Okay. That is a key point, and I think Mr. Lukiwski has made it himself, about avoiding conflict. We have a slightly different legal template going on between the approach you've taken and the approach of Madame Legault. Part of the issue is one of avoiding conflict and lack of clarity for too long. That's at least one reason why we would be considering some form of amendment to the act, as a recommendation. But I understand your view that it wouldn't be necessary.
In the interaction between a statute and constitutional principles, rules around privilege, if that statute is viewed by the Supreme Court as quasi-constitutional in nature, it's in fact giving expression to principles that may have some constitutional basis and putting them in statutory form. Does that change any of the dynamics? Does it make it even more pressing that we create clarity through an amendment?