Perhaps I could start, and then my colleagues can add in as they see fit.
Paragraph 8(b) is very much focused on determining whether or not there is a certain review, as opposed to information. At a higher level, is there a certain review of a certain matter that would be injurious to national security and, as a result of that, wouldn't be appropriate to pursue?
For example, if there was an act of ongoing operation where in some dimension of it there was a potential injury to national security and the minister determined, in these circumstances, that it was appropriate, there would be a limit there. But it could well be—when you are looking at the application of 8(b)—that, if the committee wants to look at a certain area, perhaps there is only 10% of what they want to look at that would engage 8(b), and there is 90% that could proceed. As they, then, proceed against that particular 90%, there are the subsequent provisions that exist in terms of access to information and exemptions that apply. But 8(b) is focused, at the higher level, just on determining whether there is a specific matter that, in and of itself, is beyond review.
I would invite my colleagues to comment further as they see fit.