Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand the notion, but now there's a burden of proof. Let's say this piece ends up in court and there's a challenge on some apparent or alleged indirect advice. You're allowing into legislation the acceptance of something that isn't clear, because it indirectly has to be proven in a court of law. We're allowing it to indirectly exist, so there's some sort of cloud. Instead of saying “clearly and directly”, we're saying well, there's the potential.... That's a mistake in legislation, certainly in a clause like this. It allows for so many open-ended accusations to be levelled against almost anyone for anything that could be attributed to a mistake or a piece of advice.
It's like saying, “I told Thierry, who told Olivia, who told Robert that they could do this.” How are you supposed to prove something like that in a court of law? It's almost virtually impossible to do.
I would like to hear from our legal staff.