To answer the first question, Mr. Fast, with all due respect, I think there's a significant difference in the sense that the minister would accept other regulation as opposed to the language we're using--“shall examine” other regulation “for the purpose of”--if it fits. We understand, and it's our intent that if the minister, in his or her wisdom, finds that it doesn't fit, we would expect that new regulations would be promulgated.
On your second question, as I said earlier to Mr. Julian, while the Department of Transport listened with great empathy and I think understands our concern, no, we did not see any appreciable difference in the language as it progressed to Bill C-3.