Now, we did get halfway there because of the words being used—I think it's "not materially negatively affected", and that was enough for me to still be uncomfortable but, certainly, to support it. The examples given by officials I think were interesting in the sense that they were talking about things like the requirement to undergo health issues under the Health Act. Well, I don't see that as a negative—it might be a condition, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a negative issue. So they couldn't really come up with an example of where a utilitarian approach where there would have nevertheless been a negative impact was, sort of, satisfactory.