Thank you for that.
I have another question dealing with the same clause in the bill, clause 53. It's a very big clause. The amendment to section 20 of the SOIA talks about intimidation, threats or violence. We have the word “intimidation” inserted in there.
I've heard concerns from some groups that intimidation is not defined in the SOIA. That could be hugely problematic because it could be open to interpretation. For example, if you have two groups that have foreign association but are at different ends of the political spectrum, is there not a danger that governments of differing political natures may see those two groups in different lights? How do you define intimidation? Is it problematic not to narrow it down further?