So, in continuing to speak to the inconsistencies in its provisions, as referenced in the No. 2 bill, I want to spare a moment in terms of process around this second bill, in that the bill, the No. 1 bill, passed its first reading, and enough on that, under urgency last week. The officials, I'm assuming, were then sent away and given, effectively, three days to write the No. 2 bill. Just a few words on that process, which remedies inconsistency—so that's what these officials were sent away to do over the weekend. Fair enough. Fair enough. Fair enough. It might be said this is a bill that went through under urgency. There are inconsistencies in its provisions, I read from the No. 2 bill here, and so fair enough. Let's send the officials away to put it right and we'll deal with it under urgency again. The question arises, of course: why? Why is it that this bill must be addressed through all stages in urgency, the very next sitting day of this House? But I will leave that aside as a question that can only be answered by the Minister in the committee stage. And I am sure that there will be a number of questions of the Minister in the committee stage on that matter. 