I'll ask my final question and then colleagues will perhaps allow answers to continue.
I recognize, Madame Legault, that you've not asserted expertise in constitutional matters as such. Monsieur Drapeau, public law is a broader area of expertise for you, though.
We have general principles of law that guide how statutory regimes interact. We have a constitutional basis for parliamentary privilege, but it's also stated as part of general law by the Parliament of Canada Act. At all levels, we have the sense that it's definitely part of our legal fabric.
Do you have any advice for us, from just public law principles, on whether a government institution might have latitude outside of the specific terms of the act, or by reading into the act the powers that are not explicitly there? Is there any basis for saying that everything being done here is clearly a breach of the act, or is there some room for creating compatibility so that government institutions can do what they've done?