Right.
To finish this point then, thank you for reminding us of the clause that we approved earlier, because it seems to me that nullifies the impact of attestation. It's like having people attest in question period that all of the statements being made are true, or you have reasonable grounds to believe so, but if you didn't, you wouldn't be liable in any event under the privilege. It seems to me that Mr. Martin's amendment simply follows naturally from the earlier amendment that we passed. Why attest to something if your false attestation can't be acted on?