As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, I don't believe there would have been a recommendation to settle on these terms had we known about that cash. It might have settled for other reasons, because as you've said, the settlement was all about the language used, and that hasn't changed. But I think it's a question of what terms it would have settled on. Had we known about the cash and the circumstances in which it was paid, it would have had a very significant effect on the litigation.
I'll point out that this case was all about reputation. Mr. Mulroney complained that the language used affected his reputation. But the disclosure of the cash payments also had that effect, and had that disclosure been in 1996 or 1997, before this case was settled, we would have been dealing with a very different set of facts. Either we would have pursued questions, as this committee is doing, about documents, about records, about witnesses--to find out where the trail led--or we might have settled the case because the language was inappropriate. But as I said, perhaps that settlement would have been on very different terms. Maybe there wouldn't have been a payment of costs. Maybe there wouldn't have been other terms that were agreed to.
We're speculating now, but I'm doing my best to answer your question.