Thank you, Mr. Dade, for your testimony.
Mr. Dade, you cite the Talisman example. It's a curious choice on your part. Talisman was operating in the Sudan. It had a very valuable asset. It was, however, certainly offside of any corporate social responsibility standard known by anyone, whether it is Equator Principles or the IFS or anyone else. It was arguably supporting a genocide against the Darfuri people. It was criticized heavily by people right around the world. Ultimately, they did the right thing and divested themselves of their asset.
At this point, Talisman is a bit of a poster child for corporate social responsibility. It participated in the round table reports and supported the idea of an ombudsman. And the share price is pretty solid. They have some assets that are quite valuable and the people can sleep at night. They're not subject to all of these allegations. So it's a very curious choice.
What makes me wonder about your testimony, Mr. Dade, is that apparently your position is that even if a Canadian company is outside of corporate social responsibility, abusing human rights, and arguably supporting genocide, that's okay because some other company will come in and take over the asset.
That seems to me to be your position, Mr. Dade. Is that actually your position?