That is really a principle of Canadian law. That is how our courts have stated the fair balance to be and that is how, for example, the Privacy Act is constructed: that the invasion of privacy may be justified. We know that for governance, policing, and security purposes, a certain gathering of information is essential. So it must be allowed, but it must be allowed strictly as necessary for the objective it serves. That is the limit that must be met.
In fact, I think the examples you've been given today by my colleague and by Mr. Rondinelli show that without this type of vigilance you could go way beyond what is actually necessary. Not only that, but you actually undermine your security measures. Anyone who works in the field of security will tell you that you can actually diminish security by increasing security measures. At some point, for example, you can have so many locks on your door that maybe nobody can get in and you think you're safe, but you're unsafe because you can't get out quickly.
Absolutely, our premise in principle is that we must constantly ascertain whether any new measure of invasion of privacy is justified by the objective it serves in the context of a free and democratic society.