A lot of the specific advice I mentioned in my preliminary remarks was about how to deal with certain activities, how to deal with certain information, and whether there should be a list of boilerplate types of information that would not normally be provided to the committee.
Let me just give you, as an example, the identities of sources. I think everyone agrees—in fact, there's explicit legislation elsewhere on the books in Canada—that those identities need to be protected. Withholding the identity of a particular source of certain security information doesn't in any way impinge upon the committee's ability to do its job.
The summary of what we took into account was included in those opening remarks, but I think the key principle I heard over and over again from the British and others is to begin in a prudent way, begin in a cautious way. Then, and as the committee develops a track record, experience, and expertise, and as its body of research begins to expand, at a future date you can change the law accordingly—