Just as a matter of procedure, if a subsequent amendment is going to bear on the clause that you're discussing right now, it is not unprecedented to hold the clause you're discussing right now to deal with whether the committee is interested in the subsequent amendment, because that would bear on whether you want to change the one that is existing, just for what it's worth. You don't have to necessarily do these in sequence. That's just a point.
It occurs to me—and I'm looking over at the parliamentary secretary—that the theme that's emerging here has to do with the fact that we are moving from a situation where the municipality, particularly the Municipality of Windsor, had a virtual veto...is it fair to say, going back to the twenties?