My next question is for Dr. Wark.
Obviously, I think that the question of national security, the question of intelligence— which we've been talking a lot about this over the last couple of years with respect to foreign interference—has an educational piece that is really important for parliamentarians and all of those who support us understanding a little bit more about what is intelligence, what is information, what is evidence and so on and so forth.
I think that by going through the process of receiving one's clearance and of understanding what foreign interference looks like, it would help parliamentarians identify possible breaches, possible risks, so that we're working in lockstep with the intelligence community. We've heard, quite frankly, that the intelligence community doesn't understand what we do and we don't understand what they do.
One of the other questions is that if we were to do this, I would assume then that all of the staff members who support us in what we do, whether it be on committee or not, might also necessarily have to go through security clearance. I say this because obviously with the handling of documents, whether it be access to the documents or not, it's not as if I could forward an email and say, “Please print this and put it in my day file”. Because they don't have the necessary clearance, what would be some of the ramifications or unintended consequences of our doing this and thus expanding the scope of who actually has to get the access?