My problem with this, if I may continue, Mr. Chair, is that what is being proposed to be removed—and for good reason, I think—is the part about amending the definition of any term defined in proposed section 2 or proposed subsections 24(5) or 45(3). Proposed subsection 45(3) in the legislation says that private communication has the same meaning as section 183 of the Criminal Code. Now, we're not talking about changing the definition of another piece of this particular act. We're now using this act to change the definition and meaning in the Criminal Code. Now we're three times removed from where the definition and legislation actually appear.
I'm just wondering about the structure. If we're going to have the definitions subject to change through regulation, why wouldn't we just define them in the regulations, rather than have the definitions appear in law? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a clause in the law that says that the regulations can make the definitions? It seems to be structurally inappropriate to do this. That's my concern.
It may be something that is better suited to some legal advice. I'm not trying to put an opinion question in front of—