I think the basic answer to that is you also have to look at the other decisions, both in Charkaoui and Harkat, where courts have looked at it and said, we're now at a stage where these people, in effect, are no longer a risk to the degree that they have to be held in custody. And the sense I have of the other three cases is that we're probably in the same stage and that we should be looking at advanced provisions for security where they're allowed out into the general community because they're no longer a threat. That's what we should be working on.
Mr. Toews, I want to say this to you. By depending on the courts, you're falling into the same trap as your predecessor did. You accused them in a number of other sectors of relying too heavily on our courts and, as parliamentarians, as governments, of not assuming our responsibility. So I'd like to go to that since my time is short.
One of the provisions we saw as a real hindrance in these cases is that you're taking evidence, to a large degree, not from our own reliable sources of information, whether it's CSIS or some of our other intelligence agencies, but from information that's coming from international sources. And in a number of cases, as we saw in the Maher Arar case and any number of others, it was very suspect and may in fact be the subject of torture to some of the witnesses.
I think we're going to hear from Justice O'Connor--and I'd like your view on this, if we get it from him--a strong recommendation that the amount of evidence that's classified, to what degree it's classified, and who has access to that information would now be determined not by our security services, not by our intelligence services, but by an independent, well-trained—and that's a factor—judge or panel of judges. Would you be interested in pursuing that kind of approach? I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Minister, that you're going to get that from Justice O'Connor in his report.