Of course, that would be an option, to try to determine and define what the intent of Parliament was. There are always great debates about what that is when you go to the courts. Believe it or not, the courts take a dim view of even looking at parliamentary debates, and parliamentary committee debates, as evidence of what the true intention of parliamentarians is. The intention of parliamentarians is, generally speaking, the courts believe, something only the courts can divine and not the parliamentarians.
Here we had an opportunity, however, with this committee having weighed in on the issue, and other parliamentarians, and with the Chief Electoral Officer having indicated he had flexibility to do that, it was our hope he would do that. He didn't do that, and he made it quite clear that he wouldn't either change his interpretation or, as in the other option you speak of, make use of his adaptation powers.
That's why we're here with this bill now.