Absolutely. It's a very good example of issues where, whether it was inadvertent or not, it was an infringement on the traditional privileges of a member of the House of Commons and Parliament generally.
We had to re-examine that particular issue. I know the clerk basically said that from a constitutional point of view, whether it's a Charter of Rights point of view or a division of powers point of view, you could go ahead and legislate to restrict your own privileges, but to be mindful of what you were doing. It wasn't unconstitutional in a traditional sense, but it very directly had an impact on your privileges as members.
When we talk about the privileges of members, I want to make sure people understand that we're talking about the tools you need in order to better serve your constituents. Similarly, when we're talking about this legislation, we are looking at the necessary tools to properly make decisions in government to serve the people of Canada.
Whether it's the retention of cabinet confidences, the retention of solicitor-client privilege, or some of the other issues, these are not issues that need to simply be looked at from a narrow point of view. We need to examine them. That's why I think the committee process is the best process to examine it.
Again, as your colleague, Mr. Wallace, pointed out, there are not that many issues, but I think we need your input on them. I don't see the actual drafting of the bill taking very long, but the fundamental policy issues behind these sections are profound.