The question is simply: if the law that we have defining a building product and a building method, as set out in this legislation that the Minister has brought to the committee, is adequate, why does the Governor-General need the ability to change it? If, on the other hand, the Governor-General has the power to define by Order in Council, then why is it that we have these definitions put in place? It is a simple question. It's either one or the other. People will look to this and they'll say, "Well, I actually want to know by reading the law what a building method or a building product is.", and we don't want to see that a building product can be defined in one way but then that definition can be cancelled. We don't want to see that a building method can be defined in one way except if it's not, and even if it's not, the Governor-General by Order in Council can say that it is. People who read this law are really none the wiser as to whether it's the courts or the Governor-General that decide, and if it's the Governor-General, what criteria they use.