I apologize, Mr. Taylor. What you're saying is that the courts may refer, essentially, to the existing MMP, even though, by virtue of stare decisis, it's no longer binding. However, now you're saying that the court will have, potentially, some sort of a plank to look at and say that previously there was an MMP, but it was struck down. They might choose to guide themselves by virtue of the previous MMP, but they're not bound by the MMP. Is that correct?
In other words, before the Senneville decision, the court was bound by the MMP, subject to a charter application that would potentially find the penalty to be cruel and unusual. Are you saying—and please, maybe tell me yes or no—that this bill does not restore the MMP and that it does not make it binding on the court?