May I ask what the concern would be with changing this to “operation”? It doesn't need to be defined in the act. I think we can all agree, for the lawyers in the room, that a judge would look at this if it ever came to them, and the minister gets to interpret whether it's an ongoing operation and there is no judicial review, so “operation”....
We had Michel Coulombe testify before us and talk about ongoing operations. The whole idea to strike this balance is that we're not taking people out of the field of a particular operation. If it's just semantics, we're talking activity or operation, and since it's in the minister's discretion anyway, then it seems to me to be more specific and accurate in addressing what the agency's concern was in the first place.
I wonder if you would comment on that.