I see the point. We figure these things out in the course of debates. I'm not sure that putting the statutory exemption in was the only criteria. I actually didn't know that statutory exemption existed. But had there been a bill to remove the exemption—I get that. The question of whether we are debating something that actually is....
We're adopting a motion that leads us into the position of taking a position on something that might be in violation of a convention, or a position that's actually outside of the jurisdiction of the House. That's what I'm struggling with. But I guess one could then vote against it on that basis when it comes up for a vote.