Yes.
I remember the witness from the Teamsters. Here is my idea: if there is a vote here, perhaps the officials would be better at formulating the question.
In terms of that, in other words, we're giving regulatory power to the minister, so we shouldn't pretend we're keeping it at a committee or at Parliament. That's the nature of this bill, and I guess the flexibility is required. I would be a little bit more optimistic than Mr. Bevington, in the sense that I would like to believe that whoever is negotiating for Canada's interest is simply not just going to learn what the Americans want. That's what I would like to believe, and I say that as a general principle that isn't necessarily always upheld. But that's what I'd like to expect. I don't think you create laws with the sense that someone is going to go out and do a bad job.
However, I'm looking quantitatively between the two propositions we have. If this ground has been covered when I briefly stepped out, I apologize, but I just wanted to make sure. One says “a proposed regulation” and one says “a regulation”. Is there a state in which something is a proposed regulation that is meaningful? And what does that mean in terms of the interruption to the process and so forth? If I'm not mistaken, the wording is distinctive, correct?