I guess the first point I'd like to re-emphasize is that these outlined obligations—and we outline a number of them and they have been referred to already by my colleagues—have already been agreed to by everybody, so we shouldn't be running for the hills on this one. I think this is actually an easy slam dunk for a change to the process.
The idea is that if we do not get the service definitions nailed down.... By the way, this is the service we're already paying for, so let's get some clarity to that; let's put that on the record and get that clear. If we don't, then we're going to get into legal proceeding after legal proceeding, and then the outcome of those legal proceedings will start to recast and reshape this. In the worst case, it will move us away from what we're intending this bill to achieve. It's for that reason that we would like to see that nailed down and give some really strong clarity to what we mean by service.
I think it was you, Greg, who had a great description when you were talking about what the definition of adequate actually is. For a long time we've been working in a grey zone, and so adding some of these things in will be really helpful.
Allan, do you want to add anything, or is that sufficient?