I think you've given us some important background as to the difference of opinion between you and Mr. Colvin, evidently, with respect to what was actually happening in prisons, and secondly, how quickly Canada could move its policy from the agreement that was reached in December 2005 to the revised agreement in 2007.
But could you understand, from what you've said today, why Mr. Colvin could have said what he said last week with respect to his having sent in strong views with respect to what he was hearing about what was happening in prisons, and secondly, on the question of how welcome his additional comments and arguments would be, once, as you put it, a decision was made to go with a certain approach?
Is it possible to see this as a difference of opinion between the two of you with respect to what took place?