The question really is to what extent the government, in protecting in the bill its interests or what we would perceive to be the government's interest, is in conflict with your rights in perpetuity, in terms of the operation of the bill. If the Government of Canada says that if you want to change ownership it believes it has a right to have something to say about it, that obviously diminishes the value of the asset, if it's imposed on your successors.
So the question simply becomes whether or not the government has the right. I would argue it should not be something that would be perceived, at least.... It may not have been the case originally, but I can't imagine that is something that would not be conceived of.