I'd like to move on to constitutionality. You referred to the unconstitutional under-inclusiveness because the provisions here are limiting the right to have the identity of the human source revealed by a judicial decision after an application to prosecutions, and not to all the other contexts in which that source could be behind jeopardy for people's interests, whether it's deportation or security certificates, etc.
I clearly understand that you've told us that this is a constitutional problem for that, despite, I'd have to say, the minister telling us two days ago that this is the most constitutional law the government had ever put forward—so I appreciate that.
But there's another point. With respect to the applications either to reveal the identity because it's necessary to make a defence for the person being charged, or for this slightly more nebulous seeking an order declaring an individual's not a human source or that the identity of the—well, we'll leave it at that, that other provision. In each case the hearing is held in private and in the absence of the applicant and their counsel, unless the judge orders otherwise.
I have serious concerns about that, as does the Canadian Federation of Law Societies. I'm just wondering if that's included in your worries about constitutionality. Are you okay with that?