Okay.
I'm just going to drill down a little bit more, ladies and gentlemen, on the definitional issue. I can see both sides of this issue, “injurious to national security” as an example of that, where it's hard to define. The fear would be that, if we define it, something would be excluded that in essence shouldn't be excluded, or vice versa. That's the issue before us.
I'm reminded of the American jurist who said about another issue that you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. I understand that, but I think we should at least try to create some parameters that we can all live with. You see it in clause 16 and then in clause 21. In clause 16 it's part of “special operational information”, plus “injurious to national security”. Then in subclause 21(5) you have a whole list that includes disclosure “injurious to national security, national defence or international relations”.
Something injurious to international relations could be.... I mean, somebody has to help us define that, because I can see us easily getting into a disagreement on what is injurious to international relations. That, to me, is even less defined than injurious to national security.
Deputy, perhaps you could expand your thoughts on how we could nail this down just a little bit more without getting into a situation where we've created a dilemma. I would appreciate your, or any of your colleagues', addition to this testimony.