Perhaps it was Professor Attaran who used the term “abused”, but I'm inclined to use the word “abused” in my own.... I can take a little more latitude from my seat perhaps than you can.
In the last minute I have, I'll ask a point of clarification.
One of the excuses the government side members used as to why we should not hear your testimony today is they felt that by interviewing you it may somehow interfere with the ability of the Information Commissioner to investigate the complaints. In other words, by having these two studies running at the same time, there may be tainted evidence, etc.
There is the rule that what you say here is privileged and it can't be used against you, first of all, but if a person first learns of an offence through privileged testimony, it's tainted evidence in terms of pressing charges. Do you have any views on whether or not your testimony here today will interfere or jeopardize the investigation by the Information Commissioner or any subsequent investigation by the RCMP, if that's necessary later on?