Essentially, if there were consideration for an amendment, I think one would have to determine the exemption of parliamentary privilege. I really am not supportive of exclusions. I'm not supportive of mandatory class exemptions. I think it should be discretionary.
Second, I think you have to deal with the process for institutions to consult Parliament and therefore the timelines and whether or not it's a mandatory consultation with Parliament.
Third, you have to provide for a process within Parliament to answer to the government institutions, as they have, I believe, in the U.K. or Australia, where they have a certification process within Parliament to determine whether it's a parliamentary privilege matter or not.
I think if you did that, you probably then get very close to the Bayle decision, wherein the court basically says once there's an assertion of parliamentary privilege, they're not going to lift the parliamentary veil, if you wish, if I was going to make a parallel with the corporate veil.
To me, those would be the components that the legislator would have to look to.