Okay. I think it's very interesting because all the precedents that we have seen so far have been talking about contents of the bill and not necessarily about what may not be in the bill. That seems to be the case we have before us today. As you were saying previously, we may not have a particular case that can be completely similar in facts, but we have a case before us that's not necessarily talking about contents and that's the standard I've been reading in the previous case law that we have before us.
Thank you for your input. My colleague would like to ask a question.