I agree, I think the public interest is very important. And I do think it's important that the committee try to separate the difference between if we take on an agent or an informant and that doesn't work out and the actual administration of somebody when they're in the witness protection program. There's a huge difference in that, in that there are cases and there will continue to be cases where we work with agents and then things don't work out the way we would have wanted them to work. That's the nature of the beast. I think the committee would have full right to review those cases, just as they will be doing with our case out of British Columbia.
But from the point of view where we take that person on and expose them to that threat from the criminal organization, we as an organization have an absolute obligation to protect that person. So, yes, we may be duped in an investigation, absolutely, but from that point on, once we've exposed that person we have an obligation under that act to protect that person, and we have to follow it.