For example, following the Campbell and Shirose decision, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was amended, and there are regulations pursuant to that act that allow police to break certain provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That's a narrowly tailored, limited use of police legitimate law-breaking. What the CCLA has objected to, and what we continue to object to, is this broad-sweeping principle, this broad-sweeping law that allows almost unfettered discretion, without government ever having to come forward and say, this is why we need the law; this is why we need to be able to do this.
As we said in our beginning comments, we start from the basic principle that we all need to obey the law. If we're going to create a class of people who are exempt from that, we need to have some basis on which to know that we actually need to do that. Here we just have this broad-sweeping brush of ability to get around certain laws. It's very different in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regulations. I think when we say we're opposed to this legislation, that's what we mean. We mean we're opposed to this carte blanche, as opposed specifically to the narrowly tailored regulations that follow from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.