No, but my point is that I'm not suggesting he break the law. I'm suggesting that if you were to take that interpretation in the future, you probably would be breaking the law, actually.
The second thing I was pointing out was that by acting aggressively, acting before the court's been brought in, he is taking an unwarrantedly aggressive interpretation of the act. I pointed out that a reasonable person could do it differently, and I think that would have been the appropriate course of action.
With regard to the motion itself, I think Mr. Christopherson's motion to invite the law clerk is a good one. I think he threw in an add-on, which I hope is not part of the motion, to have Mr. Mayrand back at the same time. I think we should hear from these witnesses individually.