I am sorry. The reason it was not included in the first place was just to see if technically there was some point to be made. So we did not include it while we referred the matter to Justice to get an opinion whether legally, technically, by the wording in the collective agreement, we are bound to cover the cost of G.S.T. The opinion is that we are bound to cover G.S.T. because we have done it previously, using the words that we are trying to dance around with in the collective agreement. So that is why it is inserted now. If we had an opinion earlier, then it would have been included. It would not have been coming here as a supp.