First, having heard the testimony of the experts who have already testified, I think there are no issues they've pointed out that we don't agree with in our assessment. Number one, there's the way in which the law came about. We think it was fundamentally improper and it was secretive. The details of the law were only revealed to the public at the very moment it took effect, which is extraordinary in a common law system.
The most troubling aspect of the law is in its article 55, which provides for security agencies of the central government to operate in Hong Kong without supervision from Hong Kong authorities and beyond the reach of Hong Kong courts and law.
It remains to be seen how those powers will be used, but that marks a step change in the one country, two systems. That's why the Government of Canada, with other governments, has publicly called this out as being in contravention of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, Hong Kong's Basic Law and Hong Kong's commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all of which would preclude that kind of carte blanche for security agencies to operate without supervision by courts and by Hong Kong agencies governing Hong Kong.