I want you to answer my questions fairly quickly, because I have limited time.
I agree with you that the committee wants to identify the issues, look at the various alternatives and options that might be available, but in real terms, a fairly high-level court will be deciding on this issue fairly quickly, and it would be good to hear what they have to say.
The other aspect I'd like to draw to your attention is that in a previous court ruling, a judge had been dealing or struggling with these security certificates and actually found them to be valid, pending what the court will now say. What he said there was--and he was referring to some of the arguments made by the solicitors or lawyers for the detainees--that:
...national security cannot justify any derogation from the rules governing adversarial proceedings, we would be reading into the Constitution of Canada an abandonment by the community as a whole of its right to survival in the name of blind absolutism of the individual rights enshrined in that Constitution.
I guess what he was saying was that we have to sort of accept the fact that the security of the country, the security of the community, has to be a paramount right. Would you agree with that statement or that analysis? Yes or no.