Yes, both what Ms. May and Mr. Reid said I think has great validity. I would not like the fact that if we've moved this—we have one that's not so dissimilar later—or if it gets voted down it would mean that the Chief Electoral Officer does not already have this.
I appreciate Mr. Reid's intervention to say he can take into account information as is available to him anyway. It's a judicial notice kind of thing if you are going to compare it to what judges can do. As long as we all can agree, or we're all on the same page that this is not necessary, but it's more for the sake of certainty, even though that language is not used in Ms. May's amendment, then I'd be much more comfortable and I'd like it to be there for the sake of certainty. I don't think there's any harm in it, but it's important to be on record that Mr. Reid's interpretation also seems to be correct.