Well, since we want to refer to others who support our position, I think the lawyers who came from the Canadian law association said that with the way the bill is currently written, what happens is that you create an anomaly, as a person injured while riding in a small boat with a motor does not meet the definition of passenger and falls under other claims, under proposed section 29 of the amended act. So I think they disagreed with your initial presentation, Mr. Gauthier. It would be important to eliminate this particular definition in order to arrive at some consistency.
Now, you will probably have already read some of the other amendments that we have proposed. Those amendments go to providing some consistency in the interpretation presented for legal dispute. They don't necessarily invalidate G-1, but it certainly does not make them necessary--and, of course, all the other ones that are consequent to G-1.