That argument as well, Chair, and I absolutely did not want to put us in a position where I'm going to suggest this committee go contrary to the Privacy Act. We have a legal argument that suggests it's not on that particular point. But you're suggesting, Chair, that you had a private conversation with legal officials who advised you of one thing. Well, that could be, but certainly if that's the case, that's one set of lawyers. Chair, you've been a lawyer yourself. You recognize sometimes lawyers have different opinions. I can certainly assure you we probably haven't heard from the lawyers from Public Works, because they might have a different take on this.
I think the point being made is that the government members on this side, and certainly I as an individual member, are not party to moving forward with a motion—I did not vote for it in the past and would not vote for it now—to suggest that we would just automatically go and ignore the Privacy Act, regardless of the situation.
I think it's moot, in a way, the simple reason being that they apparently have 12 of the 18; the rest are coming within the week. Well, wonderful, but I don't think we need to go down that road. If for some particular reason the tapes aren't what we wanted and/or the tapes weren't produced, then we would go through the route and ensure we would have access to them, but I don't believe that's the problem.