Yes, I am.
First of all, thank you all for being here at such short notice. You are part of the additional witnesses; there are going to be more.
I appreciate all of the concerns and comments all of you have made. Because there is not that much time, I will simply ask one question of Mr. Neve.
You talked about the exculpatory evidence and of the need to place an obligation on the crown to disclose the exculpatory evidence. Obviously, that's very important, but you would agree--and I'm not defending anything here, but my understanding is that the crown prosecutors in the courts every day have that inherent obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the accused. There is nothing in this law, on the face of it, that would grant them the right to ignore that convention or that obligation, and the same might be argued of the government itself; that's the crown. But what you're arguing for is an expressed obligation to provide exculpatory evidence. I might not disagree with you, but what do you think of what I just said? Does that not place an inherent obligation on the crown, including on the government, that will make up the information that would be released?