I guess we're having some discussions here quite actively this evening about some legal maxims, and this came up with the law clerk. You said yourself that you listened to the law clerk's testimony.
There was talk about a legal maxim called expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which basically means a principle of statutory construction, that when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned, others of the same class are excluded. That's something that many of us learned in law school, and that we use to apply to different statutes when we're trying to interpret them.
It seems to me, with all due respect, Mr. Beatty, that your position is somewhat the inverse. You're saying that what that maxim would indicate is that by expressly not referencing circumstances that gave rise to it in 62(1), we shouldn't be looking at it. However, you are saying, conversely, that had you wanted that to be excluded, you would have been very deliberate in the exclusion in 62(1). Do I have that correct?