It's probably not the greatest point to interrupt you on, but my time is limited. I did want to get to the substantive piece, though.
Older reports are quite challenging to find in this digital age, to be fair. I think that's worth pointing out, but from what we see, it has been 17 years since the issue that was raised in this report was ever part of a similar report, so it's been quite a while.
I think one of the issues that was raised by many who were taking issue with this is not just the language that's used, which we've all addressed today, but it's also the why. I think there was a question raised to that effect.
Given that you can't divulge everything because it's classified information, as much as we always want transparency, is there not a concern that if you can't explain why, some thought needs to be put into whether it's better to leave some things classified instead of sort of going halfway without being able to provide any justification?
This was also a big issue that was taken up by some of the communities that were calling the government to account on this.
It is important to raise the question of why. There was reporting this morning, even about the Minister of Foreign Affairs getting talking points relating to specific communities on foreign trips.
There is some cynicism around that. Are you not concerned that it gets fed into by dropping something into a report and then not being able to back it up?