As I mentioned, the committee recommended changes to the definition of a "terrorist act". The definition of a "terrorist act" is the cornerstone of our legislation. To be a terrorist attack, a person must intend to cause some level of apprehension in a population. The committee considered whether this level should be intimidation, fear, or terror, and the committee, I understand, unanimously has recommended intimidation. Cabinet agrees with this recommendation from the Justice Committee that intimidation is a more appropriate standard. It is the standard used by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, and the threshold for meeting the definition of a terrorist act still remains appropriately high because a person still has to meet all three components of a terrorist act—that is, an intention to cause a serious outcome such as death, the purpose of advancing an ideology, and the intention to induce intimidation in a population.