The minister may mean that. There may be an attempt to summarize the law. We, in our written brief—which, again, I don't think is before you—have cited some cases where the courts have said, look, we're not going to assume that Parliament is trying to change the common law unless there's a clear signal to do so. I suspect that if this is litigated people are going to be citing the minister's statement, really hoping that is true. However, the most important thing the court looks at, of course, is the text of the bill, which all of you get to vote on. You don't get to vote on what the minister says. You get to vote on the text of the bill.
Again, if that is indeed the government's intention, to me it seems like it shouldn't be a partisan issue to just make that more clear. Obviously your job is a bit different from that of the courts, but again, if that is the objective, just a few tweaks there would signal more clearly that this is the standard set in Keegstra, in that criminal case.