I'll go first.
Obviously there will be lawyers who will challenge anything. I belong to the school that doesn't challenge. I don't do things unless I think I have a reasonable prospect of success. I suppose what I was saying was that my reading of the Supreme Court of Canada decision accepts that there can be a departure from the normal rule of full disclosure to the person. What the Supreme Court says is that the current system doesn't do the job, because there are other options that are better, so I take that to mean that the job of Parliament is to give the best possible option.
After all our research, we've concluded that the best possible option is something like SIRC. If you were to adopt something close to this, I would not be able to go before the Supreme Court, after having written this report, and with any credibility say to the Supreme Court that it's not good enough, having put my name and Professor Forcese's name to this report.
Now, there may be someone who would still want to challenge. My personal opinion would be that they would have an extremely difficult time in doing so if you adopt the amendments we've put forward.