Coming back to this question of the standard, I don't want to take issue with my friend, Mr. Hawn, but I want to try to be clear. One of the arguments the government has been making, and I think it's a very sincere argument on their part, is to say, we don't have evidence of torture having taken place with respect to any of the people we transferred—what we would call the “Canadian detainees”—and therefore we've met the test. That seems to be the argument that comes from the government.
I want to get from you a sense, from a legal perspective, of whether that is the test or whether there is another test that should be applied. I think it's very important that we understand this. We'll hear from other lawyers too, and there will be lots of different opinions, but I want to understand: is that the right test, or is there another test that has to be applied?