I want to ask one final question. It follows up on Mr. Poilievre's line of questioning about the second motion on document production. Before you got too far down this path, you answered that the disclosure requested in the second motion was predicated on the parameters of the July 7 motion. There's a principle of law about how you interpret lists. When you describe a general category that includes subcategories, those subcategories are only required if they fall within the broader category.
In the second motion—and I think this is what you were getting at but I'm curious as to your opinion—were you saying that because the second motion requested only documents that were requested in the first motion, in fact, the subcategories requested were requested only insofar as they were requested in the July 7 motion?