Maybe I can add a little bit more to that. Part of the reason it's drafted this way is that, if we go back to the Federal Court of Appeal decision, we see the court made it clear—and this is again following up from what Mr. Coulombe just said—that it would have the jurisdiction to issue such a warrant, and I'm quoting the decision, “when the interception is lawful where it occurs”. Because that is very challenging to operationalize, we had to ensure that the law was clear for judges and that what they had to consider was relevant to Canadian law, primarily the charter and the CSIS Act.
So that's why it's written the way it is.