I think I have a slight disagreement with Professor Byers with respect to the substantial risk. In my view, we're both lawyers and lawyers can argue over these things, but I think “overriding risk” and “substantial risk” are equivalent terms.
The problem with Canada is that we don't actually assess substantial risk. We assess evidence of direct use, which as I said is not the proper test. I would associate myself with the other statements that have been made on the drones, that when you have this kind of technology, which I think one witness, Bessma Momani, said is a “game-changer” in the way they can impact the conflict, extra care, extra precaution is warranted, the precautionary principle application, to use Professor Waters' term.