If I could just conclude that answer, Mr. Martin, that same language was used for the other two as well. I believe one of them at the time had also commenced a lawsuit. So it was felt that it was in the public interest to avoid further payments to get that done.
Let me answer your second question. We were ready to go to trial on January 2, 1997. We'd lined up expert witnesses; we'd given notice of the experts' reports; we had no fewer than three or four lawyers ready to go; we got the documents lined up; we'd subpoenaed witnesses; we believed we had good defences in law--I've described what they were. That night, I was told that in the fall of 1995, an RCMP member had disclosed to a third party that Mr. Mulroney's name was in the letter of request. I was also advised by our counsel, and I agreed, that when that became public at the trial, it would significantly weaken our defence. I was ready to go to trial, and we were ready to rely on those defences, until they were taken away from us. In those circumstances, we went back to the negotiating table to make the best deal we could.