It was just because I saw the name of the law firm and I didn't know if you were here with them or what. I might have missed that at the beginning, I'm sorry.
I think we heard from virtually everybody that, in principle, you agree with the bill. Is that an accurate statement or not, or am I misinterpreting what people said? In principle, you agree with the bill. A nod of heads is fine with me, yes or no.
There was a discussion about further discussion. My understanding is that this discussion has been going on since at least 2005, if not before, so in my view I think it's time we moved on.
I actually am a little confused about the discussion between you, Mr. Sookman, and Mr. Courtois. I'm of the view that the broader net, as people like to call it here, is the appropriate way, and that we do make some clarifications on implied consent, and so on and so forth, to be able to capture that. I'm not sure if you agree with that approach, Mr. Sookman, or if you would like to see it much narrower and go in the other direction. Am I reading that testimony accurately or not?