This is an issue, Madam Chair, that I'm extremely concerned about. It takes me back to my days as a former federal prosecutor, when I dealt with cases involving national security. Indeed, one of the biggest challenges, which continues to confound not only Canada but many democracies, is understanding how it is that we transition from actionable, credible intelligence to admissible evidence that can be used in a court of law to prosecute and hold responsible those who commit acts that pose a threat to public safety and national security.
One of the things the government is very much focused on doing is revisiting that particular question. That can be done through legislation. There are currently Canada Evidence Act provisions that do allow for proceedings, in which judges get access to classified information and make determinations based on privileges that can be asserted by the government to protect national security and the people who work within those institutions, with the relevance and the probity of that evidence so that it can then be used in open proceedings.
I will say that it is a very challenging exercise. We have to strike the balance correctly. As you and the government pose the question—and I'm talking not just about the question—we do have to really think through the evolutions in the threats to our national security landscape. You talked about coming back to foreign interference in this discussion today.
Madam Chair, through you to Mr. Noormohamed, I could not agree more. The stakes have never been higher. We have to set aside the partisanship. We have to set aside the distractions. We have to be focused on the issues at hand. What's at stake is our democracy, our economy and, most importantly, the Canadian people and their safety and security.