Are there any further questions from that side? If there aren't, can I just ask one small question, as we have one minute left?
Just for clarification, you said that there's no percentage basis on the 4.1(1) decision as to whether or not a report is required. In the event that you found that the preponderance of the evidence would conclude that there is a charter violation, would you deem that a requirement to report, or could you still say that, even though there's a 60% or 70% chance that the charter is violated here, there's still a bona fide chance that there will not be a violation, and as such, the legislature should be allowed to go ahead and do what it wants without advice?