Thank you very much.
Actually, where the parliamentary secretary ended off in balancing the rights of the individual with the security of the nation, I think in some ways that's very dangerous and a false premise. The reason I say that is if you use the test of reasonable suspicion, there was a reasonable suspicion that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and you can see where that led to.
The other issue is that it ends up being counterproductive; it breeds a mentality of them and us. In terms of the creeping nature of the erosion of civil liberties, it's clearly demonstrated in the Canadian context, where originally we had security certificates for people with no status in the country, then in 2002 we put in security certificates for people with status in the country, and in 2003 an attempt was made to have the security certificates extend to citizens.
My question to you as a jurist—The whole integrity of the judicial system, if we're going to maintain it, is the ability to test that evidence, because if you rely on untested evidence, we have all sorts of outcomes that are very dangerous to society itself and the system itself.
And the indefinite detention—we just saw the other day what happens when you obtain information by threats or torture, where somebody who is a detainee under a security certificate was released on very stringent conditions. The witnesses against him all recanted, essentially. Yet this person is sitting here with the security certificate over them. I think it really does create a dilemma of producing that them-and-us mentality, when if you're going to be fighting terror, it's everybody's and all groups' responsibility in a society to do that. That's my real fear, and I'm not sure what your experience is over in England with that.