Well, I don't precisely know the arguments that were made in the past, but I think those are along the same lines of the arguments that have been made by the government. For example, I'll go to the Arar inquiry report again. It's my understanding the government was trying to withhold some information from the final report because it would show that Canada wasn't necessarily doing its job in some way, or, for example, if it was using information obtained from torture with respect to Mr. Abdullah Almalki. Somehow they felt that would damage international relations if it came out that they did that. But the court said no, that was really an issue of embarrassment.
I think those are probably some of the internal justifications that have been made. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of litigation under the Canada Evidence Act on the national security immunity provisions. So right now we're sort of at the mercy of justice department lawyers and their interpretation of those provisions.