My concern is that in Canada the defence bar tends to be very much on one side. Small players, over the years, cannot afford the kinds of fees that will get them the expertise to navigate through the very difficult Competition Act. This, too, may be a finding that might be related to the bill before us. In fact, it might allow us an opportunity to demonstrate that unlike the United States, which is under the Clayton and Sherman Antitrust Acts, whereby damages of course go back to the individual who has actually been aggrieved, we don't have a similar or parallel situation in Canada. That's a debate from another time.
But specifically to this question, you do not see this bill, in particular, as being unconstitutional. I haven't heard that word. You've been concerned about due process. Does the question of constitutionality come into this at all?