Just to clarify my position and my organization's position, we're not necessarily opposed to repealing the law itself. As I said, I'm not necessarily sure that the case has been made for the law's necessity, but I just generally find that it's better to come to these things with recommendations in hand to improve the law as well, which is why I framed the issue the way I did. However, I don't think my statements should be construed as being broadly supportive of the law.
It's a bit of a straw man to frame the conversation the way you did, because I don't think that anybody around this table is opposed to information sharing in all circumstances. Obviously there are going to be cases where it's essential and important to share information, and we want our intelligence agencies to work together to protect Canadians. As my colleague said, it's important to have proper safeguards around that front and to make sure it's done with respect to our core democratic values. To frame the debate in that way, the security of Canada is also tied into our constitutional and democratic values, including our respect for human rights. That's a core part of who we are. That's what we're meant to be defending.
I think it's important to understand in the debate that nobody's arguing that Canadians should be under threat or face greater threats; it's just important to establish our response in a manner that protects core democratic values that have served this country for quite a long time, have seen it through difficult times before, and should be maintained.