I think there may be a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what we're trying to achieve here.
We recognize that when organizations are found to be offside with the laws, they should be held to account, and they should be held to account for their actions in a way that ensures we protect Canadians. That is what we're trying to achieve. We want to make sure that as we do that, we have a method that gets those organizations to pay the price of their criminality or their bad behaviour and that doesn't in any way negatively impact their employees or other unwitting people who happen to work in those organizations. Moving forward with a deferred prosecution agreement approach—an approach taken, as you probably know, by other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, as two good examples—we think it is a prudent way to ensure that we have companies pay the price for any wrongdoing in a way that allows us to ensure that our economy continues to be successful and that the people who are legitimately responsible for the bad behaviour pay a price, as opposed to people who aren't, such as people who are unwittingly employed by firms that have had that bad behaviour. We think it's a good approach.