Yes. I have many questions, but you indicated the context.
The problem is that, in the Charkaoui decision, the judges rendered a decision on the context. But you're giving me an argument that the Supreme Court judges very clearly rejected. If it's just a question of context, that's not acceptable. There has to be more for the bill to circumvent the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Legally, that's a first. You're saying that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has no bearing on this bill and that it's a matter of context. Your statements are contradictory. You're saying that the charter applies to this bill and that the context will determine whether or not the situation fits with the criteria of the charter. Let me repeat, in the Charkaoui decision, the Supreme Court judges were very clear: either the charter applies or it doesn't apply. So in this case, they only way you can consider this bill valid is by saying that the charter doesn't apply.
You can't justify this by citing instances of context. You absolutely have to come back to national security. According to the Charkaoui decision, the only argument that you can make is that the country is in danger. And yet, in the Charkaoui decision, that was considered, but it was limited. So I have serious reservations.
First, does the charter apply or not? Second, how do you interpret the Charkaoui decision, given what you are calling contexts and the fact that they were listed and removed?