That's important because for many people the data would say that the system is performing or not. They can ask about trends and whatnot. But if you don't have that kind of forthcoming and there's anecdotal evidence, people may lose faith in that system and then we would have to rejig the system, I guess, to make sure, because we can't have any light between these kinds of cases. I do understand there is a solicitor–client privilege that needs to be maintained.
Now, just switching gears slightly, have either of you, or maybe even Ms. Johnson, heard of cases where courts—I'm thinking at the provincial level, so they are civil claims—and certain lawyers may unwittingly be involved in money laundering? Some countries have capital requirements, so that if they are going to bring money into another country like Canada they have certain stipulations for bringing in that capital. One strategy I have heard of anecdotally in a particular conversation—because members of Parliament speak to all sorts of different people, and I think that's a good thing—is that a subsidiary of a particular company doing business in Canada will make a private arrangement with another corporation or entity. That will create a contract and then break the contract. Then one of the parties will sue for damages. Obviously the subsidiary would then take it to court, and then the court may find that that subsidiary broke contract and demand payment, which then goes to the host country, which, of course, requires a court order to have those monies. Then those monies are brought into Canada and then distributed for other purposes than what they were intended for. Have you heard of this kind of strategy, and if so, is it being addressed by your committee?