Yes. What was not clear, which is why the amendment is in place, was what happens in the case where a producer, through no fault of his own, is unable to market his product. There is interest on the first $100,000, it's just the minister in his generosity is paying it. This is just clarifying that the producer is responsible for the interest on the remaining amount that he's borrowed over $100,000. Then the second part is clarifying that should a default of loan repayment altogether occur, then the farmer is responsible for interest accrued on the entire loan, including the first $100,000.
I don't believe that's a change. I believe it's a clarification.