Okay.
Then it says:
...that the documents be vetted in accordance with the parameters set out in the house motion...
Now, this is the question, because these documents are not referred to in the House motion. Would it be fair to say, because you mentioned also that they were done in the [Technical difficulty—Editor] of the access to information?
If the government is handed a poorly written motion that doesn't.... It talks about the parameters in the House motion, but the House motion doesn't refer to these documents. Is it not a reasonable thing that the government would then turn to the Access to Information Act, which is a standard they would use in terms of the vetting process?
I don't know if Ms. Maynard would like to answer that, or Mr. Dufresne, but, if the motion is inaccurate, is it not reasonable that the government would then use the parameters in legislation that is commonly used for the vetting of documents?