I would like to talk about the issue of the right to remain silent. Out of 11 witnesses, if I exclude the minister and his officials, six have challenged the constitutionality of the bill, and this includes criminal law professors. You will therefore understand why we are just a little bit worried. The right to remain silent will no longer be able to exist in its integrity if the bill is adopted, given that the reverse onus compels the accused to defend himself. We could obviously say that the individual will refrain from defending himself, but if we use the same logic, there is no longer any constitutional guarantee.
You should know that we are very concerned. I fully agree with Mr. Lee's line of questioning. The right to remain silent is being challenged and, in addition, we have been told that the bill is incompatible with guarantees pertaining to arbitrary detention and article 7, the right to life, security and everything that corresponds to that.
How can you make us feel comfortable about the issue of arbitrary detention and section 7? I have other questions I would like to ask later on, if I have time.