Thank you.
I would like to express regret that I cannot respond in French well.
Your point about adequate notification is fundamental. The loss-retention provision, as I've indicated, is generous in itself. We have no quarrel with the provision. It's the fact that people were issued certificates that did not have this expiry notice.
We're glad the government has now started putting expiry notices on them; it clarifies everything that's needed for that. But for the last 30 years, that was not done, so there's a huge question. I've read the judgment involving Mr. Taylor, and the court is very strong in saying there has to be adequate notice and clarity; that's a fundamental principle of justice.