I'll let someone else ask that question, because we're over time.
Just so we can be clear on this solicitor-client privilege issue, I want to quote directly from the commissioner's testimony before us. By the way, has anybody on the panel actually had an opportunity to literally read the decision in Blood Tribe? No.
She says this:
It [the decision] effectively allows organizations to shield information from our investigators with no independent verification that the documents in question do in fact contain information subject to solicitor-client privilege.
That's what she said. The way I read that, it seems to be that she's afraid someone could say, “Oh, you can't have that because it's subject to solicitor-client privilege”, and there's no way of checking to determine whether or not that alleged solicitor-client privilege is in fact in law. Would any of you have any problem, assuming that's the decision, if there were an independent way of verifying whether or not a solicitor-client privilege claim was in fact accurate?
I see a shaking of heads in the negative. Are we all agreed that it would be reasonable to at least have someone determine whether the claim was verified?