So it's self-imposed.
Did Mr. Mayrand get a copy of Mr. Walsh's opinion? It is basically confirming that it is self-imposed, and that should someone claim the sub judice convention before a committee of Parliament, that is not a reason not to answer the question, but the person has an opportunity to make the case as to why he or she cannot. It could be solicitor-client privilege. It could be developments in an investigation. The chair, and in fact the committee, ultimately decides whether the question should be answered.
Is that your understanding of the process?