The amendment that the Attorney-General has probably asked the Minister of Revenue to table basically says, "Well, don't worry. The commissioner won't be able to use that information when she gets it for policy or research purposes for any punitive purpose." But I ask this: what stops officials from the Inland Revenue Department, who now know that incriminating information exists, to ask it again, through another vehicle, through another part of the Tax Administration Act, to say, "Well, actually, guess what? This time we're going to ask it because we're not sure you've complied with the law." And, therefore, a prosecution is a secondary impact of the primary purpose of being compelled to provide that information, and when we come to the committee of the whole House, I'll be asking the Minister to check with his officials about whether or not there is any prohibition on any further use of that information, because it's a form of double jeopardy. I'm not a lawyer, and there's probably a better term for it.