One thing I would just add, though, before I conclude my remarks is that, again, I acknowledge the point that was made, and I had sought to make it before, but perhaps I didn't do so particularly clearly. When I said that it is important to acknowledge who makes the rules in our system of Government, that is Parliament, but the rulings are the decisions—the judgments of the court in respect of specific cases, all things being equal, of course should stand. I believe that it's worth making a caveat and a disclaimer to that, however, which is to say that if the court is determining a particular case based on the merits of that case as it comes before the court according to the law of the land as duly passed by the Parliament, that is fine. But if it were the case—and I don't say that it is necessarily—in the judgment that is before us that the courts, or at least some members of the Supreme Court, had determined not that Parliament's intention was unclear but, rather, that it was unsavoury, then of course that would have been unacceptable. As I observed in the committee of the whole House stage, comity must go both ways. 