I can start with that. Yes, I'll start with that one.
Dave is absolutely right. How can you construe it as anything else but limiting any debate? The problem that occurs is it doesn't stop debate. What it does stop is informed debate. You ask, what do we do as academics? Both Dr. Charron and I have plenty of colleagues who, if they don't have the facts, they'll make them up. You know how it goes in terms of debates. People will then look to anecdotal pieces of information. It means we get a very stifled debate. This is unfortunately something that we have inherited, and it continues. It's one of the issues that really stymies us as researchers. It may be this particular clause but, ultimately, people will only share information if they feel there is no risk at all. I think this whole danger of creating information that may not exist totally misinforms any real substantive debate that we want to have on defence. Having said that, given the way the state of industry is, we have to be sensitive there will be proprietary information they don't want getting out. It's a question of how you balance those two requirements, in my view, that becomes most problematic.