no.

no.

that's a can of worms that seems unnecessary for right now.

i should be able to find more than enough scholarship and precedent to back up the supremacy of 495(2) over the interpretation act, and i should leave it at that.

but, if you read the act strictly literally, which you need to do with stuff like this...literalism is the right angle, here....

my concern is regarding the difficulty of winning this argument just right now. it's too much, and not necessary.