I have a point of order on a different issue, then, Mr. Chair, please. I do apologize. It seems like I keep doing this.
The point I'm making now is that with all due respect to our witnesses, in fact, they are the solicitors acting for Elections Canada. The whole thing is client-attorney privilege. I totally respect that it has to be accounted for.
So again, with due respect for the witnesses, I don't see the relevance to these witnesses. If all we're going to do is hear about what the department does and doesn't do, I can look that up on the website. I don't see the relevance here at this place.
We had a witness who was totally involved in this situation. You yourself just said attorney-client privilege can be respected. Correct me if I'm wrong—I'm not a lawyer—but it sounds like these are the attorneys to the client, Elections Canada.
You're contradicting yourself. I just don't know what to say anymore. This is as confusing as it possibly could be. Could it run any worse than this? I don't think so.