Mr. Chair, although Mr. Reid has had to step out, I think it's important to link to what he said earlier. He actually used the example of an arbiter. In his view, the analogy should not be to an arbiter who has to choose between the arguments and the facts presented by two sides and can't go outside the four corners of these. I think, or I hope, that same analogy applies as it did before. I also see this as a “for greater certainty” clause, even though the language isn't used.
We will be voting for it. We think it's important to clarify. At the same time, I don't think there should be legal harm, because I think this could be done anyway.