Sure. Thank you.
With respect to your first question, I agree that there's a matter of balance there. We are concerned that there's nothing in the legislation with respect to signalling, even in a high-level sense, the importance of some of the criteria or the kinds of background or expertise special advocates should possess. I absolutely would agree that going to the level of talking about university degrees and years of practice, etc., is not necessary and would be too cumbersome, but we think it is certainly not adequate in the way it's expressed right now.
With respect to security clearance for lawyers, we're not suggesting that it wouldn't be without its challenges, but we think it is doable. I'd refer to earlier comments that reminded us we're not talking about dozens and dozens of cases, and certainly not hundreds of cases a year. It's a small number of cases. The band of lawyers already very active around these issues, and quite expertly so, is fairly small, so the challenges around who would need to receive security clearance in getting that done are not insurmountable.
I think you're quite right that this need for swearing an oath and for giving specific undertakings with respect to precise pieces of evidence would be absolutely crucial to that model, but it exists. Lawyers are called upon to give undertakings to each other and to the court all the time, every day, on a whole variety of matters.
I was going to say something about the integrity of lawyers. Being a lawyer myself, I know that's not always the case, but as a matter of fundamental principle, we recognize that we can and should rely upon those undertakings and swearings of oaths and promises that lawyers give around judicial matters of that sort.