Certainly I'd be pleased to comment on that.
One of the reasons we were seeking exemption under the previous legislation was in response to comments that had been made, not by anybody at this table but certainly by people who I would classify as animal rights organizations as opposed to animal protection organizations. They made it very clear, both through their lawyers and in their public statements, including their statements in testimony before committee on previous bills, that they were seeking to move forward with those particular pieces of legislation in order to use them to vigorously pursue charges against a whole range of animal-use groups, including anglers and hunters in the courts. They made it very clear that this was just the very beginning and that their intentions were to go far down the road from even where bills such as Mr. Holland's bill and other previous bills were intending to go. So certainly there was a concern at that time that we were being open...and it was a concern that was also expressed by people like the Council of Colleges and Universities, who were concerned about the impact that would have on medical researchers.
It's not necessarily the fact that you would be convicted in court, but the fact that you are dragged into court and forced to defend yourself. There was one small case in western Canada in which that occurred, and the individual incurred costs of $10,000, and the judge summarily threw the case out of court, saying it should have never gotten there. But that individual's welfare was severely compromised. So that was the concern at that particular time.