The main thing that we believe is the most important element here is that when the CEO issues a ruling which would be applicable to all parties in an advanced ruling that it be done quickly, particularly if you were in a writ period. Correct?
I don't want to open up a can of political worms again, but on the in-and-out thing our position was, without trying to go back on that again, that the interpretation in the Canada Elections Act was changed and then applied retroactively. In other words, our position had always been that we had been following the rules explicitly, but the rules were changed in the Canada Elections Act and then applied retroactively to a previous election.
Without re-arguing the case, that's why we feel it's important to get an advanced ruling or a ruling out as quickly as possible that would be applicable to all parties. Time is of the essence if we're in the middle of a writ period. That's why we think this timeline gives the CEO more time to do an in-depth examination and then issue the ruling but doesn't extend the overall time between consultations within parties and the CEO's final ruling. If you add another two weeks, and in effect that's what Scott is suggesting, that might prove to be very problematic if you're getting into a writ period.
Again, we believe that the timelines presented here.... I understand the arguments and I appreciate that, but we think, based on the fact that speed is of the essence, particularly if you're on the verge of or entering into a writ period, it's important to get a ruling as quickly as possible while still giving the CEO enough time to give good consideration. That's why the suggestion of reducing one by 15 and adding another 15 days on the other so the overall timeline remains the same just gives more time for the CEO to consider the arguments.