I guess I look at it the other way, then. What is the risk of any company involved with any bribery or corruption not being reviewed?
The innocence, I understand. We want to have every company innocent until proven guilty, but if almost every company goes through the review process as a whole anyhow, why would we not then just include that as a definite?
Again, I'll go back to the Investment Security Unit, the ISU, for the U.K. and CFIUS for the Americans. They all include that under part of the process in evaluating an investment security review.
They even go so far in the U.K. as to have a National Security and Investment Act 2021. That was legislation that provided a new regime for reviewing and scrutinizing investments on national security grounds. They require mandatory notifications for certain types of transactions and companies with corruption or bribery charges. They've actually named it. This is part of the United Kingdom's legislation.
Again, comparing apples to apples, when we look at some of our Five Eyes allies that are doing it, the U.K. has done it.... We need to really ensure that....
The question I have is this: If a company has been named with bribery, corruption or any other kind of malicious intent in that sector, what's the harm in having everyone mandatorily reviewed, if we're already seeing mandatory reviews across the board in many instances?
That's a staff one.