Certainly.
Let me go back and talk a bit about why we say what we say in the act about solicitor-client privilege. The reason we say that—and I believe it's the same reason given by the British, as well—is that lawyers, when representing an individual, have an obligation to that individual to be perfectly frank and candid, to give advice to the best of their ability and not hold back, and to be fully frank in providing the advice and not hide things from the client.
In this case, there are communication restrictions on the special advocates. The special advocates, if you didn't say something about solicitor-client privilege, would find themselves pulled between two obligations: the obligation to maintain the secrecy of the information on the one hand and the obligation to be perfectly frank with the client on the other. That's untenable. So in order not to have that situation occur, we have to deal with it. And we've dealt with it by saying that the solicitor-client relationship isn't here. Having said that, it certainly was not the intention in fixing that problem to then turn around and make the special advocate a compellable witness based on what that individual has heard from the person who is the subject of the certificate. Absolutely not.