area, the service going in is not appropriate or that it isn't appropriate for commercial purposes or whatever it would be, doesn't this at least gives the opening to argue a point? If it's not in there, if there is no reference to adequacy, where would a level of service--whether it be a level of security, a level of frequency, a level of economic return, a response--be addressed by someone who had a concern? Or could their concern be dismissed as not being in the act?