The main difference we see between this particular phraseology and both the amendment that Mr. Ménard proposed and the amendment that was made by the government side is exactly on the derivative use of information, as you raised.
In the two other motions we're talking about excluding statements obtained by torture. Here we're looking more broadly at information obtained as a result of the use of torture. I will just comment technically that between the two wordings, this particular wording would seem to deprive law enforcement authorities, or at least could quite possibly be interpreted by the courts as not allowing law enforcement authorities, to pursue the investigative lean you mentioned earlier.